Mediation – Supreme Court Refers Matrimonial Dispute to Former Judge for Settlement Talks
Mediation – The Supreme Court has decided to send an ongoing matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife to mediation, hoping that both sides can resolve their differences through mutual discussions. The court appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice M.R. Shah as the mediator to assist the parties in exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement before the legal proceedings continue.
The decision was taken by a Bench comprising Justices R. Mahadevan and Alok Aradhe after senior lawyers representing both parties agreed that mediation should be attempted before the case moves further. Accepting the joint request, the Bench directed that Justice M.R. Shah (Retd.) oversee the mediation process and make efforts to help the couple reach a mutually acceptable resolution.
Supreme Court Sets Framework for Mediation
While appointing the mediator, the apex court instructed both parties to coordinate directly with Justice Shah regarding the schedule and other procedural aspects of the mediation. The retired judge has been given the authority to determine the dates of the proceedings, lay down the terms governing the process, and decide his professional fee. The court also clarified that the mediation expenses will be shared equally by the husband and the wife.
In addition, the Bench ordered that all further proceedings pending before the family court will remain on hold until the mediator submits his report. The matter will be listed again before the Supreme Court after the mediation process is completed.
Challenge Originated From Gujarat High Court Order
The case reached the Supreme Court after the wife challenged a decision of the Gujarat High Court, which had declined to interfere with an order passed by a family court. The family court had chosen to postpone consideration of her application filed under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) until the stage of final arguments in the matrimonial proceedings.
The High Court had concluded that the family court had merely deferred the application instead of rejecting it outright. Therefore, it found no legal reason to interfere with the lower court’s decision at that stage.
Wife Raises Allegations Over Evidence and Financial Disclosure
Representing the wife before the Supreme Court, senior advocate A.M. Singhvi argued that the application sought action against the husband for allegedly making false statements before the court. According to the submissions, the husband was accused of fabricating evidence, suppressing important facts, and providing inaccurate information regarding his income and assets.
The wife maintained that these alleged misrepresentations had a direct bearing on her maintenance claim as well as the financial support sought for their seven-year-old child. Her counsel argued that delaying even a preliminary inquiry into these allegations could weaken the justice delivery process by allowing false statements to go unexamined during the proceedings.
Husband Defends Family Court’s Approach
Appearing on behalf of the husband, senior advocate Siddhartha Dave opposed the wife’s arguments and defended the family court’s decision. He submitted that the trial court had exercised its judicial discretion after hearing both parties and had appropriately decided to examine the application along with the final adjudication of the matrimonial dispute.
According to the husband’s counsel, the family court had followed a balanced procedure and there was no justification for altering its course before the completion of the main proceedings.
High Court Relied on Earlier Supreme Court Precedent
Earlier this month, the Gujarat High Court observed that the family court had neither dismissed nor rejected the wife’s application, but had simply postponed its consideration. The High Court further noted that no immediate prejudice had been caused to the petitioner because of the deferred hearing.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in the Iqbal Singh Marwah case, the High Court also stated that courts are not legally required to begin a preliminary inquiry immediately after such an application is filed. Instead, the trial court must first assess the available evidence to determine whether the alleged false statements had any meaningful impact on the administration of justice before deciding on further action.