JUDGMENT 1. The parties have appeared before the Court. Father ofthe respondent-wife is also present in the Court. The appellant hasapproached this Court challenging order dated 13.12.2018 passedby the Family Court, Alwar (for short 'the Family Court') in CaseNo. 746/2018 whereby application filed under Section 13B of theHindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short 'the Act') for grant of decreeof divorce by mutual consent has been rejected on the premisethat such application has been filed before expiry of period of oneyear from the date of separation of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that boththe parties have agreed to part with subject to payment of Rs.2,00,000/- by the appellant to the respondent as permanentalimony for full and final settlement. 3. The matter was listed before the Court on 29.04.2019and deferred for today considering that the amount of permanentalimony was not sufficient and opportunity was granted to therespondent-wife to again ponder over the matter and come backto the Court today. 4. Today, the respondent has appeared along with herfather. She was consulted to again think over the matter. But shestill insists on obtaining decree of divorce by mutual consent. Therespondent has filed her affidavit wherein she has stated that shehas agreed to take the decree of divorce by mutual consent andshe has received entire 'Stridhan'. She has also agreed to receiveamount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as permanent alimony with no otherclaim from the appellant. 5. Both the parties have signed order sheet of the file andhave been identified by their respective counsel. 6. The Family Court has dismissed the application underSection 13B of the Act being not maintainable as the requisiteperiod of one year was still not completed. Even otherwise, thisCourt has the power to waive the cooling period of one year inview of judgments of the Supreme Court in Veena Vs. StateGovt. of NCT, Delhi & Anr., (2011) 14 SCC 614 , Devinder Singh Narula Vs. Meenakshi Nangia, (2012) 8 SCC 580 , and Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746 .In Amardeep Singh, supra, the Supreme Court laid down that since the cooling off period mentioned in Section 13-B(2) is notmandatory but directory, it will be open to the court to exercise itsdiscretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where thereis no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there arechances of alternative rehabilitation. 7. 7. In view of above, we are persuaded to allow the appeal.The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order dated 13.12.2018passed by the Family Court, Alwar in Case No.746/2018 is setaside. The application filed by the parties under Section 13B of theAct before the Family Court is allowed and the marriage betweenthe appellant-husband and the respondent-wife is thereforedissolved by mutual consent with immediate effect. Decree ofdivorce be prepared accordingly.