JAMMU: <\/em>The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court<\/a><\/strong>, through Justice Rahul Bharti<\/strong>, held that a divorce court must first make a real effort for reconciliation or mediation<\/strong> before directing the respondent to file a reply in a matrimonial dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court noted that the divorce petition was being treated as an ordinary civil case, in which the court was only following the usual process of appearance and reply<\/strong>. The High Court disapproved this approach because matrimonial disputes require a different and more sensitive handling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe trial court had proceeded without any intervening exercise at the first instance of mediation and reconciliation as is expected from the court.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n It further noted that Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong> and Order 32-A CPC<\/strong> require the court to make an effort at the first stage itself to help the parties reach an amicable settlement, depending on the facts of the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court found that instead of first attempting reconciliation, the trial court kept insisting on reply and objections<\/strong>. It even gave a last opportunity and warned that the right to file reply could be closed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court said that filing a reply in a divorce case means the respondent has to answer the allegations made in the petition. This can increase bitterness between husband and wife<\/strong> and may reduce the chance of settlement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court clearly observed that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe reply is, thus, then not going to smoothen the strained relationship obtaining between the two.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n And any later reconciliation attempt may become \u201cnothing but a meaningless venture.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court further clarified that reconciliation can be tried at any stage<\/strong>, but the first and most important attempt must be made at the beginning of the matrimonial case, when the respondent first appears.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also pointed out a separate error in the trial court\u2019s order, where the court designation was wrongly referred to as Principal Sessions Judge<\/strong>. The High Court said a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act is a civil matrimonial matter, not a criminal jurisdiction matter.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court directed the trial court to first undertake reconciliation or mediation<\/strong>. Only if that process fails can the divorce case proceed on merits, and only then can the respondent be asked to file reply or objections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND SECTIONS INVOLVED<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How It Applied In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Article 227, Constitution of India<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Gives High Court supervisory power over subordinate courts<\/td> Wife invoked this power because the divorce court was allegedly proceeding mechanically without first attempting reconciliation<\/td><\/tr> Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act<\/a>, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Provides grounds for divorce<\/td> Husband had filed the divorce petition under this section before the Principal District Judge, Samba<\/td><\/tr> Section 23(2), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Requires court to make effort for reconciliation in matrimonial cases, wherever possible<\/td> High Court held that the trial court should have first explored amicable reconciliation before asking for reply\/objections<\/td><\/tr> Order 32-A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/strong><\/td> Deals with family matters and requires courts to try settlement efforts in suitable cases<\/td> High Court said the trial court ignored the spirit of this provision by treating the divorce petition like a routine civil case<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n