1 wp 9131.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9131 OF 2011 Rachna Shailendrakumar Kasliwal .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents Mrs. M. N. Ghanekar, Advocate h/f Shri N. S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The present petitioner and respondent No. 2 have filed proceedings U/Sec. 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The said proceedings are filed on 18 th October, 2011. The Family Court passed the orders and kept the matter after six months i. e. on 21 st April, 2012. The petitioner and the respondent No. 2 filed an application on 01 st November, 2011 seeking waiver of the period of six months. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby present petition is filed. 2 wp 9131.11 2. Mrs. Ghanekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that there is nothing under the provisions of the statute which prohibits the Court from granting waiver. When there is no provision in the statute debarring the Court from waiving the period of six months, then in such circumstances, there was no impediment for the Court to waive the said period of six months. The learned counsel further contended that the Court should have taken into consideration that the parties were litigating before the said Family Court for more than one year in proceedings U/Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and subsequently the parties arrived at a consensus and proceedings U/Sec. 13(B) were filed. The Court should have taken into consideration these aspects and allowed the application granting waiver of six months and ought to have passed the decree of divorce. The Court should have considered the hardship that would be caused to the parties. 3. The provision of Sec. 13(B) are unambiguous . Sec. 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act does not give jurisdiction to the Court to waive the said period of six months. The said issue is no longer res-integra in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Anil Kumar Jain Vs. Maya Jain reported in 2009(10) S.C.C. 3 wp 9131.11 415 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Principal Judge, Family Court Nagpur Vs. Nil reported in AIR 2009 Bom. 12. Even the application for waiver does not spell out any undue hardship. In the light of above no error is committed by the learned Judge of the Family Court in rejecting the application. 4. In view of that the present writ petition is sans merit, as such is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. 5. The learned counsel submits that the Family Court be directed to record the statement of the present respondent No. 2 by way of video conferencing. No such prayer was made before the Family Court in this regard. The party may file an application seeking such a relief before the learned Judge of the Family Court, which application the learned Judge would consider on its own merits. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11