Smt. Anjali Gupta @ Princi vs Navneet Kumar Varshney

1. Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of Shri Vipul Babu Sharma (A/V 1476/2023), counsel for respondent, is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Rahul Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vipul Babu Sharma, learned counsel who appears for respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the marriage of the petitioner stood solemnized with the respondent on 04.02.2024. However, due to matrimonial dispute, they are living separately since 20.02.2024. Proceedings in Divorce Petition No. 154 of 2026 Navneet Kumar Varshney and Smt. Anjali Gupta @ Princi which came to be preferred before the court of Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 18.03.2026.

4. Questioning the same, the writ petitioner has been filed the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has sought to argue that once the parties in question do want to live together and proceedings under Section 13B of the Act also been preferred then in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur; (2017) 8 SCC 746, the cooling period may be waived off.

6. Having heard the submissions so made inevitable position which appears from the record that the marriage of the petitioner stood solemnized with the respondent on 04.02.2024 and they are living separately since 20.02.2024, on 18.03.2026 petition under Section 13-B of the Act came to be preferred. In Amardeep Singh (supra), the following was observed as under: "18. Applying the above to the present situation, we are of the view that where the Court dealing with a matter is satisfied that a case is made out to waive the statutory period under Section 13B(2), it can do so after considering the following : i) the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13B(1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself; ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order XXXIIA Rule 3 CPC/ Section 23(2) of the Act/ Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts; iii) the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties; iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony."

7. Bearing in mind that the application for waiving of cooling period is post first motion thus looking into the exceptional facts of the parties, they are living separately since 20.02.2024 and mediation itself has been failed thus the court below is directed to pass an appropriate orders on the application so preferred by the parties for waiving off the cooling period.

8. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

May 7, 2026

Ashu