(Prayer: Appeal under section against orderspleased to set aside the order and decree passed in F.C.O.P No. 55 of 2022, Dt. 03.06.2024, on the file of Judge, Family Court -cum- VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District and be pleased to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Order and decree passed in F.C.O.P No. 55 of 2022, Dt. 03.06.2024, on the file of Judge, Family Court -cum- VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District, pending disposal of the Family Court Appeal before this Hon'ble Court and to pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in lA No. 1/2024 in FCA No. 91/2024 dated 19.8.2024 in the interest of justice and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the certified copy of judgement passed in FCOP No. 284/2017 on the file of Hon‟ble Family Court cum VI Addl District & Sessions Judge, Nellore dt. 23.11.2022 and copy of CC No. 3513/2024 on the file of Hon‟ble Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore, as additional evidence in the above appeal in the interest of justice, and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the copy of Death Certificate of Smt Sujatha dated 4.5.2021 and copy of Judgment passed in CC No. 476/2013 on the file of Honble V Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore as additional material papers in the above FCA No. 91 /2024 in the interest of justice and to pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dissolve the marriage held in between petitioner / appellant and respondent/ respondent on 4.6.1972 with mutual consent as per conditions mentioned in the Joint Memo in the interest of justice and to pass)

Sunitha Gandham, J.

1. This Family Court Appeal is filed by the appellant/ respondent assailing the order and decree dated 03.06.2024 passed by the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore in F.C.O.P. No.55 of 2022 filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as „The Act, 1955‟) in dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent dated 04.06.1972.

2. The parties are being referred to as „petitioner‟ and „respondent‟ as arrayed in the petition before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The undisputed facts are that the respondent is legally wedded wife of petitioner, their marriage was solemnized on 04.06.1972 as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs and they have no children. Further, since 01.09.1978, they have been living separately. The petitioner filed F.C.O.P. No.55 of 2022 under Section 13 (1) (ia) & (ib) of the Act, 1955 and Section 7 of Family Court Act against the respondent seeking dissolution of the marriage dated 04.06.1972 and at the culmination of enquiry, the trial Court allowed the petition vide order 03.06.2024. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondent/wife preferred the instant appeal to set aside the order passed by the trial Court.

4. During pendency of this appeal, respondent filed application in I.A.No.2 of 2026 seeking permission to convert the section of law from section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Act, 1955 to Section 13(B) of the Act, 1955 so as to grant divorce by mutual consent and to record terms and conditions of memorandum of understanding respectively.

5. Admittedly, the grounds for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) & (ib) and Section 13 B of the Act, 1955 are different. However, it is settled principle of law that the petition filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) & (ib) of the Act, 1955 can be converted into divorce petition by mutual consent of Section 13-B of the Act, 1955. The judgment in K.Omprakash Vs K.Nandini (AIR 1986 AP 167) underscores the judiciary role in interpreting statutes in a manner that upholds the principles of natural justice and equity and it potentially paves the way for more flexible judicial practices in matrimonial cases, encouraging both parties to amicably resolve their differences without being hampered by procedural rigidity. Further, reinforces the transformative nature of marital laws, aligning legal practices with contemporary societal norms that recognize the evolving institution of marriage. After thorough deliberation, the Court concluded that Section 13-B(2) should be interpreted as a directory provision rather than a mandatory one, thereby allowing the immediate dissolution of the marriage based on mutual consent without strict compliance with the waiting period in appellate contexts and with the afore mentioned reasoning, granted the divorce decree, emphasizing the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and the absence of any likelihood of reconciliation. The said principle is followed by this Court in Tadepalli Venkata Ramesh vs Immidisetty Anitha (CMA 651 of 2007).

6. In this regard, it is opposite to mention here that in a recent case in Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan ((2023) 14 SCC 231) the constitution bench of Hon‟ble Apex Court observed and held that cooling off period is not to stretch the already disintegrated marriage, or to prolong the agony and misery of the parties when there are no chances of the marriage working out and that the waiver is not to be given on mere asking, but on the Court being satisfied beyond doubt that the marriage has shattered beyond repair. Further, held at para Nos.26 and 27 thus:

                  “26. However, there are cases of exceptional hardship, where after some years of acrimonious litigation and prolonged suffering, the parties, with a view to have a fresh start, jointly pray to the court to dissolve the marriage, and seek waiver of the need to move the second motion. On account of irreconcilable differences, allegations and aspersions made against each other and the family members, and in some cases multiple litigations including criminal cases, continuation of the marital relationship is an impossibility. The divorce is inevitable, and the cooling off period of six months, if at all, breeds misery and pain, without any gain and benefit. These are cases where the object and purpose behind sub-section (2) to Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act to safeguard against hurried and hasty 18 decisions are not in issue and question, and the procedural requirement to move the court with the second motion after a gap of six months acts as an impediment in the settlement. At times, payment of alimony and permanent lump sum maintenance gets delayed, while anxiety and suspicion remain. Here, the procedure should give way to a larger public and personal interest of the parties in ending the litigation(s), and the pain and sorrow effected, by passing a formal decree of divorce, as de facto the marriage had ended much earlier.

                  28. The time-gap is meant to enable the parties to cogitate, analyse and take a deliberated decision. The object of the cooling off period is not to stretch the already disintegrated marriage, or to prolong the agony and misery of the parties when there are no chances of the marriage working out. Therefore, once every effort has been made to salvage the marriage and there remains no possibility of reunion and cohabitation, the court is not powerless in enabling the parties to avail a better option, which is to grant divorce. The waiver is not to be given on mere asking, but on the court being satisfied beyond doubt that the marriage has shattered beyond repair.”

7. Finally, Hon‟ble Apex Court held that the provisions of Section 13-B(2) of the Act, 1955 providing for cooling off period is directory and in the facts and circumstances of a case, the statutory period can be waived of.

8. In the present case at hand also, the husband filed petition seeking dissolution of marriage and the same was allowed. During appellate stage both parties settled their issues and accordingly, filed the petition to grant divorce by mutual consent. As seen from the record, since 1978 i.e. 49 years, they have been living separately and they do not have children. Petitioner is retired employee and is aged about 77 years and respondent is household and is aged about 72 year. Record further reveals that as per the order in O.S.No.621 of 1979 and M.C.No.24 of 2009, petitioner husband has been paying Rs.140/- per month and Rs.5,000/- respectively towards maintenance to the respondent wife. This Court made efforts by advising both parties to continue their matrimonial tie, but in view of their strange relations and very long duration of desertion, both parties did not show interest to live together and absolutely there are no chances of reunion. Finally, respondent filed petition in I.A.No.2 of 2026 seeking permission to amend the prayer along with affidavit of the respondent and joint compromise memo. As seen from the joint compromise memo and affidavit, both parties agreed to dissolve the marriage dated 04.06.1972 by mutual consent and petitioner husband agreed to pay maintenance at Rs.20,000/- per month and further, agreed to withdraw the case in Crl.M.P.No.1105 of 2014 pending on the file of learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore which was transferred to learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Nellore and the respondent also agreed to withdraw the Crl.P.No.13368 of 2025. Finally, both parties agreed to withdraw their respective cases and obtain divorce by mutual consent. The aforementioned terms and conditions are in accordance with law and not opposite to public policy. So, to put an end to the litigation, both parties have taken decision to dissolve their marriage instead of continuing the present litigation. It is already stated above that the legislature intended to provide a mechanism for the easy dissolution of Hindu marriages by mutual consent marking a shift from viewing marriage as an indissoluble sacrament to a contractual agreement.

9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and long duration of desertion, this Court is of the opinion that cooling off period can be waived and accordingly, allowed I.A.No.2 of 2026. The affidavit of respondent and joint compromise memo of both parties consisting of 7 terms and conditions shall form part of this record.

10. In the result, this Family Court Appeal is allowed and the decree and order dated 03.06.2024 in F.C.O.P. No.55 of 2022 passed by the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore is be and hereby set aside and consequently, dissolved the marriage dated 04.06.1972 between the petitioner and respondent. There shall be order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.