UNUSUAL MATRIMONIAL SUIT BEFORE SUPREME COURT
Introduction:
Marriage is considered to be sacramental in Indian rituals. It is a relationship between two individuals and families, legally and socially bound to fulfill certain duties. And when that relationship starts facing problems and reaches the stage of divorce, there comes the stage of facing matrimonial disputes. Divorce can be defined as the legal separation of individuals and end of obligations.
In present scenario and culture prevalent in society, filing of such issues is not new. There are many instances where either of the spouse having a problem with the other partner, approaches the court to get relief or get a problem solved. Such institutions being sacramental, it is always advised and practiced by the authorities to preserve these institutions, by solving the issues either by consent of both parties or through any other means.
But the present Special Leave Petition which was filed before the Apex court was different and unusual from any other usual course of matrimonial dispute case.
Case Details:
In one of the cases, of matrimonial dispute which came before Apex Court filed in the form of special leave petition (SLP). It was before the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph, against the impugned of Jharkhand High Court, in an Anticipatory Bail application.
In this case, the husband had approached the High Court for anticipatory bail, in the anticipation of his wife may file criminal case him. The High Court thereafter made the couple to appear before it, to solve the problem. It ordered them to settle the matter, after which both the couple agreed to sign the “consent order”. In that consent order, it was a clause containing that the wife would be allowed to talk to her brother and sister for 1 hour only and that she won’t have any separate mobile phone with herself.
Aggrieved by this “consent order” by High Court, for restrictive use of mobile phone and restricted time, the wife files Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court, stating that no consent was given for such unusual order. The bench in this regard observed that “On a reading of the conditions, it appears that the intent is to seclude both the wife and husband from interference in the matrimonial affairs by their respective parents. What is material is, it is a consent order which is so recorded.”[1]
Contentions why High Court added such clause:
In the India marriage and family is considered to be the most important relationship prevailing between the two different families and also individuals. It is considered to be the basic unit of society and tends to influence morality and civilization. And therefore the authorities for marriage disputes settlements are always guided to preserve such institution either by mutual consent, or mediation, conciliation or by any other means as the courts may deem fit for the resettlement of matters.
In one of the case, G.V. Rao vs. LHV Prasad (2000)3 SCC 693 the court suggested that if marriage as a unit breaks down, then adjustment of various relations is required rupturing the usual structure and peace of the family. So, the family laws and Courts mostly encourage in matrimonial disputes for reconciliation and settlement by amicable agreement instead of litigating in Courts.[2]
And therefore for the resettlement and restitution of the marital relationship between the couple and preventive measures, such clause might have been added.
Conclusion:
The bench, therefore, dismissed the petition, although they allowed the wife to move to High Court claiming that she had never consented for such restricting order.
Report by Sakshi Raje
Reporters’ committee
Indian National Bar Association
[1] https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/wife-challenges-an-unusual-hc-order-restricting-her-mobile-use-147274?fb_comment_id=2515944041797969_2516049275120779
[2] http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-620-mediation-clearing-the-minefield-of-matrimonial-disputes.html