JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J. The petitioner challenges Exts.P8, P9 and P10 orders of the learned Family Court, Ottappalam, to the extent to which, they have dismissed the applications filed by him and the respondent jointly, seeking waver of the statutory cooling off period of six months, so as to enable them to obtain divorce through mutual consent. 2. Sri.R.Mahesh Menon - learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that the sole reason in Ext.P8, to deny the afore relief, is that the parties have not filed ‘authenticated proof affidavits’, and argued that this was unnecessary, since such a course is never required under the Statutory Scheme. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent also affirmed the afore submission. 4. We have examined Ext.P8, and as rightly stated by Sri.Mahesh Menon, the learned Family Court has held that the parties cannot be allowed ‘to rush through the proceedings, without even filing the duly authenticated proof affidavits of de facto petitioners’ (sic). We are unable to understand what the learned Family Court has meant by this; but we assume that it requires the parties to appear personally and affirm that they have filed the application without duress. 5. That said, we are told that the application for divorce by mutual consent was filed by the parties on 20.11.2024 and hence the six months period would expire by 20.05.2025. We are, therefore, of the firm view that the learned Family Court should consider the Original Petition itself without delay and without insisting on any pleading which is not imperative under the Statutory Scheme. This Original Petition is consequently allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the learned Family Court will verify and assess if all the criteria, as enumerated by the Honourable Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur [ 2017(8) SCC 746 ] are satisfied; and if so, it will allow the application of the parties, or finally dispose of the Original Petition, whichever is more expedient.