Special Marriage Act, 1954 — Section 28(2) — Divorce by mutual consent — “Not earlier than six months and not later than eighteen months” — Nature of provision — Directory, not mandatory — Court empowered to waive requirement in appropriate facts — Purpose of waiting period is to allow rethink and ensure no possibility of reconciliation — Technical lapse in exceeding 18 months cannot justify dropping proceedings when petition not withdrawn and parties still consenting.

A. Special Marriage Act, 1954 — Section 28(2) — Divorce by mutual consent — “Not earlier than six months and not later than eighteen months” — Nature of provision — Directory, not mandatory — Court empowered to waive requirement in appropriate facts — Purpose of waiting period is to allow rethink and ensure no possibility of reconciliation — Technical lapse in exceeding 18 months cannot justify dropping proceedings when petition not withdrawn and parties still consenting.

(Paras 6, 8, 10, 11, 12)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(B)(2) — Pari materia with Section 28(2) SMA — Erroneous reliance by Family Court — Mechanical application leading to wrongful dropping of mutual-consent divorce petition — Illegality of order dropping C.P. No.632/2023 on sole ground that 18 months elapsed.

(Paras 4, 5, 6, 8)

C. Family Courts — Mutual consent divorce — Non-appearance of one party on a single date — Application for time on medical grounds — Cannot be treated as lack of interest or withdrawal — Rejecting adjournment and dropping entire proceeding on presumption of disinterest improper.

(Paras 4, 5, 12)

D. Interpretation of Statutes — Directory vs. Mandatory — Sections 28(2) SMA and 13(B)(2) HMA — Statutory cooling-off and maximum period intended to facilitate reconciliation, not defeat proceedings — Hyper-technical approach counterproductive in matrimonial matters — Courts must avoid prolonging matrimonial litigation causing “pain, suffering, harassment”.

(Para 11)

E. Constitutional Law — Articles 226 & 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction — Interference justified when Family Court drops divorce-by-mutual-consent proceedings on incorrect interpretation of limitation period — Order found unsustainable; writ court restores proceeding.

(Paras 1, 12, 13)

F. Matrimonial Law — Mutual consent divorce — Duty of Court — Ensure consent is voluntary, free from pressure, force, coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence — Settlement must reflect free choice and autonomy.

(Para 11)

G. Practice & Procedure — Defects in petition — Office objections not removed due to “unavoidable circumstances” — Delay attributable to technical defects cannot prejudice substantive mutual consent rights — Court permits removal of defects within two weeks and directs conclusion within two months.

(Paras 7, 13)

---