Judges Save Marriage

This is a completely distorted presentation of ground reality.

Even Lawyers are very reluctant to have the case sent for mediation and also even for lok adalat.

But they generally don't express it openly. Its their bread and butter, bery frnakly speaking.

Otherwise there shouln't have been unncessary delays in cases in the first place. Dragging the case is also like deliberately 'not trying to save the marriage'.

First case is prolonged and then once parties are made to exhaust then they are sent for mediation and or amicable settlement or compromise.

Settlement or compromise mostly end with divorce by consent in 995 of the cases.

Let's not get confused with those words....otherwise people would have used words like .....'case resulted into reconcilement in couple'  etc and not words likesettlement or compromise

Judges (ex-lawyers) have only got to with numbers and their yearly status of cases disposed of etc for their promotions etc.

Judges hardly are interested for saving marriages.

Rather they miuse the discretion ............ even though sometimes petitioner's case has no merits .............. and indirectly help to keep dragging the case .................................until respondent comes to terms of compromise!!!

This is the true but harsh and grim reality as against projected rosy pictures in that article.

Take example of 498a, ........................even prima facie walk through of the case and the evidence adduced can tell whether case fits into category of 'evidence beyond the doubt'.

In family court cases ............... 'prepoderance of probability is what valued ....................

If the Respondent resists strongly in weak cases, ...........

Do the judges ever expedite the such weak cases? 

Do the judges ever dispose such weak cases by calling it 'dismissed bcos case has no substantial merits'? ...

Answer:- Never ever this happens .... they rather allow the matter to get dragged and get embittered to such an extent untill respondent gives up.

If Judges and lawyers were really concerned about saving marriages they won't have behaved like 'vultures patiently circling in the sky over the dying animal ...... but taken proactive initiative to help the couple not embitter it further' ........... Ghoda ghas se dosti karega to khayega kya?

Scenario:-

A)When Petitioner's case is strong.....

Answer:- In such cases Respondents don't waste their time ........ Respondent is already well advised and knows well that 'it is beneficial to get off the hook for as less damage as possible!!!...

So in the garb of educatedness respondent conveniently agree for mutual consent ........ instead of fighting the case which respondent is about lose .....

Or

Respondent has always been safeguarding itself right from day one of the marriage OR that the repondent has well chalked out plans post- breakup.

In short ................... only genuine cases of divorce where "Petitioner is the wronged party/genuine victim" are settled quickly!!

Then What kind of cases  keep lingering for years?............

B) When Petitioner's case is weak (or petitioner is playing a victim) .....

Answer:- Only those cases where petitioner's case not seemingly weak, but petitioner itself is like a party who's probably taken advantage of its own wrongs.

In such cases, instead of disposing the case quickly judges keep prolonging the petition (  Lawyers tell the Respondent that ......... 'Hon Court has lost interest in your case'!!!! ............ which is a rude shock to Respondent !!! ) till the opposite party gives up!!!

Above symptoms don't even remotely suggest that Judges or lawyers have anything to do with saving the institution of marriage

At the end, in the name of mutual consent ............... it results in "compromising to accept injustice".

Very rightly said Sir,

An innocent family of accused finds it very difficult to give-in to extortion and settle the case by losing lots of money. For them, It is more like ACCEPTING the false allegations. These kind of cases are spoiled and pulled to pressurize them more and make them believe that inspite of their innocence, they will not get justice in the end and so they should decide on settlement on other party's condition.

Its tough to accept this injustice, and those who are not accepting injustice (by paying up heavy amount of money), are facing a hell!

In the end when the case settles this way, what about DIGNITY of the falsely accused, nobody bothers about the same and this cannot b "justice" or "the end".....

@ Jamai of Law

Truely very rightly interpreted from common man's point of view. I specilly liked your illustration B as is seen as common cause of majority of husbands who were falsly implicated into various criminal cases.