Dismissing mutual divorce over failed mediation unjustified

The Karnataka High Court has underscored the impropriety of summarily dismissing a mutual divorce petition solely on account of failed mediation attributable to the non-appearance of the parties.

In the context of an appeal challenging a Family Court’s expeditious dismissal of a marriage dissolution petition within a nine-month period, conspicuously deviating from the mandated eighteen-month waiting period prescribed by Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act for cases involving reconciliation attempts, the High Court has emphasized the legal inappropriateness of such precipitate dismissal.

Following the trial Court’s referral of the matter to mediation, the absence of the parties resulted in a reported non-settlement, as conveyed by the Mediation Centre. The trial Court, in the contested order, memorialized the purported endeavors of the parties toward reconciliation, subsequently leading to the dismissal of the petition.

A Division Bench of Justice K.S. Mudagal and Justice K.V. Aravind held, “the petition was dismissed within nine months. Even if it is accepted that the parties submitted before the trial Court that they are trying for reunion then Section 13B(2) of the Act required the trial Court to wait till eighteen months to enable the parties to report the settlement. Therefore the trial Court committed error in dismissing the petition on its own without the request of the parties for such disposal.”

The Court outlined the requirements for passing an order under Section 13B.

The Court noted that the petition was dismissed within nine months, contrary to the required waiting period of eighteen months in case of attempts at reconciliation. The trial Court was criticized for not referring the matter back to mediation and for acting against Section 13B(2) of the Act. The Court added, “If the matter was returned from the Mediation Centre for non-appearance of the parties, the trial Court at least should have referred the matter again to the Mediation Centre without dismissing the petition abruptly. The trial Court has acted contrary to Section 13B(2) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter requires to be remitted.”

The appeal was granted, overturning the contested order, with instructions for the parties to attend the Bengaluru Mediation Centre. Following mediation, the parties were mandated to appear before the trial Court on the same day.

The trial Court received directions to continue the proceedings in accordance with the mediation report and promptly adjudicate the petition.