Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bhavana Ramaprasad, wife of Yadunandan Parthasarathy, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 06.08.2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in M.C.No.1163/2014. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 27.06.2013 according to Hindu Vedic rites and was also registered. The respondent-husband, through his power of attorney holder, filed a petition under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 11.03.2014 seeking a declaration that the marriage is null and void ab initio. The petitioner-wife entered appearance on 18.06.2014 and filed a memo on 23.07.2014 requesting the Family Court to refer the case to mediation, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24. The Family Court, by the impugned order, rejected the memo on the ground that the petition is for declaration of nullity of marriage and not a matter which can be referred to mediation. The High Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the Family Court had not considered the mandatory nature of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the binding precedent of the Supreme Court. The High Court held that the Family Court was required to examine whether the case contained any element of settlement and, if so, refer it to alternative dispute resolution. Since the Family Court failed to do so, the impugned order was set aside. The High Court directed the Family Court to refer the matter to mediation in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Nullity of Marriage - Mediation Referral - Section 12(1)(c) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 89 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The Family Court refused to refer the case to mediation on the ground that the petition sought a declaration of nullity of marriage, which is not a matter capable of settlement. The High Court held that the Family Court erred in not considering the mandatory nature of Section 89 CPC and the binding precedent in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24, which requires courts to refer cases containing elements of settlement to alternative dispute resolution. The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Family Court to refer the matter to mediation. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can be referred to mediation under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, despite the Family Court's refusal on the ground that the matter involves a declaration of nullity.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 06.08.2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in M.C.No.1163/2014, and directed the Family Court to refer the matter to mediation in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Mediation referral is mandatory under Section 89 CPC when there is an element of settlement
- even in matrimonial nullity proceedings
- Hindu Marriage Act
- 1955
- Section 12(1)(c)
- Section 89 Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd.
- (2010) 8 SCC 24
