This is a genuinely important procedural question, and one I get asked frequently by couples going through mutual consent divorce in Mumbai who, for one reason or another, did not manage to complete the second motion within the timeframe the law allows. Whether it happened because one spouse got cold feet temporarily, because settlement terms took longer to finalise than expected, because of a relocation, or simply because of procedural delay, the situation you now find yourself in is common, and thankfully, it is not a dead end. Understanding exactly what "lapsing" means under the law, why it happens, and what your realistic options are going forward will help you move ahead without wasting further time or money on a flawed approach.

To understand this properly, we need to start with the structure of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which governs mutual consent divorce. Section 13-B(1) allows both spouses to jointly present a petition for divorce on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, have been unable to live together, and have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. This is what is commonly called the "first motion." Section 13-B(2) then requires that, on a joint motion of both parties made not earlier than six months after the date of presentation of the first motion petition, and not later than eighteen months after that date, the court shall, after hearing the parties and making such inquiry as it thinks fit, satisfy itself that the averments in the petition are true and pass a decree of divorce. This second appearance is what is known as the "second motion," and it is at this stage that the court actually grants the decree dissolving the marriage.

The critical window here is the eighteen-month outer limit. The law gives couples a minimum cooling-off period of six months (which can, in appropriate cases, be waived by the court following the Supreme Court's ruling in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, 2017, where genuine and irretrievable breakdown is shown and the couple has already been separated for a long period), but it also sets an outer boundary of eighteen months within which the second motion must be moved. If the second motion is not filed within this eighteen-month window from the date the first motion was presented, the petition is treated as having lapsed. This means the Family Court can no longer act upon that original petition to grant a divorce decree, because the statutory window within which the court is empowered to pass the decree has closed.

This position was clarified authoritatively by the Supreme Court in Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar (2011), where the Court held that once the eighteen-month period from the date of the first motion elapses without the second motion being moved, the Family Court loses jurisdiction to pass a decree of divorce on the basis of that original petition. Importantly, the Supreme Court also clarified in that case that mutual consent under Section 13-B must continue to subsist right up until the moment the decree is actually passed — either spouse retains the right to unilaterally withdraw their consent at any point before the second motion is heard and the decree granted, and the court cannot compel a party to go through with the divorce simply because they had earlier consented at the first motion stage. This is an important protective feature of Indian matrimonial law: mutual consent divorce genuinely requires consent to remain mutual throughout the process, not just at the moment of filing.

Given this legal framework, the direct answer to your question is: yes, a second motion — or more accurately, a fresh mutual consent petition — can absolutely be filed in Mumbai if your first motion has lapsed due to the eighteen-month window closing, provided both spouses still genuinely consent to the divorce. What cannot happen is reviving the original, lapsed petition and simply moving a belated second motion under the same case number after the eighteen-month period has expired; the Family Court no longer has the statutory power to act on that specific petition once the window has closed. Instead, your advocate will need to file a new, fresh joint petition under Section 13-B(1), essentially restarting the mutual consent process from the first motion stage.

The good news is that restarting the process is procedurally more straightforward than it sounds, particularly because the substantive requirement under Section 13-B(1) — that the parties have been living separately for one year or more — is almost certainly already satisfied by the time you are filing the fresh petition, since you would have already been separated for at least the duration of your original petition's pendency, plus whatever time has passed since it lapsed. In most cases, couples filing a fresh petition after an earlier one has lapsed are, if anything, in an even stronger evidentiary position to demonstrate a long period of separation and an unable-to-reconcile relationship, since more time has passed and the breakdown of the marriage is even more firmly established.

There are, however, a few practical and strategic considerations your advocate should address carefully when filing the fresh petition. First, since a prior mutual consent petition exists on record with the Family Court, it is advisable to specifically reference the earlier proceedings — including the case number, the dates of filing and lapsing, and the reasons the second motion could not be completed within time — in the fresh petition. This creates a clean, transparent record for the court and pre-empts any confusion or unnecessary scrutiny about why a second attempt is being made. Mumbai's Family Courts, including the Bandra Family Court, generally deal with this situation routinely and do not view a lapsed first attempt negatively, provided the fresh petition is properly and honestly presented.

Second, it is worth using the intervening period productively to ensure the underlying reasons the earlier motion lapsed do not repeat themselves. If the earlier lapse occurred because settlement terms around alimony, maintenance, custody, or property division were not finalised in time, your advocate should now ensure that a comprehensive, signed Memorandum of Understanding or Consent Terms document is prepared and annexed to the fresh petition, covering all these issues in detail before the petition is filed. Courts are far more likely to process a mutual consent petition smoothly, and complete both motions well within the required timeframe, when the financial and custodial terms are clearly settled and documented in advance, leaving no room for last-minute disagreement that could cause a second lapse.

Third, if your circumstances genuinely justify it — for instance, where the parties have already been separated for a very long period, have no disputes remaining, and there is no reasonable possibility of reconciliation — your advocate can apply for a waiver of the statutory six-month cooling-off period between the first and second motions, relying on the Supreme Court's guidance in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur. This can help you avoid a repeat of the delay that caused the earlier lapse, allowing both motions to potentially be completed in a single, expedited set of hearings rather than being spread across many months, which reduces the risk of the process stalling again due to changed circumstances, relocation, or one party's availability.

Fourth, if the reason your first motion lapsed was not procedural delay but rather because one spouse genuinely withdrew or hesitated on their consent, it is important to have an honest conversation, through your respective advocates if necessary, before refiling. A fresh Section 13-B petition requires mutual consent at the time of filing and continuing mutual consent through to the decree; if there is a real risk that one party may again withdraw consent midway, it may be more prudent to explore whether a contested divorce petition under Section 13, based on applicable fault grounds such as cruelty or desertion, is a more realistic path forward, rather than repeatedly attempting a mutual consent process that keeps stalling.

I would also gently flag that repeated lapsing of mutual consent petitions is not merely a matter of inconvenience — it can be emotionally exhausting for both spouses, and where children are involved, prolonged uncertainty about the marriage's status can be genuinely disruptive to their stability as well. This is precisely the kind of situation where getting experienced, independent guidance before refiling can make a real difference to how smoothly your fresh petition proceeds. Speaking with our legal experts at Aapka Legal Advice connects you with family law advocates experienced in Mumbai's Family Court procedure who can review exactly why your first motion lapsed and help structure the fresh petition to avoid a repeat outcome, along with access to a panel of retired judges who can offer an independent, experienced perspective on how best to present your case for a smooth, timely resolution.

It is worth adding here that Mumbai's Family Courts, given the sheer volume of matrimonial matters they handle, do see lapsed first motions with some regularity, and judges are generally pragmatic about allowing fresh petitions to proceed efficiently, particularly where both parties appear genuinely aligned and the paperwork is in order. What tends to cause fresh delays, in my experience, is incomplete or ambiguous settlement documentation, inconsistent statements between the original lapsed petition and the fresh filing, or a lack of clarity about custody and maintenance arrangements for children. Addressing these proactively, with the help of an advocate who reviews both the earlier lapsed petition and your current circumstances carefully, is the single most effective way to ensure your second attempt at mutual consent divorce reaches its conclusion without further setbacks.

Once you are ready to move forward with a fresh joint petition, having advocates who are well-versed in Mumbai's Family Court procedure, including how to handle references to a previously lapsed matter, will make the process considerably smoother. You can connect with experienced practitioners through Top Divorce Lawyers in Mumbai | Aapka Legal Advice, where advocates regularly handle exactly this kind of refiling and can help ensure your fresh petition is drafted comprehensively, with all settlement terms finalised upfront, to minimise the risk of history repeating itself.

To directly answer your question: yes, a second attempt at mutual divorce can absolutely be pursued in Mumbai if your first motion lapsed after the eighteen-month statutory window closed under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, but this must take the form of a fresh joint petition filed afresh under Section 13-B(1), rather than a belated second motion on the original, now-lapsed petition, since the Family Court's jurisdiction to act on that earlier filing has ended as clarified by the Supreme Court in Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar. With your period of separation already well-established, a properly documented settlement in place, and careful attention to ensuring both spouses' consent remains firm through to the decree, a fresh mutual consent petition in Mumbai can generally proceed smoothly and, in many cases, more quickly than the original attempt, bringing your matter to a proper and final conclusion.