JOIN USRefer marital tiff to mediation, SC tells criminal courts
The Supreme Court on Friday asked criminal courts dealing with matrimonial disputes to refer all the cases to pre-litigation mediation, saying that many families would be saved of hardships if some of the cases get settled.
A bench of Justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Prakash Desai said, even though the offence punishable under Section 498-A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code is a non-compoundable offence, this court had always adopted a positive approach and encouraged settlement of matrimonial disputes and discouraged their escalation.
“Quite often, the cause of the misunderstanding in a matrimonial dispute is trivial and can be sorted. Mediation as a method of alternative dispute resolution has got legal recognition now,” it said.
However, the apex court added, “the courts should take care to see that in this exercise, rigour, purport and efficacy of Section 498-A of the IPC is not diluted.
“All mediation centres shall set up pre-litigation desks/clinics; give them wide publicity and make efforts to settle matrimonial disputes at pre-litigation stage,” the court said, while appreciating the Delhi government’s Mediation and Conciliation Centres, and the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre, for being able to settle several matrimonial disputes.
Indecent allegation
The apex court made the direction while allowing the plea of a man, working as assistant registrar at the Andhra Pradesh High Court, for dissolution of his marriage due to mental cruelty caused by his wife due to some “indecent allegation” as well as multiplicity of bitter litigations.
Justice Desai, who wrote the judgment, rejected the view taken by the high court, which had held since parties did not stay together, they could not have cause mental cruelty to each other.
“Staying together under the same roof is not a pre-condition for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the same roof,” the court said.
The court directed the husband to pay Rs 15 lakh as permanent alimony to the woman, who opposed the plea for the husband for grant of divorce, saying that she was still willing to live with him.
“In our opinion, the first instance of mental cruelty is seen in the scurrilous, vulgar and defamatory statement made by the respondent-wife in her complaint to police. The statement that the mother of the appellant-husband asked her to sleep with his father is bound to anger him…. This statement cannot be explained away by stating that it was made because the respondent-wife was anxious to go back to the appellant-husband. This is not the way to win the husband back. It is well settled that such statements cause mental cruelty,” the court said.
In the instant case, the court noted the husband and wife were staying apart since April 27, 1999, just two days after their marriage due to some disputes between the elders on both the sides, which had created an unbridgeable distance between the two.