MUMBAI: A city family court has directed a woman to pay Rs 50,000 after she filed a petition withdrawing the consent terms agreed upon before a judge mediator in her divorce battle. Allowing the woman's plea to withdraw the terms, the judge, however, observed, "Repatriation from mediation settlement casually is nothing but wastage of time, skill and energy of all concerned and, therefore, warrants saddling of exemplary cost."
Lamenting the state of affairs, the judge said, "Mediation settlement must not be resiled casually... unless there is force or coercion. Mediation must not be taken for granted. It is an alternate dispute resolution mode recognized and executable by law."
The woman and her husband have been estranged for a year and have an 11-year-old son. The order copy states that the couple was referred to a mediator with their consent, and had even resolved some of their problems. The terms for divorce by mutual consent were agreed upon after individual and joint mediation sessions were held with the parties.
On July 7, the couple signed the consent forms and the mediator judge informed the referral court. Both parties had dealt with a number of issues, including separate residence, lump sum alimony, permanent custody and access to their son. However, a month-and-a-half after signing the terms, the woman filed a petition in court seeking to withdraw the consent terms. The husband objected to this, saying it had been filed with the intention of forcing him to pay her more.
Going through the consent terms, the judge, citing an instance, observed that the woman had agreed to pay for the repair of the house, if any. "But now, the petitioner (woman) wants to deviate and claim repair charges. This is nothing but stretching the matter in an unfair manner," the judge said. The court further held that if the woman was not allowed to withdraw from the mediation settlement, the couple would have to obtain the divorce by mutual consent, as agreed. "I do not want to force mutual consent divorce upon the petitioner and that is the only reason I am allowing her to withdraw from the consent terms," the court said.
The woman's advocate S H Shyamani has said she will challenge the order before the HC. "She is a working woman and the amount is too high," he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment