Bombay High Court: In a writ petition filed by cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal against the order of the Family court rejecting his application seeking waiver of the statutory cooling-off period of six months under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) and grant of immediate decree of divorce (‘the application’), a Single Judge Bench of Madhav J. Jamdar, J., allowed the petition holding that the parties had genuinely settled their differences and the Family Court’s reliance on the Marriage Counsellor’s report to observe that the consent terms had not been complied with and that the counselling was incomplete, was clearly erroneous. In light of the fact that Chahal would not be available after 21-03-2025 due to the Indian Premier League (‘IPL’), the Court directed the Family Court to decide the divorce petition by 20-03-2025.
Background
The marriage was solemnized between Yuzvendra Chahal and Dhanashree Verma in 2020. However, due to irreconcilable and temperamental differences, their marital relationship broke down, and since June 2022, the couple had no marital relationship, i.e., for more than two and a half years. Both parties resided separately in Delhi and Mumbai since then.
They filed a petition for mutual consent divorce in 2023 under Section 13-B of HMA, read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Thereafter, they filed another petition seeking a waiver of the statutory cooling-off period of six months and a grant of divorce.
It was contended that Chahal was an international cricketer who had been contracted to play in the IPL that mandated him to relocate to Punjab and other States frequently for attending training camps, playing matches, etc. Further it was claimed that he was undergoing rigorous training, and the culmination of the divorce proceedings would help him in moving ahead with his life smoothly.
Furthermore, it was contended that since the couple was not staying together since June 2022, therefore, cooling period of six months as per Section 13-B(2) of HMA be waived.
It was also claimed that Dhanashree was a social media personality who relied on digital platforms such as Instagram and YouTube for her livelihood. Her career was sustained by brand endorsements, collaborations, and audience engagement. The uncertainty surrounding her marital status had adversely affected her professional life. It was further stated that due to adverse publicity in the media, both parties were suffering.
The application was rejected by the Family Court on the ground that the consent terms were not completely complied with as per the marriage counsellor’s report. As far as the criticism in social media was concerned, the Family Court observed that since both the petitioners were public figure, both of them had to face it and therefore, the said factor could not be taken into consideration for waiver of statutory cooling-off period of six months and grant of immediate divorce.
Analysis and Decision
Upon perusal of clause 3 of the Consent terms, which was apparently not complied with, the Court stated that the total amount agreed and undertaken to be paid by Chahal to Dhanashree as per the Consent Terms was Rs. 4.75 Crores. The first instalment of Rs.2.37 Crores was paid at the time of the first motion. The Court held that since the second instalment was to be paid at the time of passing the divorce decree, the Family Court was not right in observing that the Consent Terms were only partly complied with. Whatever was to be complied with before passing the order on the application was complied with. In that context, the Marriage Counsellor had submitted the “Part Compliance Report” and based on the said report, it could not have been said that conciliation proceedings were incomplete.
Regarding the ground of public criticism, the Court remarked that the same was only one aspect mentioned in the application along with other aspects. In fact, in the application, it was specifically stated that both parties had been staying separately since June 2022, and the joint petition for divorce by mutual consent was filed on 05-02-2025, i.e., after a period of 2 and a half years. Therefore, the Court held that the statutory period of six months before filing of the second motion as specified in Section 13-B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13-B (1), was complied with. However, this aspect was not considered by the Family Court.
The Court held that the Family Court’s reliance on the Marriage Counsellor’s report to observe that the consent terms had not been complied with and that the counselling was incomplete was clearly erroneous.
Regarding the grant of a waiver of the cooling off period, the Court placed reliance on Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746 wherein the Supreme Court held that the object of Section 13-B is to enable the parties to dissolve a marriage by consent if the marriage has irretrievably broken down and to enable them to rehabilitate them as per available options. The Supreme Court also laid down guidelines for consideration of waiver application. The Court noted that in the present case, the total statutory period of 1 and a half years was already over before filing the first motion, in compliance with Amardeep Singh (supra).
As far as the conciliation efforts were concerned, the Court noted that all the efforts of mediation/ conciliation to reunite the parties had failed.
Regarding the consent terms, the Court noted that the parties filed theseterms agreeing on permanent alimony, stridhan, jewellery, and return of valuables, etc. It was an agreed position, as set out in the impugned order that the aforesaid were exchanged as per the terms.
Thus, the Court held that it was clear that the parties had genuinely settled their differences including all the pending issues between them.
The Court further stated that, admittedly, except the second and final instalment of Rs. 2.37 nothing else was to be paid by Chahal to Dhanashree. As far as the said amount was concerned, the Demand Draft was ready and would be handed over at the time of passing of the divorce decree in terms of the Consent Terms. Thus, the Court held that it was clear that, in such facts and circumstances, waiting period would only prolong their agony.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition, thereby quashing the impugned order and granting the waiver of the statutory cooling-off period.
Regarding the contention that Chahal would not be available from 21-03-2025 on account of IPL, the Court directed the Family Court to decide the divorce application by 20-03-2025.
[Yuzvendra Chahal v. Nil, Writ Petition No. 3960 of 2025, decided on 19-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioners: Nitin K. Gupta, Monish K. Vig, Sanchay Mehrotra, Aditi Mohoni and Priya Pandey
