The Supreme Court of India recently heard a noteworthy case on Monday. In the midst of ongoing divorce proceedings, counsels representing both parties informed the court that their clients were desirous of reconciling their marriage. However, the wife requested that they undergo formal mediation to negotiate the terms and conditions of the reconciliation. The Supreme Court made a ruling on this matter.
Case:
A Panel consisting of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar was presided over a hearing in relation to a marital dispute between a husband and wife, as reported by LiveLaw. During the hearing, the counsels for both parties informed the Panel that both the husband and wife sought reconciliation, but the wife requested the referral of the matter to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.
The Panel expressed confusion regarding the necessity for mediation at this stage. Justice Shah posed the question,
What is the need for mediation? Husband and wife are ready to go with each other. Then what’s the need?
Last time, we recorded your submission and granted you time. Don’t waste our time, be sure (of your decision).
To this, the wife’s counsel said,
A mediation session is required to discuss terms and conditions.
Justice Ravikumar intervened and remarked,
You want a written terms and conditions to ensure that each day whether it is complied with or not? Every day, you will look into it? Whether husband has complied with condition number 2 or 3?
The apex court then added,
Matrimony is based on mutual love and affection and not on terms and conditions.
Relocation with Husband
The husband in the case is employed in Saudi Arabia. The Panel questioned the wife on her willingness to accompany her husband.
Your client will have to go to Saudi Arabia. Sita-ji went with Ram, no? Follow Sita-Ram.
The wife confirmed her willingness to relocate. The Panel, in response to the parties’ joint request on February 6, referred the matter to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre and granted the Respondent husband permission to participate virtually in the session. The next hearing for this matter is scheduled for March 30.