PRASHANT SITARAM KIRWALE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUG LAW AND JUDICIARY DEPARTMENT

2026:BHC-AUG:25655
                                                                            903-wp-5798-2026.odt
                                                      (1)


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 5798 OF 2026

                                   Prashant Sitaram Kirwale And Another
                                                  VERSUS
                      The State Of Maharashtra Throug Law And Judiciary Department
                                                     ...
                           Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Wagh Ishwar Kalyan
                               AGP for Respondent/State : Mrs. P.V. Diggikar
                                                     ...
                                                CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

                                               DATED : JULY 02, 2026

                 PER COURT :-

                 1.            Present writ petition takes exception to order dated

                 06.05.2026 passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Aurangabad

                 below Exhibit-7 in Petition No.F-148/2026, whereby petitioners

                 prayer for waiver of six months period under Section 13B(1) of Hindu

                 Marriage Act, 1955 came to be rejected.

                 2.            Mr. Wagh, learned advocate appearing for petitioners

                 submits that marriage between petitioner no.1 and 2 was solemnized

                 on 23.03.2025 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Since 30.03.2025,

                 petitioners are living separately.     All efforts to bring reconciliation

                 have been failed and there is no possibility of bringing them together.

                 Eventually, proceeding was initiated under Section 13B (2) of Hindu

                 Marriage Act before Family Court. An application below Exhibit-7

                 was filed for waiver of cooling period of six months.            However,

                 learned Principal Judge, Family Court declined to entertain petitioners
                                                           903-wp-5798-2026.odt
                                     (2)


prayer on the ground that Family Court has no power to exempt

cooling period.     Mr. Wagh relying upon observations of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in case of Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur reported

in (2017) 8 SCC 746 and Amit Kumar Vs. Suman Beniwal reported in

2022 AIR (SC) 570, submits that Family Court had adequate powers

to consider an application for waiver of cooling period. However,

Family Court erroneously declined to exercise jurisdiction. He would,

therefore, urge this Court to consider application Exhibit-7 and grant

waiver of cooling period.

3.           Perusal of record tendered before this Court indicate that

petitioners have made specific statement that all attempts for

reconciliation between parties were failed.            Learned advocate

appearing for petitioner, on instructions, informs that conciliation

between parties was attempted at Family Court and same is failed. It

is discernible that petitioners resided together hardly for a period of

seven days after marriage.         There is no issue from marriage.

Eventually, they decided to file proceeding under Section 13B seeking

decree of divorce by mutual consent. In this backdrop, reference can

be given to observations of Supreme Court in case of Amardeep

(supra), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has given            guidelines to

consider following questions :

     “(i)    How long parties have been married ?
     (ii)    How long litigation is pending ?
     (iii)   How long they have been staying apart ?
                                                             903-wp-5798-2026.odt
                                     (3)

     (iv)   Are there any other proceedings between the parties ?
     (v)    Have the parties attended mediation/conciliation ?
     (vi)   Have the parties arrived at genuine settlement which takes
     care of alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between
     the parties ?”

4.           Similarly, in para 19, following observations are made,

which reads thus :

     “19. 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.

     The waiver application can be filed one week after the first motion
     giving reasons for the prayer for waiver. If the above conditions are
     satisfied, the waiver of the waiting period for the second motion
     will be in the discretion of the concerned Court. “


5.           Applying aforesaid guidelines to facts of present case, it is

discernible that marriage between parties was a complete failure.

They could not reside together even for a period of seven days after

marriage.    There are no other matrimonial proceedings pending

between parties. The attempt of conciliation is failed and parties have

genuinely decided to separate from each other. Since there is no issue
                                                              903-wp-5798-2026.odt
                                        (4)


from marriage, it is appropriate that parties get separated at earliest

and take their further decisions in life.

6.                 In light of aforesaid factual scenario and applying

principles of law laid down by Supreme Court in judgments referred

above, this Court finds that petitioners prayer for waiver of cooling

period ought to have been considered. In this backdrop, instead of

relegating parties to Family Court, this Court deems it proper to allow

application. Hence, following order :

                                     ORDER

(I)          The impugned order dated 06.05.2026 passed by Principal

Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad below Exhibit-7 in Petition

F-148/2026 is quashed and set aside.

(II)         The application Exhibit-7 filed before Family Court for waiving

of waiting period of six months under Section 13B(2) of Hindu

Marriage Act is allowed and six months waiting period is waived.

(III) The Family Court shall proceed to pass further orders in Petition

No. F-148/2026 within a period of two weeks from today.

(IV) Writ Petition stands disposed of.


                                              (S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)




Mujaheed//