The Supreme Court had waived the waiting period under Article 142.<\/p>\n

The two Judge Bench of Supreme Court held that that the period mentioned in Section 13 B(2) was not mandatory but directory,\u00a0 and that it will be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there was no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there were chances of alternative rehabilitation.<\/p>\n

It was held that where the Court dealing with a matter was satisfied that a case was made out to waive the statutory period under Section 13 B(2), it can do so after considering the following :<\/p>\n

1. The statutory period of six months specified in Section 13 B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13 B(1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself.<\/p>\n

2. All efforts for mediation\/conciliation including efforts in terms of 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.<\/p>\n

3. The parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties.<\/p>\n

4. The waiting period will only prolong their agony.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court had waived the waiting period under Article 142. The two Judge Bench of Supreme Court held that that the period mentioned in Section 13 B(2) was not mandatory but directory,\u00a0 and that it will be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case whereRead more about SIX MONTHS WAITING PERIOD IN DIVORCE BY MUTUAL CONSENT OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT NOT MANDATORY \u2013 SUPREME COURT<\/span>[…]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=84"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":85,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84\/revisions\/85"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}