Courts to settle Matrimonial Disputes at First under Mediation

The Apex Court  issued directions to all courts dealing with matrimonial disputes to settle all matrimonial disputes at first instance through the process of Mediation. The Supreme Court directed Family Courts and Criminal courts to refer parties to Mediation Centres to settle disputes through settlement under mediation. Mediation is an alternative process of resolution of disputes by trained mediators.

The Supreme Court of India directed Family Courts in view of section 9 of the Family Court Act to make all possible efforts to settle matrimonial disputes especially in relation to maintenance, child custody etc. through the process of mediation and to refer parties to mediation centres with the consent of parties. The apex court observed that the family courts should endeavor settlement of disputes through the process of mediation even after the filing of failure reports by counsellors. The Family Courts take the help of Counsellors in settling matrimonial disputes during the course of trial. The Court further observed that family court should set reasonable time-limit for the completion of the mediation process by the mediation centre so as to not cause any further delay in resolution of disputes by the family courts and observed that they may extend the time limit for mediation proceedings.

The Apex court also directed Criminal courts dealing with complaints under section 498 A of the Indian Penal code (IPC) to refer the parties to the mediation centres before the stage of hearing of the complaint. The court observed that this reference should only be done in case where parties to the disputes are willing to settle the dispute or facts support the existence of settlement. Offence under Section 498 A of IPC are non-compoundable offences wherein compromise cannot be reached and hence the court issued this direction.

Section 498 A of IPC provides complaint of harassment, cruelty or demand of dowry filed by wife against husband and relatives of husband. The court observed that the rigour, purport and efficacy of this section should not be diluted in the said process of reference of parties to mediation and further observed that the courts discretion to grant bail or not to grant bail is also not curtailed with respect to the section. The apex court also directed that all mediation centres to set up pre-litigation centre/desks to settle disputes at pre-litigation stage and to highly publicize them so as to encourage the process of mediation.

The court issued all these directions in view of the deplorable situation of matrimonial disputes in India so as to provide an opportunity to settle disputes amicably. The Apex court was hearing Civil Appeal No. 1794 of 2013 filed by the Appellant- husband K. Srinivas Rao v. D. A. Deepa against the order of High Court wherein a matrimonial dispute stretched to an extent that it strained the relationship beyond repair. The Decree of divorce was granted in the favor of Appellant-husband by the Family Court but the High court set aside decree of divorce and thereafter the above mentioned appeal was filed by the appellant-husband against the said order. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai pronounced the judgment and issued the above mentioned directions in view of the interest of victims of matrimonial disputes. The Court observed that the present dispute could have been settled amicably through mediation if the parties had been referred to Mediation Centre.

The matter pertained to matrimonial dispute between the Appellant-husband and respondent-wife who were living separately soon after the solemnization of marriage owing to some dispute that sufficed between both appellant and respondent‘s families. The respondent wife with intention of pressurizing the appellant–husband to take her back home filed a criminal complaint alleging misbehavior by appellant –husband’s mother. This was followed by series of counter-complaints by both spouses and series of events that strained the relationship and caused mental cruelty to the Appellant-husband who filed petition for divorce on the ground of mental cruelty and was respectively granted the said relief by the family Court.

The High Court reversed this order on the petition of the respondent-wife and observed that family court order was perverse in nature and observed that filing of complaint by the respondent-wife could not have amounted to mental cruelty and cannot be held as a ground of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The High Court also observed that the question of treating each other with cruelty cannot arise in the case as the appellant and the respondent had not stayed with each other for a long time.

The Supreme Court relying on various judicial precedents held in favor of the appellant-husband and granted decree of divorce and set aside the order of the High Court. The Apex Court observed that the conduct of the respondent- wife in fact caused mental cruelty to the appellant- husband and the marriage has been irretrievable broken down.

The Apex court observed that living under one-roof is  not a pre –condition for mental cruelty and observed that a spouse can cause mental cruelty by his/her conduct while he/she is not staying under one roof. The court observed that the spouse while is staying away can cause mental agony and make life of other spouse miserable by sending vulgar and defamatory letters or notices or filing complaint containing indecent allegations or initiating judicial proceedings.

The court observed that the conduct of the wife in filing unfounded, indecent and defamatory complaint against the appellant mother, filing  enhancement petition for sentence, questioning the acquittal of appellant and his parents and sending letters to permanently remove the appellant from his jobs clearly amounted  to mental cruelty.

The apex court further observed the Indian courts have always considered irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a very weighty circumstance amongst others necessitating factors while granting decree of divorce. The apex court observed that it has advised the Union of India to incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce under the Marriage act, 1955.

The apex court looking into facts and circumstance of the case also observed that the husband and wife had been living separately for long period of 10 years and thereby the creating unbridgeable distance between the two leading to breakdown of marriage beyond repair and thereby held in favor of the appellant and granted decree of divorce and also directed the appellant -husband to pay alimony to respondent wife in view of the litigation battle fought by her for almost a decade and in view of her dependence on her parents and brother coupled with the fact of the appellant –husband was earning well.