Suits Related To Family Disputes

By Ananyamahajan1911 Views: 15659

Unlike the ordinary proceedings where the matter is between two parties who are not related to each other, family disputes require special assistance and sensitive approach from the court as not only it impacts the rights of the concerned parties but also impacts the personal relationships between the parties. In a suit relating to family dispute, emotional aspects are involved, which is not suitable for the ordinary approach of court.

Normally in a civil litigation, the court would attempt to restore the rights of the complainant and hold the defendant liable for his wrongs by applying its judicial mind. Nevertheless, this approach does not come in handy while dealing with family disputes as they require expertise, including the sensitivity to understand how a family works.

Matters which involves the cause of action related to custody of children, marriage etc are considered to be "Family Disputes". In order to decide these matters with efficiency, family courts were established under section 31.

CPC is the Grund norm from where the procedures are derived to sought out difference in a civil litigation. ORDER XXXII-A 2 aims to establish the procedure which only applies to matters pertaining to family disputes. The procedures also encourage the Court to make efforts for settlement in the first instance as it would provide a suitable outcome which strives to settle the dispute. Nevertheless, this is discretionary and not directory simply because there can be circumstances where there are no possible grounds of settlement.

There is total seven grounds under which order XXXII-A is applicable 3. Nevertheless, in order to understand the application of these procedures, we must look at the alternative means to resolve the dispute without the need to complete a litigation.

Statement of Issues

To understand how the disputes are resolved through alternative means.
And, to understand how the procedure under this order has established a practice for the same.

Statement of Rules

The rules under Order XXXII-A can be inferred as follows:

Rule 1 clearly mentions the exclusivity of the application of this order to only family disputes and further lays down the grounds on which a dispute can be registered.
Rule 2 gives the discretionary power to the court to conduct the proceedings in camera.
Rule 3 encourages the court to make efforts to settle the matter if there is any possibility for the same. The court may try to settle the matter if it feels the same at the first instance or at any stage of the litigation, during which it can adjourn the matter for a particular period.
Rule 4 talks about introducing a welfare expert in matters where the court may think fit in order to encourage the welfare of the family.
In ordinary litigation, the facts are set on the basis of statements and evidence presented by the parties. However, Rule 5 puts the court under the obligation to inquire into the facts.
The term "family" is defined under Rule 6, which tries to include every set of relationships where one can reasonably expect the other one to carry out a duty. Such relationships can be between "a man and his wife living together," etc.

Analysis

Order XXXII-A makes it clear that the court must attempt to settle the matters without the proceedings of an ordinary litigation when the matter is related to a family. This order also emphasises the fact that such matters require a sensitive approach and there is a need for the adoption of alternate means. It has been in existence before the insertion of Section 89 in 2002 which establishes the ADR mechanism. Order XXXII-A applies to all kinds of matters which may relate to a family such as succession, matrimonial relief, guardianship, etc. The purpose of this order is as follows:

To resolve the matters by alternate means: Settlement through alternate means resolves the matters between the family in an amicable manner, which prevents the cost of litigation and encourages mutually acceptable solutions that are time-efficient.
Decrease in the number of litigations: Currently, the Indian judiciary faces a high number of pending cases. If the cases relating to family matters can be solved through alternative means, it would slash the burden of courts.
Expansion of the purview of ADR mechanism: As Order XXXII-A aims to settle the matters through alternative means, the number of fresh applicants is also increasing every day to settle their respective matters. It boosts the confidence of the parties attempting to resolve their disputes through alternative means by validating it.
Customized solutions: Family matters may require different solutions which may not be offered in ordinary courts, and such solutions are possible only through settlements.

Case 1: Jograj Singh v. Birpal Kaur

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: C.K. Thakker & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

Brief Facts

A couple was married in 1993 under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The husband left the country for work in Darussalam in 1994. The wife followed him but returned soon after, and their relationship deteriorated. She filed for divorce under Section 13 on grounds of desertion and cruelty.

Issue

Whether the court of Faridkot had the jurisdiction over the matter?
Whether the petition can further be moved and divorce can be granted?

Rules

Section 13 - Divorce, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Order XXXII-A Rule 3 - Courts to make efforts for settlement, Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Analysis

The case was transferred to the High Court of Punjab. The district court held that it did not have jurisdiction and rejected the divorce petition. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that courts must attempt reconciliation first.

Judgement

The appeal was dismissed. The court held that it was an omission on part of the lower courts to not make reconciliation efforts. The non-bailable warrants were also quashed.

Conclusion

In light of Order XXXII-A, the Supreme Court emphasized the duty of courts to encourage settlements in matrimonial matters. The preservation of family relationships should be a primary consideration.

Case 2: Mitali v. Debanrata

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Ashok Kumar Ganguly & Arijit Pasayat

Brief Facts

A petition was filed by the wife under Section 13(1)(a) seeking divorce and maintenance. She obtained an ex-parte decree from the Nagpur family court. The matter was later transferred to the Delhi High Court for mediation.

Issue

Whether there is any possibility of reconcilement?

Rules

Section 13 - Divorce, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Order XXXII-A Rule 3 - Courts to make efforts for settlement, Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Analysis

The Supreme Court laid down the following settlement terms:

The husband will pay ₹7 lakhs as maintenance in two instalments.
The wife will retain custody of the son; the father may visit six times a year.
The son retains rights over ancestral property.
The husband will reimburse the wife for all expenses borne by her.
The husband will return the "Stridhan" kept in the almirah.
The husband will withdraw his divorce petition and the wife will not press for the Nagpur decree.

Judgement
The court dismissed the petition by assisting the parties to reconcile on the mutually agreed terms.

Conclusion
This approach can be helpful in order to resolve the disputes even in the matters of divorce. The case of "Mitali v Debanrata" was filled before the court u/s 13 b 7 which was later disposed of in the view of joint application filed by both the parties for settlement due to the efforts made by the court in the lieu of order XXXII-A.

Establishment Of Family Courts
Nevertheless, this order could not achieve the desired result because of which family court were established later on. This was ruled in the leading case of "K.A. Abdul Jaleel v T.A Sahida" 8 , the court in the lieu of Family courts act, 1984 had a contrasting opinion about this order as it mentioned that institution of said act was done to encourage conciliation in order to promote cost effective means that resolves disputes and offer solution in a reasonable time.

Nevertheless, it was enacted only because order XXXII-A could not achieve the desired result as the order does not carves out a procedure which directly offers a solution as the mere efforts of an ordinary court may lack the expertise which a family court is established for.

Conclusion
Families are the core aspect of our society. Whenever there is a dispute among its members, the first response of the judiciary is to resolve the dispute rather than passing a verdict that directly makes one party liable and may deeply impact the status of the concerned party. Order XXXII-A of CPC 1908 aims to develop a sensitive approach that accommodates matters relating to family disputes. Such disputes are not suitable for the ordinary course of civil litigation as it does not have an obligation to consider the emotional value of the relationship between the parties. In civil litigation, it is not necessary for the parties to have a personal relationship, and the verdict of such litigations does not affect the personal lives of the parties.

The verdict in family disputes may lead to their decline, and for a society and family being the very fabric of a civilised society, requires disputes between them to be resolved amicably. Under rule 3 of order XXXII-A, the court is encouraged to make efforts to settle such disputes without relying on the traditional litigation system. There have been notable cases where the parties have mutually filed an application to transfer their case to a mediation centre for a suitable solution that does not impact their marital status. This order not only amicably resolves the disputes between the family members but also prevents an increase in the number of civil litigations, which lowers the burden of our judiciary.

Order XXXII-A was enacted by an amendment to CPC; however, it could not reach the desired result due to the courts lacking the expertise of a family court, which was later established by the Family Courts Act in order to resolve such cases. It is worth mentioning that order XXXII- A may not have been a successful attempt made by the legislature. However, it was a step in the right direction, which led to the enactment of the Family Court Act in our nation, further promising a better resolution to the traditional legal system.

End Notes: