Summary: The Delhi High Court has decided that the required waiting time for a divorce when both parties agree can be skipped in certain situations, allowing couples to move forward more quickly if certain conditions are met.
Timeline and Key Players
On December 17, 2025, the Delhi High Court, with Judges Anup Jairam Bhambhani, Navin Chawla, and Renu Bhatnagar, made an important decision. The case involved Shiksha Kumari and Santosh Kumar, who were represented by their lawyers.
Can the Waiting Period Be Waived?
The main question was whether the required one-year separation period under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act could be skipped. This was previously discussed in the Sankalp Singh case.
"Is a court required to delay a divorce by mutual consent, forcing unwilling parties – not into a happy marriage, but into a troubled one?"
Rules and Past Decisions
The court looked at several rules and past decisions, including those by the Supreme Court in the cases of Sureshta Devi vs. Om Prakash and Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur, which allowed some flexibility in interpreting the waiting periods.
Possibilities for Skipping the Waiting Period and Conditions
One-Year Separation: The court decided that the one-year separation period could be skipped in special situations, like extreme hardship or bad behavior.
Six-Month Cooling-Off: The six-month waiting period between the first and second steps can also be skipped if the court agrees with the reasons.
"The request to skip the waiting period can be made one week after the first step, explaining why the waiting should be skipped."
Impact on Divorce Proceedings
This decision allows courts to speed up divorce proceedings if both parties agree and meet certain conditions, highlighting the importance of personal choice and reducing long emotional stress.
The Delhi High Court's decision marks a significant move towards making divorce by mutual consent easier, ensuring that legal processes do not unnecessarily delay ending a marriage. This ruling provides a guide for handling future cases, ensuring that the legal system respects personal choices while preventing hasty decisions.
