Mediation and Marriage Disputes: Supreme Court ruling in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa

With modes of alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) emerging as a popular mechanism, their influence on marriage disputes is inevitable. Further, given the delicate nature of marriage disputes and their abysmal consequences for the couple and their families, litigation only makes the dispute worse. This is evident from the manner in which parties keep on accusing each other in a litigating dispute. In litigation, instead of resolving the dispute in an amicable manner, it rather becomes a matter of winning and losing the game. These matrial disputes, usually arising from trivial problems, can be settled amicably at an early stage.  It is at this early stage that the usage of alternative dispute mechanisms becomes important.

In the recent case of K Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, Supreme Court considered the importance of mediation as a means for settling a marriage dispute amicably. The case that, by special leave, came before the Court was related to a dispute whereby husband had sought divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. While granting divorce, Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai referred to the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, in which Supreme Court had laid down some guiding principles for determining mental cruelty. In the instant case of K Srinivas Rao, wife filed criminal cases against the husband and his family members (including a case under Section 498-A). She also made an allegation that the mother of the husband asked her to sleep with the father of the husband. After discovering the presence of mental cruelty, court also opined that the marriage had broken down irretrievably.  

What for Mediation?

Considering the importance of mediation in matrimonial disputes, Court noted that 10 to 15% of the matrimonial disputes get resolved by various mediation centres. Since the cause of the misunderstanding in a matrimonial dispute is usually trivial at first, the same, in the opinion of the court, can be sorted out by a mediator before it takes the shape of a furious legal battle. Following observation was made by the bench:

“We, therefore, feel that at the earliest stage i.e. when the dispute is taken up by the Family Court or by the court of first instance for hearing, it must be referred to mediation centres. Matrimonial disputes particularly those relating to custody of child, maintenance, etc. are preeminently fit for mediation. Section 9 of the Family Courts Act  enjoins upon the Family Court to make efforts to  settle the matrimonial disputes and in these efforts,  Family Courts are assisted by Counsellors. Even if the Counsellors fail in their efforts, the Family Courts  should direct the parties to mediation centres, where trained mediators are appointed to mediate between the parties. Being trained in the skill of mediation, they produce good results”

At the same time, court also observed that there can, very often, be situations when one of the parties files a case under Section 498A of IPC. Since offence under Section 498A is non-compoundable, it is usually not possible to circumscribe it by means of a settlement (“A successful mediation results into a settlement”). In fact, Supreme Court, in Ramgopal & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.[ (2010) 13 SCC 540], had requested the Law Commission and the Government of India to  examine whether offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC could be made compoundable.

As an interim solution to this problem, the court can approve the result of mediation (“even in the presence of a case under Section 498A of IPC”) by using its inherent powers. If a dispute can be solved amicably and marriage can be saved, there is no point in dragging up the issue in a litigation. In B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.[ AIR 2003 SC 1386],  Court had held that

“...complaint involving offence under Section 498-A of the IPC can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code if the parties settle their dispute.”

In the instant case, court made the following final observation:

“In terms of Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, the Family Courts shall make all efforts to settle the matrimonial disputes through mediation. Even if the Counsellors submit a failure report, the Family Courts shall, with the consent of the parties, refer the matter to the mediation centre

The criminal courts dealing with the complaint under Section 498-A of the IPC should, at any stage and particularly, before they take up the complaint for hearing, refer the parties to mediation centre if they feel that there exist elements of settlement and both the parties are willing..” (Emphasis supplied)

While first observation is appearing to be of mandatory character, the latter appears of a recommendatory character.

This is yet another case which shows how alternative dispute mechanisms are important. However, success of mediation in matrimonial disputes largely depends on the co-operation between the parties. From my own experience at a family mediation centre, I have seen the decision of the parties getting influenced by their relatives, parents. In such a situation, the possibility of them coming to an amicable solution reduces. Nonetheless, there is no harm in making parties resort to such a mechanism (at least 10-15% cases are settled by it)!