Yes, parties can move for the Second Motion even after a delay, and in some circumstances refile the petition, since Indian courts, following well-established Supreme Court precedent, have held that the six-month period between motions is directory and the eighteen-month outer limit under Section 13B(2) exists mainly to prevent indefinite pendency rather than to permanently bar a genuinely willing couple.

If the First Motion was recorded but the Second Motion was never pursued within the eighteen-month window and the petition was consequently dismissed for non-prosecution, Chennai Family Courts generally require the parties to file a fresh mutual consent petition altogether, restarting the process, rather than reviving the lapsed one.

Where the delay in moving the Second Motion was for a valid reason — such as an attempt at reconciliation that ultimately failed — courts may show some flexibility in permitting an application for restoration if filed promptly after the dismissal, though this is assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Given the procedural complexity of reviving or refiling a lapsed mutual consent petition, it is important to understand your specific timeline and options before proceeding. Reaching out via Aapka Legal Advice can help you determine the most efficient path forward.

Because courts differ in how leniently they treat lapsed Second Motions, obtaining a second opinion from a retired judge on your particular case history can help you avoid unnecessary delay. Experienced divorce lawyers and retired judges are available through Aapka Legal Advice's Chennai divorce lawyer directory.

In conclusion, if the first motion has lapsed, parties in Chennai will typically need to file a fresh mutual consent petition, though prompt restoration may be possible in limited circumstances involving genuine reconciliation attempts.