Latest Judgement

This article has been researched and written by Advocate Aarun Chanda, who practices divorce law in Mumbai and Pune. It is intended solely for academic purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed are personal. Readers are encouraged to consult a qualified lawyer or advocate specializing in divorce cases for professional legal guidance.

When the law provides a remedy, mediation can sometimes provide something more valuable: a way forward.
There is a particular kind of silence that one learns to recognise in a matrimonial lawyer’s chamber.
It usually comes after both spouses have finished explaining why the other is responsible for the collapse of the marriage.
The husband has spoken for twenty minutes. The wife has spoken for another twenty-five. The file is open on the table, the junior has stopped taking notes, and everyone in the room is convinced that the other side has not merely been wrong but has been wrong consistently, systematically and, preferably, with documentary evidence.
I once had a matter in which the husband arrived with such a large bundle of papers that my junior asked whether the client had brought the pleadings or the entire history of the Indian subcontinent.
The client was serious.
His wife, he said, had made his life impossible.
A little later, when I spoke to the wife, she explained—equally seriously—that her husband had made her life impossible.
Both had come to court seeking justice.
Neither had yet considered what they would do with their lives if they obtained it.
That, in my experience, is one of the central difficulties of matrimonial litigation.
A court can decide whether a legal wrong has been established. It can grant or refuse relief. It can determine custody, maintenance or other legal consequences within its jurisdiction.
But a matrimonial dispute is not simply a legal dispute.
It is a dispute between two human beings who may once have been deeply connected and who may continue to remain connected through their children, finances, property and family relationships even after the marriage has ended.
This is precisely why mediation occupies such an important place in matrimonial jurisprudence.
And when the Supreme Court refers a matrimonial dispute to its Mediation Centre, it is not merely postponing adjudication.
It is creating an opportunity for the parties to do something that litigation, by its very nature, does not always permit them to do: to discuss their future rather than continue litigating their past.

1. THE LAW ITSELF RECOGNISES THAT MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES REQUIRE A DIFFERENT APPROACH
The statutory architecture of family litigation in India has never contemplated that every matrimonial dispute must necessarily end in an adversarial contest.
Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984imposes an affirmative obligation upon the Family Court to make efforts, in the first instance, to assist and persuade the parties to arrive at a settlement.
This is not an incidental provision.
It reflects the very philosophy behind the creation of Family Courts.
The Family Court is not merely a civil court wearing a different nameplate. Its statutory mandate recognises that family disputes require a more conciliatory, sensitive and less adversarial approach.
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955similarly contains a reconciliation-oriented philosophy. Section 23(2) requires the court, in appropriate circumstances, to make an endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the parties.
Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, meanwhile, provides the broader statutory framework for reference of appropriate disputes to alternative mechanisms of resolution.
The legislative message is therefore unmistakable.
The judicial system does not regard settlement as a retreat from justice.
In suitable cases, settlement is itself one of the legitimate objectives of justice.
The enactment of the Mediation Act, 2023 has further strengthened this framework. The Act provides a formal statutory architecture for mediation, including provisions dealing with pre-litigation mediation, court-referred mediation, appointment and role of mediators, conduct of mediation, confidentiality and enforcement of mediated settlements.
This is significant because mediation is no longer merely an informal adjunct to litigation.
It has become an important component of India’s formal dispute-resolution framework.

2. THE SUPREME COURT’S MESSAGE IN MATRIMONIAL CASES HAS BEEN REMARKABLY CONSISTENT
The Supreme Court has, for years, recognised that matrimonial disputes are particularly suitable for mediation.
The judgment which remains especially important in this context is K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226.
The Supreme Court expressly observed that matrimonial disputes, particularly disputes involving custody of children and maintenance, are eminently suitable for mediation. The Court also noted from its experience that a meaningful percentage of matrimonial disputes referred to mediation were being settled.
More importantly, the Court issued directions emphasising that Family Courts should make efforts towards settlement and, where appropriate, refer disputes to mediation centres. It also encouraged mediation centres to establish pre-litigation mediation facilities.
There is considerable wisdom in that approach.
If mediation is attempted only after the parties have spent several years attacking each other through pleadings, applications and appeals, much of the emotional damage may already have been done.
Why wait until the marriage has become a legal battlefield?
If there is a genuine possibility of settlement, mediation should ideally be considered before the parties become completely invested in winning the litigation.
The Supreme Court’s approach in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24 also provides the broader jurisprudential foundation for identifying disputes that are particularly amenable to alternative dispute resolution.
Matrimonial disputes naturally fall within the category of disputes in which a negotiated resolution can sometimes be more meaningful than an imposed one.

3. MEDIATION DOES NOT MEAN FORCING A MARRIAGE TO SURVIVE
This point deserves emphasis because it is often misunderstood.
When I tell a client that the Supreme Court has referred the matter to mediation, the client sometimes asks:
“Does that mean the Court wants me to go back to my spouse?”
No.
Mediation is not an order to resume matrimonial life.
Reconciliation is only one possible outcome.
The parties may reconcile.
They may agree to live separately.
They may negotiate the terms of a divorce.
They may resolve maintenance and property disputes.
They may agree upon custody and visitation arrangements.
They may withdraw connected proceedings.
Or they may simply discover that there is no possibility of settlement.
All of these are legitimate possibilities.
The purpose of mediation is not to preserve every marriage.
It is to give the parties an opportunity to determine their future voluntarily, rather than leaving every aspect of that future to the consequences of prolonged litigation.
That distinction is fundamental.

4. A JUDGE DECIDES; A MEDIATOR FACILITATES
Perhaps the greatest conceptual difference between adjudication and mediation lies in the questions each process asks.
The judge asks:
What does the law require?
The mediator asks:
What do the parties actually need?
The judge must determine rights on the basis of the pleadings, evidence and applicable law.
The mediator does not decide who is right.
Instead, the mediator attempts to understand why the parties are fighting and whether there is a solution acceptable to both.
That flexibility can be invaluable in matrimonial disputes.
Suppose a husband is resisting a maintenance claim.
The legal issue may be whether the wife is entitled to maintenance and, if so, in what amount.
But the practical dispute may actually be about certainty.
The wife may want assurance that she will have financial security.
The husband may want certainty that there will be no endless succession of maintenance claims.
A mediated settlement can sometimes address both concerns.
Similarly, a father seeking custody may actually be seeking meaningful involvement in his child’s life rather than exclusive physical custody.
A mother resisting custody may not necessarily wish to eliminate the father’s role; she may simply be concerned about the child’s welfare.
Litigation tends to translate these concerns into legal claims.
Mediation can allow the parties to discuss the concerns themselves.
That is one of its greatest strengths.

5. MEDIATION ALLOWS THE PARTIES TO SETTLE THE ENTIRE DISPUTE
Matrimonial litigation has a peculiar capacity to multiply.
A divorce petition may be accompanied by a maintenance case.
Then there may be proceedings under the domestic violence law.
Then a criminal complaint.
Then a custody application.
Then an application concerning jewellery.
Then a transfer petition.
Then an appeal.
Eventually, the parties have so many proceedings that neither remembers which application started the entire conflict.
Every proceeding may have its own lawyer, its own hearing date and its own interim application.
It is entirely possible for a marriage to end but for the litigation to continue for years.
Mediation can offer a way out of this procedural maze.
A properly negotiated settlement can potentially address the larger matrimonial dispute as a whole:
i. Dissolution of marriage;
ii. Permanent alimony;
iii. Maintenance;
iv. Custody;
v. Visitation;
vi. Education expenses;
vii. Medical expenses;
viii. Property;
ix. Jewellery and streedhan;
x. Personal belongings;
xi. Withdrawal or appropriate closure of pending proceedings;
xii. Financial obligations;
xiii. Future communication; and
xiv. Arrangements concerning children.
This holistic approach is something adversarial litigation does not always accomplish efficiently.
A court may be deciding one proceeding.
Mediation can address the relationship between all the proceedings.

6. CONFIDENTIALITY IS NOT A LUXURY—IT IS THE FOUNDATION
There is another feature which makes mediation particularly attractive in matrimonial matters.
People are more likely to speak honestly when they believe that what they say will remain within the mediation process.
Matrimonial litigation frequently involves intensely private matters.
i. Medical history.
ii. Financial difficulties.
iii. Intimate relationships.
iv. Family conflicts.
v. Private communications.
vi. Allegations concerning personal conduct.
People may be prepared to discuss these matters in confidence but may become extremely guarded if they believe every sentence will eventually appear in the next affidavit.
The Supreme Court recognised the importance of confidentiality in Moti Ram (D) through LRs v. Ashok Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 466.
Although that case arose from a landlord-tenant dispute, the Court’s observations regarding the confidentiality of mediation are of general importance.
The Court made it clear that if mediation succeeds, the signed settlement should be placed before the court without disclosing what transpired during the mediation. If mediation fails, the mediator should simply report that the mediation was unsuccessful and should not disclose the offers, counter-offers or discussions that took place.
The principle is obvious once one thinks about it.
Negotiation requires freedom.
If every offer made during mediation can later be used against the person who made it, the parties will negotiate defensively.
And defensive negotiation is rarely productive negotiation.
A husband should be able to say, “I am prepared to consider this,” without fearing that the sentence will appear in the next pleading.
A wife should be able to say, “Perhaps this is what I actually need,” without worrying that she has weakened her legal position.
Mediation works precisely because it creates room for such conversations.

7. THE SUPREME COURT MEDIATION CENTRE ADDS ANOTHER DIMENSION
The Supreme Court has not treated mediation as an abstract principle.
It actively uses its Mediation Centre in matrimonial litigation.
Recent Supreme Court orders demonstrate that matrimonial matters continue to be referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre where the Court considers a mediated settlement appropriate. In several matters, the Court has permitted the initial interaction to take place virtually, leaving it open to the mediator to require personal attendance if necessary.
This is an important practical development.
Matrimonial litigation today is often geographically complicated.
The husband may be in Delhi.
The wife may be in Pune.
The child may be studying in Bengaluru.
One proceeding may be pending in Mumbai and another in Hyderabad.
Expecting everyone to repeatedly travel to Delhi merely for an initial mediation session can itself become an obstacle.
Virtual mediation can reduce that barrier.
The Supreme Court has, in appropriate cases, expressly permitted parties to participate through video conferencing, while retaining the possibility of physical interaction where the mediator considers it necessary.
The technology may be modern.
The objective is not.
It remains the ancient legal idea that disputes are better resolved when people are given a meaningful opportunity to reach agreement.

8. MEDIATION CAN SUCCEED EVEN WHEN RECONCILIATION FAILS
One of the most important lessons from matrimonial mediation is that reconciliation and settlement are not synonymous.
A couple may conclude that they cannot live together.
That does not mean they cannot settle their disputes.
Indeed, some of the most successful matrimonial mediations involve couples who are completely clear that the marriage is over.
Their objective is simply to end the marriage without continuing the war.
This can be especially important where children are involved.
The parties may agree upon:
i. Where the child will live;
ii. When the other parent will meet the child;
iii. School and educational expenses;
iv. Medical expenses;
v. Vacations;
vi. Festivals;
vii. Birthdays;
viii. Communication by telephone or video;
ix. Travel arrangements;
x. Passports and foreign travel;
xi. Responsibility for extraordinary expenses; and
xii. The child’s relationship with grandparents.
These details may appear mundane in a courtroom.
They are not mundane to a child.
A child does not care which advocate made the better legal submission.
A child cares whether both parents attend the school function.
That is why mediation can sometimes produce a more practical parenting arrangement than a purely adversarial proceeding.

9. THERE ARE CASES WHERE MEDIATION CAN DO SOMETHING REMARKABLE
The Supreme Court’s own records provide examples of matrimonial disputes being resolved through mediation.
In one recent matter, the parties arrived at a settlement through the Supreme Court Mediation Centre covering their matrimonial disputes, financial claims and arrangements concerning their children.
In another recent matter, the settlement contemplated mutual consent divorce, closure of pending civil and criminal proceedings and a substantial financial settlement covering claims including maintenance and permanent alimony.
There are also cases where the parties, after extensive mediation, have decided to preserve their marriage and restructure their family arrangements, particularly with the welfare of their child at the centre of the settlement. A Supreme Court mediation record demonstrates how multiple mediation sessions—both jointly and separately—can eventually result in a comprehensive settlement.
These cases are instructive for a simple reason.
The courtroom often sees the parties at their most adversarial.
The mediator sometimes gets to see them at their most human.

10. BUT MEDIATION MUST NEVER BECOME COERCION
It is equally important not to turn mediation into a new form of pressure.
Not every case is suitable for settlement.
Cases involving serious violence, coercion, intimidation or an extreme imbalance of bargaining power require particular caution.
A party should never be persuaded to accept an unsafe arrangement simply because the system wants the case to end.
Nor should mediation be used to dilute the protection afforded by criminal law.
The Supreme Court itself recognised this caution in K. Srinivas Rao, while encouraging mediation in appropriate matrimonial and related disputes and making clear that the rigour and efficacy of criminal law should not be diluted merely because mediation is being attempted.
This is where judicial supervision remains essential.
Mediation is voluntary dispute resolution within the framework of law.
It is not a private substitute for the rule of law.

11. THE ROLE OF THE MATRIMONIAL LAWYER CHANGES IN MEDIATION
There is an interesting transformation in the advocate’s role when a case enters mediation.
In court, I am an advocate.
I argue.
I challenge.
I cross-examine.
I establish legal propositions.
In mediation, I remain an advocate, but I also become something of a translator.
I have to translate legal rights into practical consequences.
A client may say:
“I will never give her a rupee.”
My responsibility is to explain the likely legal exposure.
Another client may say:
“I will fight this case until the Supreme Court gives me justice.”
Sometimes the lawyer’s job is to gently point out that the Supreme Court is, inconveniently, not a retirement plan.
There comes a point when the question is not whether the client can continue litigating.
The question is whether the client should.
That distinction requires professional judgment.
A lawyer must explain the strengths of the case, but also its weaknesses.
The lawyer must explain the likely duration, cost and uncertainty of litigation.
Most importantly, the lawyer must help the client understand the difference between a settlement that is merely emotionally satisfying and one that is legally and financially sensible.

12. THE REAL CURRENCY OF MATRIMONIAL MEDIATION IS CERTAINTY
When people negotiate a matrimonial settlement, they often focus first on money.
That is understandable.
But money is only one component.
The real currency is often certainty.
Certainty about maintenance.
Certainty about custody.
Certainty about property.
Certainty about future litigation.
Certainty about the child’s education.
Certainty that the parties will not repeatedly return to court over the same dispute.
A person may theoretically obtain more after another five years of litigation.
But what is the cost of those five years?
Legal fees.
Travel.
Stress.
Lost professional opportunities.
Family conflict.
Children caught in the middle.
And the extraordinary emotional cost of having one’s private life repeatedly examined through pleadings and evidence.
This is why I often tell clients that settlement is not necessarily about asking:
“How much can I get?”
The better question is:
“What certainty can I obtain today in exchange for the uncertainty of continuing litigation?”
That is a much more mature way of approaching a matrimonial dispute.

13. A SETTLEMENT IS NOT A DEFEAT
There remains, unfortunately, a cultural tendency to regard compromise as weakness.
Some clients believe that if they settle, the other side has “won.”
I have never found that approach particularly useful.
If two people have spent four years fighting over a marriage that ended three years ago, there is little dignity in continuing the fight merely to prove who was right.
There are occasions when the most courageous legal decision is to stop litigating.
A settlement may mean that a husband agrees to pay a substantial amount.
It may mean that a wife agrees to withdraw certain claims.
It may mean that both sides make concessions.
That does not necessarily mean that either side was wrong.
It means they have decided that certainty is worth more than another round of litigation.
The law does not require every dispute to end with a winner and a loser.
Sometimes justice consists in helping both parties walk away with something they can live with.

14. MEDIATION CAN ALSO PROTECT THE DIGNITY OF THE PARTIES
Family litigation can be extraordinarily personal.
A husband and wife who once shared a bedroom may eventually find themselves explaining their private lives to lawyers, judges and sometimes several different courts.
The law requires such inquiry in appropriate cases.
But there is no virtue in unnecessary humiliation.
Mediation allows parties to discuss sensitive issues in a more controlled environment.
It can replace accusation with conversation.
Instead of:
“You abandoned me.”
the discussion may become:
“What arrangement will provide financial security?”
Instead of:
“You are denying me access to my child.”
the discussion may become:
“What parenting schedule will work for the child?”
Instead of:
“I want the house.”
the discussion may become:
“How can the housing issue be resolved so that neither party remains financially trapped?”
This change in language may appear small.
It is not.
Changing the question often changes the possibility of an answer.

15. WHY EARLY MEDIATION IS OFTEN BETTER THAN LATE MEDIATION
The Supreme Court in K. Srinivas Rao recognised the importance of attempting mediation at an early stage.
That principle deserves greater practical attention.
The earlier mediation occurs, the fewer procedural and emotional layers have accumulated.
Consider two cases.
In the first, the parties approach mediation after filing the divorce petition.
In the second, they arrive after six years, three criminal complaints, two maintenance proceedings, four transfer petitions and innumerable interim applications.
The second couple may still settle.
But they will have much more to overcome.
Every allegation creates resentment.
Every interim order creates a perception of victory or defeat.
Every failed negotiation makes the next negotiation harder.
The law should therefore encourage mediation not merely as a last-minute rescue operation but as an early dispute-resolution mechanism.
The Mediation Act, 2023, with its recognition of pre-litigation mediation and institutional mediation, provides an important statutory foundation for precisely such an approach.

16. BUT MEDIATION IS NOT A MAGIC WAND
As advocates, we must also be honest about its limitations.
Some parties simply do not want to settle.
Some disputes have become so deeply entrenched that even a highly skilled mediator cannot bridge the gap.
There are cases where one party uses mediation merely to delay the proceedings.
There are cases where allegations are so serious that litigation and adjudication are unavoidable.
And there are cases where the bargaining power between the parties is so unequal that extraordinary care is necessary.
The answer is not to abandon mediation.
The answer is to use it intelligently.
The success of mediation depends upon several things:
the willingness of the parties, the skill of the mediator, the preparedness of the lawyers, realistic expectations and the presence of a safe environment for negotiation.
When those ingredients exist, mediation can be extraordinarily effective.

17. THE ADVOCATE’S DUTY IS ULTIMATELY TO HELP THE CLIENT CHOOSE WISELY
There is a temptation in litigation to equate good advocacy with aggressive advocacy.
I do not agree.
Aggression has its place in a courtroom when the circumstances demand it.
But matrimonial litigation requires another quality as well: judgment.
A good matrimonial advocate must know when to fight.
But he or she must also know when to negotiate.
And perhaps most importantly, must know when to tell the client that continuing to fight may no longer serve the client’s interests.
That is not surrender.
That is professional responsibility.
A lawyer who explains only how to win the next hearing may be doing litigation.
A lawyer who helps a client understand how to rebuild life after the litigation is doing something more valuable.

18. THE RULE OF LAW IS NOT ONLY ABOUT DECIDING DISPUTES
After many years before Family Courts and High Courts, I have come to believe that the most important lesson of matrimonial mediation is a broader one.
The rule of law is often described in terms of courts, judgments, rights and remedies.
All of those are indispensable.
But the rule of law also requires institutions capable of resolving human conflict fairly, efficiently and with dignity.
A judgment can tell a husband and wife what the law permits.
A settlement can allow them to decide what their future should look like.
That does not make mediation less legal.
It makes mediation a different expression of the law’s commitment to peaceful dispute resolution.
The Supreme Court’s continued use of its Mediation Centre demonstrates that the highest court in the country does not see mediation as an alternative to justice.
It sees mediation as one of the instruments through which justice can sometimes be achieved more effectively. Recent Supreme Court records show the Court continuing to refer matrimonial disputes to its Mediation Centre and, where settlements emerge, bringing those settlements before the Court for appropriate orders.
That is particularly significant in family law.
Because a matrimonial dispute does not end merely because a judge pronounces an order.
The people remain.
The children remain.
The consequences remain.
And life, inconveniently, continues after the judgment.

19. THE FINAL MEASURE OF JUSTICE
There was a time when I thought that the ultimate achievement in matrimonial litigation was obtaining the best possible order for the client.
I still believe in strong advocacy.
I still believe in fighting firmly when a client’s rights are threatened.
But experience has taught me something else.
Sometimes the best result is not a judgment.
Sometimes it is a settlement.
Sometimes it is not reconciliation.
Sometimes it is a dignified separation.
Sometimes it is not winning the house.
It is ensuring that the children have a stable home.
Sometimes it is not obtaining the last rupee available under law.
It is obtaining financial certainty today rather than spending years fighting over money tomorrow.
And sometimes the greatest success is simply this:
Two people who once loved each other, and who can no longer live together, finally agree that they do not have to spend the rest of their lives fighting.
That is where Supreme Court mediation can be remarkably effective.
It does not weaken the Court.
It does not dilute legal rights.
It does not replace adjudication.
It provides something different.
An opportunity for the parties to take back some control over their own lives.
The law must always remain available when settlement fails.
The courts must always remain the guardians of rights.
But where two parties are capable of resolving their dispute voluntarily, fairly and with full knowledge of their legal position, there is no reason why the law should insist upon deciding everything for them.
After all, the finest achievement of the justice system is not always to declare a winner.
Sometimes, it is to make peace possible.
And in matrimonial litigation, where the real casualties of prolonged conflict are often not the litigants but their children and families, that may be one of the most important forms of justice that the rule of law can offer.

Seeking expert legal guidance?- Contact The Divorce Law Firm today.