JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant/wife and Sri Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent/husband. 2. This First Appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 01.08.2022 in Case No. 1542 of 2022 (Sumant Kumar vs. Smt. Shyamshri) under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad, whereby joint application 16 Ga 2 filed by the parties for relaxing the period of second motion of six months, has been rejected. Facts 3. Briefly stated undisputed facts are that the plaintiff and the defendant were married with each other on 02.12.2014. Some disputes developed between them and they started living separately since 26.12.2017. It also appears that the plaintiff-husband filed a divorce petition No. 1248 of 2019 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad, which according to both the parties; remained pending. It appears that in the mean time both the parties have agreed to dissolve their marriage with consent. Therefore, they filed a joint divorce petition No. 1542 of 2021 (Sumant Kumar vs. Smt. Shyamshri) under Section 13 B of the Act, 1955. 4. It appears that in the mean time both the parties have agreed to dissolve their marriage with consent. Therefore, they filed a joint divorce petition No. 1542 of 2021 (Sumant Kumar vs. Smt. Shyamshri) under Section 13 B of the Act, 1955. 4. In paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 of the aforesaid joint divorce petition under Section 13 B, the parties has states as under: ^^¼6½ ;g fd oknhx.k ds fopkjksa esa vk, erHksnksa dks lekIr djds nksuksa dks ,d lkFk ifr&iRuh ds :i esa oSokfgd thou ;kiu djus ds fy;s nksuksa oknhx.k ds ifjokj okyksa o fj’rsnkjksa rFkk lekt ds yksxksa }kjk dkQh le>k;k x;k] fdUrq oknhx.k ds fopkjksa esa bruk vf/kd vkilh erHksn gks x;k gS fd nksuksa ,d lkFk ifr&iRuh ds :i esa jgdj oSokfgd thou ;kiu djus ds fy;s fdlh Hkh rjg ls lger ugha gSA ¼7½ ;g fd oknhx.k 26-12-2017 ls vyx&vyx fuokl dj jgsa gS] blhfy, oknhx.k ds e/; ifr&iRuh ds :i esa fdlh Hkh Ádkj ds lEca/k LFkkfir ugha gq, gSA ¼8½ ;g fd gky gh oknhx.k ds e/; gq, vkilh le>kSrs ds vuqlkj dqy vadu jkf’k 8 yk[k ipkl gtkj :i;s esa rd gqvk gSA ftlesa 4 yk[k iPphl gtkj MhŒMhŒ la[;k 005315 tks fd oknh la[;k 1 }kjk oknh la[;k 2 dks ÁFke eks’ku ij vnk dj fn;k tk;sxk rFkk 'ks"k pkj yk[k iPphl gtkj :i;s f}rh; eks’ku ij vnk fd;s tk;saxsA ¼9½ ;g fd oknhx.k }kjk vkt fnukad rd ,d&nwljs ij fd;s x;s lHkh eqdneksa dks ÁFke eks’ku ds i’pkr~ nksuksa oknhx.k }kjk okil ys fy;k tk;sxkA ¼11½ ;g fd oknhx.k ds fopkjksa bruk vf/kd erHksn vk x;k gS fd vkt Hkh nksuksa ,d lkFk ifr&iRuh ds :i esa jgdj oSokfgd thou ;kiu djus ds fy;s lger ugha gS vkSj vkilh lgerh ls fookg&foPNsn gsrq mDr okn i= ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa nk;j fd;k gSA** 5. It appears that matter of the parties was referred to mediation on 01.07.2022 but as report of Mediation and Conciliation Center, District-Ghaziabad, dated 01.08.2022 the mediation has failed as both the parties are adamant for divorce. 6. It appears that matter of the parties was referred to mediation on 01.07.2022 but as report of Mediation and Conciliation Center, District-Ghaziabad, dated 01.08.2022 the mediation has failed as both the parties are adamant for divorce. 6. On these facts the parties have moved the application 16 Ga 2 dated 01.08.2022 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Ghaziabad in divorce petition No. 1542 of 2022, under Section 13 B of the Act, 1965 for relaxing the period of second motion of six months which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 01.08.2022. Submissions 7. Both the learned counsels for the parties jointly submit that since all efforts for mediation/reconciliation to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction, therefore, the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony. Therefore, the breathing period of second motion as provided in Section 13 B(2) of the Act, 1955 will only prolong their agony. They, therefore, jointly submit that the court below has committed manifest error of law not to allow the application for relaxing the period. Discussion and Findings 8. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record of the appeal before us. 9. The object of Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and its nature has been authoritatively explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746 (Para 17 and 20), as under: “17. The object of the provision 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 amendment was inspired by the thought that forcible perpetuation of status of matrimony between unwilling partners did not serve any purpose. The object of the cooling off period was to safeguard against a hurried decision if there was otherwise possibility of differences being reconciled. The object was not to perpetuate a purposeless marriage or to prolong the agony of the parties when there was no chance of reconciliation. Though every effort has to be made to save a marriage, if there are no chances of reunion and there are chances of fresh rehabilitation, the Court should not be powerless in enabling the parties to have a better option. 20. Though every effort has to be made to save a marriage, if there are no chances of reunion and there are chances of fresh rehabilitation, the Court should not be powerless in enabling the parties to have a better option. 20. Since we are of the view that the period mentioned in Section 13B(2) is not mandatory but directory, it will be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation.” 10. The law laid down in the case of Amardeep Singh (supra) has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar vs. Suman Beniwal (Civil Appeal No. 7650 of 2021 decided on 11.12.2021) and the factors to be considered for relaxing the period of second motion have been summarised in paragraph 27, as under: “27. For exercise of the discretion to waive the statutory waiting period of six months for moving the motion for divorce under Section 13B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court would consider the following amongst other factors: (i) the length of time for which the parties had been married. (ii) how long the parties had stayed together as husband and wife. (iii) the length of time the parties had been staying apart. (iv) the length of time for which the litigation had been pending. (v) whether there were any other proceedings between the parties. (vi) whether there was any possibility of reconciliation. (vii) whether there were any children born out of the wedlock. (viii) whether the parties had freely, of their own accord, without any coercion or pressure, arrived at a genuine settlement which took care of alimony, if any, maintenance and custody of children, etc.” 11. Thus, we find no difficulty to hold that the period mentioned in Section 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not mandatory but directory and it is open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case. The factors for exercising the discretion have been enumerated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Amardeep Singh (supra) and Amit Kumar (supra) which have been reproduced above. 12. For the reasons aforestated, the impugned judgment and order dated 01.08.2022 can not be sustained and is hereby set aside. The factors for exercising the discretion have been enumerated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Amardeep Singh (supra) and Amit Kumar (supra) which have been reproduced above. 12. For the reasons aforestated, the impugned judgment and order dated 01.08.2022 can not be sustained and is hereby set aside. Matter is remitted back to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad, to pass an order afresh in accordance with law within one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Liberty is granted to the parties to file a supplementary affidavit before the court below if they want to add any circumstance in their application under Section 13 B(2) of the Act, 1955. 13. The appeal is allowed.