Need To Sensitize Family Court About Settling Divorce Cases Through Mediation : Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has expressed displeasure over the conduct of Principal Judge, Begusarai Family Court for dismissing a divorce case without making an effort for conciliation of the dispute of the parties, which is the spirit of Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (“Act”).

In this regard, the bench comprising Justices PB Bajanthri and Alok Kumar Pandey expressed the need to sensitize the Presiding Officer and asked its Registrar General to circulate a copy of this judgment amongst all the Presiding Officers of the Family Courts across the State and send a copy to the Director, Bihar Judicial Academy for needful.

“It is necessary to sensitize the presiding officer of Family Court as the present matter has been discussed in detail in the Judgment which has highlighted that how the Family Court has handled the said matter in a casual and routine manner and how the Family Court has acted in derogation of spirit of Family Courts Act. On the said aspect, Registrar General is requested to circulate a copy of this judgment amongst all the Presiding Officers of the Family Courts and send a copy to the Director, Bihar Judicial Academy for needful.”, the court ordered.

In the present case, the appellant/husband and respondent/wife solemnized marriage on 05.05.2013. The husband/appellant faced marital discord with his wife/respondent and therefore approached the court to seek relief.

The Family Court dismissed the divorce petition filed by the husband without hearing the parties in dispute. Both husband and wife appeared on the date of hearing of the case and the concerned court had not followed the basic principle required as per Section 9 of the Act.

Since the Principal Judge of the Family Court had not followed the statutory mandate of referring the case for mediation and instead straightaway dismissed the petition, the court added that the Family Court must have refrained from acting casually and mechanically.

“The Principal Judge, Family Court is one of the most experienced court at the trial level and special task has been assigned to the Family Court to primarily settle the matrimonial dispute amicably by way of conciliation or mediation or through other modes which is suitable to the parties but the same principle has not been followed by the concerned Family Court as the concerned court has handled the matrimonial dispute in a very casual manner without following the basic principle required as per statutory provision.”, the court said.

Reference was drawn from the cases of K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa (2013) and Jalendra Padhiary vs. Pragati Chhotray (2018), where the Supreme Court emphasized the need to send the marital disputes to the mediation & conciliation centers at the earliest stage of the hearing so that the possibility of settling the disputes with the assistance of the trained mediators could not be ruled out.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

“In the light of discussions made above, it is clear that order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai is without application of mind and in a routine and casual manner the concerned court has handled sensitive case which is related with matrimonial dispute and such order deserves to be set aside.”, the court held.

The matter was remitted back to the Family Court to hear the matter afresh by giving notice to both the parties as well as after giving ample opportunity to both parties to file their contentions and thereafter, decide the issues based on material available on record and pass reasoned order after following the due procedure of the Family Courts Act, 1984 within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment.

Appearance:

For the Appellant/s: Mr.Rai Mukesh Sharma, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: None

Case Title: Rajeev Kumar @ Rajiv Kumar versus Arti Kumari, Miscellaneous Appeal No.352 of 2018

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 77

Click here to read/download the judgment