GAYA-824236

SCHOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE

Alternative Dispute Resolution (Law 450)

**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****

-: PROJECT RESEARCH TITLE :-

Conciliation under Hindu Marriage Act,

1955

Under the Supervision of: Mrs. Swati

Assistant Professor,
School of Law & Governance,
Central University of South Bihar

Submitted By:-

Amit Kumar
B.Sc. LL.B (Hons.)
8th Semester (2015-2020)
Enrolment- CUSB1513115005

1|Page
 PREFACE

As a part of the LL.B. Curriculum (as prescribed by The Bar Council of India)
and in order to gain practical cum research knowledge in the field of law, I’m
required to make a project report on prescribed topic as per given by the
authority (my mentor cum teacher). Here, I have got the topic to research on
Conciliation under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 under ADR. I required to make a
report on the specified topic. The Basic Objectives behind doing this project
report is to get knowledge of the facts and analyze it with reference to
Conciliation under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 under ADR.

In this project report I have included various concepts, effects, methodology

and implications regarding celebrity endorsement and analyses the effect of
conciliation rules.

Doing this Project report helped me to enhance my knowledge regarding the

endorsement and implications of applying and in understanding the meaning of
Good Governance and working functions of Indian Judicial System.

2|Page
 Acknowledgement
I, Amit Kumar, take extreme pleasure in expressing my profound gratitude towards my ADR
Law teacher Mrs. Swati (Assistant Professor, Law) for inspiring me and giving me the
invaluable guidance and constant support throughout the course of my project work. I have taken
efforts in thus kind project. However, it would not have been possible without the kind support
of my teacher, friends, colleagues and many more individual persons, writers, college staffs,
librarians and other sources of e-resource. I would like to sincere thanks to all of them.

I thank my parents for providing me everything whatever be required for the completion of this
research work.

Finally, I would like to thanks all Kith & Kins who are a little bit part in helping me for this
research work.

Yours Sincerely

Amit Kumar
B.Sc. LL.B. (Hons.) - 8th Sem.
CUSB1513115005
School of Law & Governance,
Central University of South Bihar

3|Page
 Table of Content

S. No. Index Page Number

01. Objective of Research 05
02. Research Methodology 05
03. Abstract 06
04. Chapter: 1 (Introduction) 07
05. Chapter: 2 (Historical Background) 10
06. Chapter: 3 (Constitutional Aspects) 14
07. Chapter: 4 (The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) 18
08. Chapter: 5 (Conciliation and its Aspects under ADR) 25
09. Chapter: 6 (Conclusive Remarks and Suggestions) 28
10. Conclusion 33
11. Bibliography 34
****

4|Page
 Objectives of Research
Objectives of study:

I. To analyze the structure of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism in India.

II. To understand conciliation under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Research Methodology
It is always important to be critical of the information presented in sources, especially since the
material might have been gathered to address a different problem area. Moreover, many
secondary sources do not clearly describe issues such as the purpose of a study, how the data has
been gathered, analyzed and interpreted making it difficult for the researcher to assess their
usefulness. In order to address this problem I have tried to triangulate the secondary data by
using numerous independent sources.

The information about the problem is collected from the Research Journals, Trade Magazines,
Annual Reports of e-courts and the Internet. For evaluating, Structure and Functions of
Conciliation proceeding in India, I have focused on as recent material as possible. In order to get
access to the latest developments in this area I have used a number of articles published in
academic journals and trade magazines. I have also used secondary information from Internet
based discussion forums.

5|Page
 Abstract

Family plays a crucial role in any community or society. A family is an association as well as an
institution. Not only economic needs but also, more importantly, the emotional needs of the
members are taken care of in the family. Today, divorces and disputes over property inheritance
are proliferating like never before in Hindu families, which is no doubt less than other families.
The reasons may vary from economic conditions to professional problems and psychological
imbalances. The author of the article made a socio-legal study of the causes of the conflict in the
family with respect to ADR mechanism and focused on conciliation proceeding. It is important
for the society to devise means of protecting the family and also preventing and resolving the
disputes that could damage and destroy the delicate fabric of the family. The author suggests
conciliation and mediation for the resolution of these disputes as these mechanisms offer
multifaceted resolution advantages like objectivity, due focus on the issues, neutrality and
independence. The author also gives an overview of various statutory frameworks in India
supporting ADR mechanisms in family disputes.

Keywords: Conciliation, Marriage, Hindu Family, ADR, Disputes

6|Page
 Chapter: 1

“There is one thing stronger than that of the armies of the world and that is an idea whose time
has come”
-Victor Hugo

Introduction

The Alternative dispute resolution which provides for an additional forum in the resolution of
disputes has become an indispensable tool in the modem times. The evolution of different
alternative dispute resolution mechanisms has been spread over various legislative statutes.
There were the initial sporadic attempts to initiate settlement\compromise in various disputes
pertaining to matrimonial matters, industrial disputes and negotiable instruments etc. Gradually
comprehensive alternative dispute resolution regimes were evolved as in the case of Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 etc.

The range of disputes that may be subject to ADR regime is quite vast. In fact all kinds of
disputes except a narrow set fall within the hugely expanding frontiers of ADR. Under Indian
Law, the following types of differences cannot be settled by ADR mechanisms, and therefore,
are mandatorily settled only through courts:
 Matters of public rights
 Non compoundable offences
 Proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) which are quasi-
criminal in nature
 Validity of intellectual property rights granted by statutory authorities
 Taxation matters beyond the will of the parties
 Winding up under the Companies Act, 1956
 Disputes involving insolvency proceedings.

7|Page
In the increasingly globalised world, India has entered into bilateral investment treaties with a
number of countries including Australia, France, Japan, Korea, UK, Germany, Russian
Federation, The Netherlands, Malaysia, and Denmark, Overseas Private Investment Corporation
(OPIC) of US. Each agreement makes provision for settlement of disputes between an investor
of one contracting party and an investor of the other contracting party through negotiation,
conciliation and arbitration.
India is a party to the Convention establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency
(MIGA), which provides for settlement of disputes between State parties to the Convention and
MIGA through negotiation, conciliation and arbitration. The global trends and the domestic
constraints make ADR an imperative feature of the justice dispensation mechanisms in the
country. Various legislative enactments in India incorporate various forms of ADR as a means of
settlement of disputes. Some of the prominent ones are:

(1) Legislative Framework for the Working of Alternative Dispute Resolution

(a) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

The first avenue where conciliation has been effectively introduced and recognized by law is in
the field of labor law, namely Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Conciliation has been statutorily
recognized as an effective method of Dispute Resolution in relation to disputes between workers
and the management. The provision in the Act makes it possible for disputing parties to settle
disputes by negotiation and failing that through conciliation and arbitration through an officer of
government, before resorting to litigation.
The Act provides specifically both for conciliation and arbitration for the purpose of settlement
of disputes. The duty for making the attempts for conciliation and arbitration is cast on
conciliation officers appointed under Industrial Disputes Act.

(b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 recognizes the rights of the parties to enter into compromise
and withdraw the suits on that basis. Under Order XXIII, parties may either abandon the claim or
request the court to record the compromise between the parties. It makes a provision for making

8|Page
any decree on any lawful agreement or compromise between the parties during the pendency of
the suit by which claim is satisfied or adjusted. The scheme of the provision is that if the court is
satisfied that a suit has been adjusted wholly or partly by a lawful agreement or compromise, the
Court shall pass a decree in accordance with it. Another provision permits for execution of an
agreement between the parties, in writing, to the effect that upon a decision on an agreed
question of fact or law as stated by them, the result would follow as specified in the agreement.
A duty is also cast on the part of a judicial officer to assist the parties to arrive at a mutual
settlement. Further, it is the duty of the court to endeavor to assist the parties in arriving at the
settlement in respect of the subject matter of the suit or proceeding concerning family disputes.
The provisions of this Order applies to all proceedings relating to family, like guardianship,
custody of minor, maintenance, wills, succession, etc. Rule 3 imposes a duty on the court to
make an effort of settlement by way of providing assistance where it is possible to do so.
The amendments made to the CPC in 1999 and in 2002 seek to institutionalize ADR techniques
in the Indian Judicial System. By the said amendments, a new Section12 has been introduced in
the CPC, which provides that, in any dispute before it, if the court finds that there exists elements
of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, then the court should formulate the terms
of settlement and give them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the
observation of the parties, the court may formulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer
the same either for arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement including settlement through Lok
Adalat or mediation.

9|Page
 Chapter: 2

Existing Family Law Legislations Prevalent in India

India is a land of diversities with several religions. The oldest part of the Indian legal system is
the personal laws governing the Hindus and the Muslims. The Hindu personal law has undergone
changes by a continuous process of codification. The process of change in society has brought
changes in law reflecting the changed social conditions and attempts the solution of social
problems by new methods in the light of experience of legislation in other countries of the world.
The Muslim personal law has been comparatively left untouched by legislations.

The Indian legal system is basically a common law system. The Indian Parliament has enacted
the following family laws which are applicable to the religious communities defined in the
respective enactments themselves. A brief description of each of these separate enactments is
given as hereunder.

The main marriage law legislation in India applicable to the majority population constituted of
Hindus is known as The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which is an act to amend and codify the law
relating to marriage among Hindus. Ceremonial marriage is essential under this act and
registration is optional. It applies to any person who is a Hindu, Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by
religion and to any other person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion. The act
also applies to Hindus resident outside the territory of India. Nothing contained in this act shall
be deemed to affect any right recognized by custom or conferred by any special enactment.
Likewise, in other personal law matters, Hindus are governed by the Hindu Succession Act,
1956, which is an act to amend and codify the law relating to intestate succession among Hindus.
The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is an act to amend and codify certain parts of
the law relating to minority and guardianship among Hindus and the Hindu Adoptions and

10 | P a g e
Maintenance Act, 1956 is an act to amend and codify the law relating to adoptions and
maintenance among Hindus.

It may be pertinent to point out that the Indian Succession Act, 1925, is an act to consolidate the
law applicable to intestate and testamentary succession in India unless parties opt out and choose
to be governed by their respective codified law otherwise applicable to them. In respect of issues
relating to guardianship, the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 applies to non-Hindus. Interestingly,
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure-1973, provides that irrespective of religion, any
person belonging to any religion can approach a magistrate to request maintenance. Therefore,
apart from personal family law legislations, both Hindus and non-Hindus have an independent
right of maintenance under the general law of the land, if he or she is otherwise entitled to
maintenance under this code.

The Indian Parliament also enacted the Special Marriage Act, 1954, as an act to provide a special
form of marriage in certain cases, for the registration of such and certain other marriages and for
divorces under this act. This enactment for solemnizing marriage by registration is resorted to by
Hindus, non-Hindus and foreigners marrying in India who opt out of the ceremonial marriage
under their respective personal laws. Registration is compulsory under this enactment. Divorce
can also be obtained by non-Hindus under this act. This legislation governs people of all
religions and communities in India, irrespective of their personal faith. Likewise, under the
Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, a person has only to be a citizen of India to have a marriage
solemnized under this act outside the territorial limits of India.

The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 as amended in 1988, is an act to amend the law
relating to marriage and divorce among the Parsis in India.

The Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, was enacted as an act to consolidate and amend the
law relating to the solemnization of the marriages of Christians in India and the Divorce Act,
1869 as amended in 2001, is an act to amend the law relating to divorce and matrimonial causes
relating to Christians in India.

The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, The Dissolution of Muslim
Marriages Act, 1939, The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and The
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Rules, 1986, applies to Muslims living in

11 | P a g e
India. For enforcement and adjudication of all matrimonial and other related disputes of any
person in any of the different religious or non-religious communities under the respective
legislations mentioned above, the designated judicial forum or court where such petition is to be
lodged is prescribed in the respective enactments themselves. There is an organized system of
designated civil and criminal judicial courts within every state in India which works under the
overall jurisdiction of the respective high court in the state. It is in the hierarchy of these courts
that all family and matrimonial causes are lodged and decided. In addition, the Indian Parliament
has enacted The Family Courts Act, 1984 to provide for the establishment of family courts with a
view to promote conciliation in and to secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage
and family affairs. Despite the existence of an organized, well-regulated and established
hierarchy of judicial courts in India, there are still unrecognized parallel community and religious
courts in existence whose interference has been deprecated by the judicial courts since such
unauthorized and unwarranted bodies work without the authority of law and are not parts of the
judicial system.

Background Note to Alternative Dispute Resolution in India

It is believed that the development of the country can be also understood by observing the
capability of its legal system to render effective justice. The practice of amicable resolution of
disputes can be traced back to historic times, when the villages’ disputes were resolved between
members of particular relations or occupations or between members of a particular locality. In
rural India, the ‘Panchayats’ (assembly of elders and respected inhabitants of the village) decided
nearly all the disputes between the residents of the village, while disputes between the members
of a clan continued to be decided by the elders of the clan. These methods of amicable dispute
resolution were recognized methods of administration of justice and not just an “alternative” to
the formal justice system formed by the sovereigns, feudal lords or the Adalat systems initiated
by the British and the formal court system. The two systems continued to function analogous to
each other. The process followed by the traditional institutions was that of arbitration and
conciliation, depending on the character of dispute.

12 | P a g e
In India, there is a massive legal system comprising nearly 15,000 courts across the country. It is
the constitutional obligation of the judiciary to exercise its jurisdiction to reaffirm the faith of the
people in the judicial set up. Therefore, evolution of new juristic principles for dispute resolution
is not only important but imperative. In India the need to evolve alternative mechanisms
simultaneous with the revival and strengthening of traditional systems of dispute resolution has
been reiterated in reports of expert bodies1. Each of these reports saw the process of improving
access to1justice through legal aid mechanisms and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as a part
of the systemic reform of the institution of the judiciary coupled with substantive reforms of laws
and processes.

Existing Statutory Provisions for ADR in Law In India

The sensitivity of the legislature to providing speedy and efficacious justice in India is mainly
reflected in several enactments which are enumerated as hereunder:

1. Arbitration under The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996;

2. Settlement under Order XXXIIA of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;
3. The incorporation2 of section 89 in the traditional Civil Procedure Code (CPC) read with
Order X Rules I-A, I-B, and I-C for Settlement of Disputes outside court.
4. The Establishment of Lok Adalat under The Legal Services Authority Act, 1987; looks to
mediation, conciliation and informal settlement of disputes in litigation.
5. Reconciliation under Sections 23 (2) and 23 (3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as also
under Section 34 (3) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954;
6. Duty of family court to make efforts for settlement under Family Courts Act, 1984.

1
Legal Aid Committee Report (1971), Expert Committee on Legal Aid Process

13 | P a g e
 Chapter: 3

The Constitutional Mandate

Article 21 of the Constitution of India declares in a mandatory tone that no person shall be
deprived of his life or his personal liberty except according to procedure, Justice to the People,
Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs (1973), Report on National
Juridicature Equal Justice – Social Justice, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs
(1977):

1. With effect from 2002 amendment of the CPC established by law. The words “life and
liberty” are not to be read narrowly in the sense monotonously dictated by dictionaries;
they are organic terms which are to be construed meaningfully.
2. The right to speedy trial has been held to be a part of right to life or personal liberty by
the Supreme Court of India.
3. The Supreme Court has allowed Article 21 to stretch its arms as wide as it legitimately
can.
4. The reason is very simple. This liberal interpretation of Article 21 is to redress that
mental agony, expense and strain which a person proceeded against in litigation has to
undergo and which, coupled with delay, may result in impairing the capability or ability
of the accused to defend himself effectively. Thus, the Supreme Court has held the right
to speedy trial a manifestation of fair, just and reasonable procedure enshrined in Article
21. A speedy trial encompasses within its sweep all its stages including investigation,
inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re-trial. In other words, everything commencing with
an accusation and expiring with the final verdict falls within its ambit. The same has

14 | P a g e
 received recognition from the “legislature” as well in the form of introduction of
“Alternative Dispute Resolution” (ADR) Mechanism (ADRM) through various statutes.
5. The Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration generally is now a prevalent practice in the Indian civil jurisdiction. Because of the
significant backlog of cases in courts in India, there was a dire need for effective means of
alternative dispute resolution. India’s first enactment on arbitration was The Arbitration Act,
1940. Other supporting legislations were The Arbitration [Protocol and Convention] Act of 1937
and the Foreign Awards Act of 1961. Arbitration under these laws was never effective and led to
further litigation as a result of rampant challenge of the awards rendered. The Indian Legislature
thus enacted the existing current Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to make arbitration,
domestic and international both, more effective in India. The act is based on the UNCITRAL
Model Law (as recommended by the U.N. General Assembly) and facilitates International
Commercial Arbitration as well as domestic arbitration and conciliation. Under the above 1996
Act, an arbitral award can be challenged only in the manner prescribed and on limited grounds.
The 1996 Act also restricts court intervention in arbitration proceedings to minimal interference.
India is party to the New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Arbitral Awards. As the name of the act suggests, it also covers conciliation, which is a
form of mediation. Accordingly, arbitration is a popular mode of dispute resolution in civil
disputes and commercial agreements invariably contain an arbitration clause2.

Provisions for ADR under The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short), as amended from time to time is an act to
consolidate and amend the laws relating to the procedure of the courts of civil judicature in India.
All litigation of a civil nature in India is essentially governed by the substantive provisions of
law, contained in the various Sections of the CPC and the corresponding implementing
provisions are contained in various Orders and Rules of the CPC. There are three substantive and
procedural provisions contained in the CPC which provide for settlement of disputes outside the

2
Dr. Anupam Kalwal, An Introduction to ADR System, pg 64, Central Law Publication, Edition 2nd

15 | P a g e
court. These can be identified briefly as the following before quoting the details of the respective
provisions:

 Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure: Settlement of disputes outside the Court
 ORDER X of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Examination of Parties by the Court.
 ORDER XXXIIA 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Suits Relating to Matters
Concerning the Family

It may now be useful to quote the details of all the three provisions of the CPC mentioned above.
They are extracted hereunder in the order given above:

With a view to implementing the 129th Report of the Law Commission of India 3, it was made
obligatory for courts to refer disputes after the issues were framed, for settlement either by way
of arbitration, conciliation, mediation, judicial settlement or through Lok Adalat (a settlement
court). It was felt that only after the parties failed to get their disputes settled through one of the
alternate dispute resolution methods,

However, in Mohinder Pal Kaur vs. Gurmeet Singh4 it was held that the six months waiting
period can be brought down in cases where an existing divorce petition is already pending for
more than six months and efforts for reconciliation have been made earlier but without any
success. Thus, the waiting period cannot be curtailed in a freshly instituted petition for divorce
by mutual consent if in an earlier petition on fault or other grounds, the parties have already been
litigating for more than six months and reconciliation between them has been of no avail.

Matters to which reconciliation does not apply: Petition on certain fault grounds.-

When a petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is presented on the ground of
change of religion [clause (ii) of section 13 (1)], unsoundness of mind [clause (iii) of section 13
(1)], leprosy [clause (iv) of section 13 (1)], venereal disease [clause (v) of section 13 (1)],
renunciation of world [clause (vi) of section 13 (1)], or presumption of death [clause (vii) of
section 13 (1)] reconciliation efforts need not be made, that is to say, the provisions of section 23
(2) do not apply. The proviso in Section 23(2) HMA exempts the mandatory requirement of

3
17 2002 (1) Hindu LR 537
4
Civil Revision No. 3920 of 2010 (O & M).

16 | P a g e
attempting reconciliation between the parties when divorce is sought on any of the grounds in
HMA above.

Similarly, when a petition for divorce is made under Special Marriage Act, 1954 on the ground
of seven years sentence of imprisonment [clause (c) of section 27 (1)], unsoundness of mind
[clause (e) of section 27 (1)], venereal disease [clause (f) of section 27 (1)], leprosy [clause (g) of
section 27 (1)], or presumption of death [clause (h) of section 27 (1)], no efforts at reconciliation
need be made. The proviso in Section 5 34(2) SMA exempts the mandatory requirement of
attempting reconciliation between the parties when divorce is sought on any of the grounds in
SMA stipulated above.

However, it may be added out of abundant clarification that on all other grounds of divorce, both
under HMA and SMA, the court has an obligation to make efforts at reconciliation.
Reconciliation by the Court– Sub-section (2) of section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and
sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 lay down that at first instance it
is the duty of the court to make every effort to bring about reconciliation between the parties
where it is possible to do so consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case. The
words are “before proceeding to grant relief”. At one time a view was propounded that the
reconciliation Endeavour should be made towards the end of the proceedings when the court
comes to a conclusion that it is going to grant “relief”. But then the provision has also the words
“at the first instance” and these have been interpreted to mean that before the court takes up the
case for hearing, it should make an effort at reconciliation. Presently, the latter is the prevalent
view and hence reconciliation is to be attempted in the first instance.

5
Supra Note 4.

17 | P a g e
 Chapter: 4

Family Courts Act, 1984

The Preamble to the Family Courts Act, 1984 enacted by the Indian Parliament states that it is
“An Act to provide for the establishment of Family Courts with a view to6promote conciliation
in Pramila vs. Ajit,, and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family
affairs and for matters connected therewith.” In the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the
Family Courts Act, five essential requirements were pinpointed in the context of providing
reconciliatory efforts to litigating parties and these can be summarized in the following words
stated in the statement of objects and reasons:

(a) make it obligatory on the part of the Family Court to Endeavour, in the first instance to effect
a reconciliation or a settlement between the parties to a family dispute. During this stage, the
proceedings will be informal and rigid rules of procedure shall not apply;

(b) provide for the association of social welfare agencies, counselors, etc., during conciliation
stage and also to secure the service of medical and welfare experts;

(c) provide that the parties to a dispute before a Family Court shall not be entitled, as of right, to
be represented by legal practitioners. However, the court may, in the interest of justice, seek
assistance of a legal experts as amicus curiae in the case;

6
AIR 1989 Pat 163

18 | P a g e
(d) simplify the rules of evidence and procedure so as to enable a Family Court to deal
effectively with a dispute, and

(e) provide for only one right of appeal which shall lie to the High Court.

In seeking to achieve the above objects, the Endeavour of the Family Courts Act was to adopt a
friendly, conciliatory and informal dispute resolution atmosphere which would enable parties to
amicably settled their differences without the shackles of the technical rules of the law of
procedure and evidence. These objects find expression in the Constitution of the Family Courts
Act, its jurisdiction and procedure. The necessary provisions for reconciliations in the Family
Courts Act, 1984 are dealt with under section 9 of the act which reads as hereunder:

Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984: Duty of Family Court To Make Efforts For
Settlement:

(1) In every suit or proceeding, Endeavour shall be made by the Family Court in the first
instance, where it is possible to do so consistent with the nature and circumstances of the case, to
assist and persuade the parties in arriving at a settlement in respect of the subject-matter of the
suit or proceeding and for this purpose a Family Court may, subject to any rules made by the
High Court, follow such procedure as it may deem fit.

2) If, in any suit or proceeding, at any stage, it appears to the Family Court that there is a
reasonable possibility of a settlement between the parties, the Family Court may adjourn the
proceedings for such period as it think fit to enable attempts to be made to effect such a
settlement.

(3)The power conferred by sub-section (2) shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of any
other power of the Family Court to adjourn the proceedings.

The Act also makes it open to the Family Courts under Section 12 “to secure the services of a
medical expert or such person (preferably a woman where available), whether related to the
parties or not, including a person professionally engaged in promoting the welfare of the family

19 | P a g e
as the court may think fit, for the purposes of assisting the Family Court in discharging the
functions imposed by this Act.” Clearly, the thought, logic and motive in the Act in making
available services of professional experts is to provide counseling, expert help and assistance of
trained mediators. Therefore, this enactment is a wholesome legislation on reconciliatory modes
in family law disputes in the Indian matrimonial jurisdiction.

20 | P a g e
 ANALYSIS OF THE STATUS OF ADR IN FAMILY LAW IN INDIA

The duty of making or amending laws is on the legislature but to develop it and to interpret it to
suit the needs and circumstances of the society is the call of the judiciary. Hence, unless and until
the beneficial provisions of the matrimonial legislation promoting and advocating reconciliation
in matrimonial disputes in India is favorably interpreted and strictly implemented by the courts,
the letter of law may be an illusory mirage which remains on the statute book only. It is therefore
the solemn duty of the matrimonial courts in India to ensure that the mandatory settlement efforts
are actually put into practice and parties are encouraged to actually utilize them for out-of-court
settlements. Thus, there is a heavy burden on the courts to discharge this solemn duty failing
which it will neither be possible nor useful to enforce reconciliatory measure in matrimonial
disputes in the Indian jurisdiction. Accordingly, it would be most useful to cite and quote some
recent prominent verdicts of superior Indian courts which have stressed and highlighted the dire
necessity of the beneficial provisions of Indian legislation which provide mandatory
reconciliation procedures.

Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Order XXXII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 and the duty enjoined upon the court came up for interpretation before the Supreme Court
recently in the case: Jagraj Singh vs. Bir Pal Kaur7. The Indian Apex Court, in its landmark
judgment in that case, held as follows:

From the above case law in our judgment, it is clear hat that a court is expected, nay, bound, to
make all attempts and section (2) of section 23 is a salutary provision exhibiting the intention of
he parliament requiring the court ‘in the first instance’ to make every endeavor to bring about a
reconciliation between the parties. If in the light of the above mentioned intention and paramount
consideration of the legislature in enacting such provision, an order is passed by a Matrimonial
Court asking a party to the proceeding (husband or wife) to remain personally present, it cannot
successfully be contented that the court has no such power and in case a party to a proceeding
does not remain present, at most, the court can proceed to decide the case ex parte against
him/her. Upholding of such argument would virtually make the benevolent provision nugatory,
ineffective and unworkable, defeating the laudable object of reconciliation in matrimonial
disputes. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant therefore cannot be upheld.
7
AIR 2007 SC 2083

21 | P a g e
Hence, the Order of the Apex Indian Court upholding the directions of the High Court
summoning the respondent – husband in the above case through non-bailable warrants clearly
reflects the legislative intent of attempting mandatory reconciliation procedures. This judgment
of the Supreme Court clearly confirms that settlement efforts in matrimonial matters are not an
empty meaningless ritual to be performed by the matrimonial court. The verdict clearly reflects
the benevolent legislative purpose.

A novel question came up for decision before the High Court of Kerala in Bini vs.
K.V.Sundaran 8 - i.e., whether conciliation is mandatory after the introduction of the Family
Courts Act, 1984, even on the excepted grounds of conversion to another religion, renunciation
of the world, mental disorder, venereal diseases and leprosy. Calling the Family Courts Act,
1984 a special statute, and its provisions to make attempt at reconciliation mandatory at the first
instance, the High Court held:9

The parties can disagree on matters of faith and still lead a happy marital life if they could be
convinced that matters of faith should not stand in the way of union of hearts. Thus though under
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, no endeavor for reconciliation need be made in a petition for
divorce on the ground of conversion to another religion, or other grounds excepted under Section
13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or on similar or other grounds available under any other
law also, after the introduction of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Family Court is bound to
make an endeavor for reconciliation and settlement. The requirement is mandatory. That is the
conceptual change brought out by the Family Courts Act, 1984 which is a special statute.

The Court further said that “the primary object is to promote and preserve the sacred union of
parties to marriage. Only if the attempts for reconciliation are not fruitful, the further attempt on
agreement on disagreement may be made by way of settlement.”

Hence, from a reading of the above judgment it is clear that the be Holden duty cast upon the
matrimonial courts to attempt mandatory reconciliation cannot be avoided and cannot be
circumvented even when divorce is sought on certain exceptional grounds which under the HMA
and SMA do not provide compulsory settlement action.

8
AIR 2008 Kerala 84
9
AIR 2008 Kerala 84

22 | P a g e
Still further, stressing the need to treat the cases pertaining to family matters in a humanitarian
way, the Supreme Court of India in the case Balbinder Kaur vs. Hardeep Singh10 laid down that
“stress should always be on the preserving the institution of marriage. That is the requirement of
law. One may refer to the objects and reasons which lead to setting up of Family Courts under
the Family Courts Act, 1984. For the purpose of settlement of family disputes emphasis is “laid
on conciliation and achieving socially desirable results” and eliminating adherence to rigid rules
of procedure and evidence.”

The Supreme Court further held that “it is now obligatory on the part of the Family Court to
endeavor, in the first instance to effect a reconciliation or settlement between the parties to a
family dispute.” “Even where the Family Courts are not functioning, the objects and principles
underlying the constitution of these courts can be kept in view by the Civil Courts trying
matrimonial causes.”24 The Supreme Court held that the objectives and principles of section 23
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 govern all courts trying matrimonial matters.

Upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Balwinder Kaur vs. Hardeep Singh11 and held that:

Section 23(2) of the Act and on the perusal of the judgment in Balwinder Kaur on the
interpretation of Section 23(2) this Court held that the decree, which was passed without
complying with Section 23(2) of the said Act, cannot be sustained.

In another perspective, in Love Kumar vs. Sunita Puri12 it was held that the matrimonial court
had acted in haste to pass a decree of divorce against the husband for his non-appearance at the
time of reconciliation proceedings. The High Court accordingly set aside the divorce decree and
remanded the matter back to the matrimonial court to be decided on merits. The object of Section
23(2) of the HMA was explained in the following terms in paras 19 and 21 of this judgment as
follows:

Under S. 23(2) of the Act it is incumbent on the matrimonial Court, to endeavor to bring about
reconciliation between the parties, a great responsibility is cast on the Court. A Hindu marriage

10
AIR 1998 SC 764
11
Ibid
12
AIR 1997 P & H 189

23 | P a g e
is not contractual but sacrosanct, it is not easy to create such ties but more difficult to break
them; once annulled, it cannot be restored. A Judge should actively stimulate rapprochement
process. It is fundamental that reconciliation of the judgment13. Ruptured marriage is the first
duty of the Judge. The sanctity of marriage is the corner stone of civilization. The object and
purpose of this provision is obvious. The State is interested in the security and preservation of
the institution of marriage and for this the Court is required to make attempt to bring about a
reconciliation between the parties. However, omission to make attempts at reconciliation will not
take away the jurisdiction of the Court to pass any decree under the Act. This is not correct to say
that in a divorce case reconciliation efforts have to be timed immediately preceding the grant of
decree and not at any other stage of the proceedings of the trial. Such an attempt can be and
should be made at any stage. The matrimonial Court is required to call parties and make a
genuine effort for their reconciliation, there is not even a whisper in this provision that the
matrimonial Court has the power to strike off the defence of that spouse, who after being given
opportunities for reconciliation fails to appear.

But under S. 23(2) of the Act neither such a liability is cast on the one spouse nor such a right is
given to the other spouse. Reconciliation is a mutual dialogue to bury their differences. A duty is
cast on the Court to call the parties at the initial stage for reconciliation. Even before delivering
judgment and decree, the Court can make effort for reconciliation. Thus, the stage of trial for
calling the parties for reconciliation is left to the discretion of the Court.

From a reading of the above judgments, it is clear that though reconciliation is a mandatory
process, the timing and stage at which it is to be implemented may vary depending on the facts
and circumstances of each case. At the same time causing prejudice to the rights of one party by
striking off the defense or dismissing the petition may actually work injustice to the rights of
such party. Therefore, the matrimonial court in its wisdom may fashion and design the stage of
attempting matrimonial reconciliation depending on the facts of each case without causing

13
AIR 1997 Punjab and Haryana 189

24 | P a g e
prejudice to the substantive rights of the parties. However, at the same time, the matrimonial
court ought not to give the mandatory settlement procedure a go by.

In another case, the High Court of Allahabad called it the bounded duty of the Family Court for
making an attempt for conciliation before proceeding with the trial of the case.29 In a very recent
case titled Aviral Bhatla v Bhavana Bhatla14, the Supreme Court has upheld the settlement of
the case through the Delhi mediation centre, appreciating the effective manner in which the
mediation centre of the Delhi High Court helped the parties to arrive at a settlement.

From a joint reading of the recent pronouncements of law discussed above, it can be apt to
conclude that there is a growing emphasis on the need for attempting mandatory reconciliatory
measures and wherever matrimonial courts have been15lacking in their duties to do so, superior
Indian courts have stepped in, to set the records straight. Therefore, there is a growing
jurisprudence to adapt to out of court settlement reconciliation rather than litigating in
matrimonial courts. However, the performance of this mandatory exercise ought not to be
reduced to an empty ritual or a meaningless exercise. Otherwise, the utility of the beneficial
provision will be lost.

14
(2009)3 SCC 448
15
Rajesh Kumar Saxena vs. Nidhi Saxena. 1995(1) HLR 472. 30 2009 SCC (3) 448

25 | P a g e
 Chapter: 5

Conciliation is a voluntary process and the conciliator has no authority to impose on the parties a
solution to the dispute. Like any other ADR process the sanctity of conciliation is the mutual
determination of the parties to amicably resolve their disputes through an ADR mechanism. The
consensual nature of the dispute resolution process allows parties to join in a friendly search for
an amicable solution, without procedural restraints or protracted battles over formal technicalities
and the parties are encouraged to visualize options which provide solutions keeping in view their
interests and priorities.

History of Conciliation in India

Conciliation is not a new concept as far as India is concerned. Kautilya’s Arthashastra also
refers to the process of conciliation. Various legislations in India have also recognized
conciliation as a statutorily acceptable mode of dispute resolution and conciliation was in fact
being frequently resorted to as a mode of dispute resolution under these specific legislations.
However, apart from these statutory provisions dealing with specified categories of cases,
conciliation in general as a mode of ADR lacked proper legislative framework and statutory
backing. In 1984 faced with the problem of surmounting arrears the Himachal Pradesh High
Court evolved a unique project for disposal of cases pending in courts by conciliation. This was
also been recommended by the Law Commission of India in its 77th and 131st reports and the
conference of the Chief Justices and Chief Ministers in December 1993. The Malimath
Committee16 had also inter alia recommended the establishment of conciliation courts in India.

PROCESS OF CONCILIATION

COMMENCEMENT OF CONCILIATION AND APPOINTMENT OF CONCILIATOR

The conciliation process commences when the disputing parties agree to conciliate and a neutral
conciliator is appointed. The party initiating conciliation sends a written invitation to conciliate

16
https://mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/criminal_justice_system.pdf

26 | P a g e
to the other party briefly identifying the subject matter of the dispute. Conciliation proceedings
commence when the other party accepts in writing the invitation to conciliate. In conciliation
proceedings ordinarily there is one conciliator unless the parties agree that there shall be two or
three conciliators. Even in case of plurality of conciliators they are supposed to act jointly. An
uneven number of conciliators is not necessary in conciliation since the task of the conciliators is
to make recommendations for a settlement and not to render binding decisions. In conciliation
proceedings with one conciliator, the parties may agree on the name of a sole conciliator and in
conciliation proceedings with two conciliators, each party may appoint one conciliator. The
parties may also request any institution or person to recommend suitable names of conciliators or
directly appoint them and such person or institution while discharging this responsibility should
have regard to aspects as are likely to secure the appointment of an independent and impartial
conciliator.

TERMINATION OF CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS

A successful conciliation proceeding concludes with the drawing and signing of a conciliation
settlement agreement. The signing of the settlement agreement by the parties, on the date of the
settlement agreement terminates conciliation proceedings.
That apart, any party may terminate conciliation proceedings at any time even without giving
any reason since it is purely voluntary process. The parties can terminate conciliation
proceedings at any stage by a written declaration of either party. A written declaration of the
conciliator, after consultation with the parties, to the effect that further efforts at conciliation are
no longer justified, also terminates conciliation proceedings on the date of such declaration.17

17
S. 76, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

27 | P a g e
 Chapter: 6

CONCLUSIONS: NEED FOR REFORM AND SOME SUGGESTIONS

The philosophy of alternate dispute resolution systems is well made out by Abraham Lincoln’s
famous words: “discourage litigation, persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you
can. Point out to them how the normal winner is often a loser in fees, expense, cost and time.”
These words spell out grim reality and truth.

Litigation in respect of any matter concerning the family, whether divorce, maintenance and
alimony or custody, trial of juvenile offenders or any other matrimonial cause should not be
viewed in terms of failure or success of legal action but as a social therapeutic problem. It should
not be viewed as a prestigious dispute in which parties and their counsels are engaged in winning
or defeating, but as a societal problem needing resolution. The amicable settlement of family
conflict requires special procedures designed to help people in conflict and in trouble, to
reconcile their differences, and where necessary to obtain professional assistance. Family
disputes need to be seen with a humanitarian approach and hence attempts should be made to
reconcile the differences so as to not disrupt the family structure. Adjudication of family disputes
is an entirely different matter than conventional civil or criminal proceedings. It is a different
culture and has a different jurisprudence altogether. The whole society feels the reverberations of
a family dispute in society outside the home.

Whereas there already exist some provisions for conduct of arbitration, conciliation and Lok
Adalat in different statutes, the need for a framework to regulate the ADR process as a whole and
mediation in particular has been sought to be fulfilled by the Supreme Court of India. It has done
so by providing the final version of the Model Rules of ADR and the Model Rules of Mediation,
both framed by the Law Commission of India, in its Orders passed in the case of Salem Bar
Association vs. Union of India18 with a direction that all high courts should adopt these with
such modifications as they may consider necessary.

18
(2003 (1) SCC 49)

28 | P a g e
The Supreme Court has also made an observation regarding the disturbing phenomena of the
large number of court case filings pertaining to divorce or judicial separation. Very recently, in
2009, in Gaurav Nagpal vs. Sumedha Nagpal19, the Supreme Court observed:

It is a very disturbing phenomenon that large numbers of cases are flooding the courts relating to
divorce or judicial separation. An apprehension is gaining ground that the provisions relating to
divorce in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the ‘Marriage Act’) have led to such a
situation. In other words, the feeling is that the statute is facilitating breaking of homes rather
than saving them, this may be too wide a view because actions are suspect. But that does not
make the section invalid. Actions may be bad, but not the Section. The provisions relating to
divorce categorize situations in which a decree for divorce can be sought for. Merely because
such a course is available to be adopted, should not normally provide incentive to persons to seek
divorce, unless the marriage has irretrievably broken. Efforts should be to bring about
conciliation to bridge the communication gap which lead to such undesirable proceedings.
People rushing to courts for breaking up of marriages should come as a last resort, and unless it
has an inevitable result, courts should try to bring about conciliation. The emphasis should be on
saving of marriage and not breaking it. As noted above it is more important in cases where the
children bear the brunt of dissolution of marriage.

However, we cannot remain oblivious to the fact that India with its population of 1.1 billion
Indians has over 30 million non-resident Indians who live in 180 countries abroad. Some of these
former Indian citizens are foreign nationals with overseas spouses. But, the fact remains that
their personal family law still governs them due to extra territorial application. Resolution of
marital disputes of such citizens of Indian origin creates conflicts since India does not have on its
statute book irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce in India. Therefore,
foreign divorce decrees on the break down ground with no prior mandatory reconciliation
procedures do not find favor either in Indian Courts or in the domestic societal set up. How does
one resolve such emerging dimensions of family law disputes where marriages solemnized in
India are sought to be dissolved abroad in countries of foreign residence. The authors have
advocated a solution33 penned down as follows:

19
(2005) 140 PLR 636

29 | P a g e
The answer therefore is that the existing three-tier divorce structure in India under the HMA
1955 and the SMA 1954, i.e. fault grounds, mutual consent principle and break down theory,
seems to provide sufficient options in the existing societal structure. Therefore, no major changes
are called for. However, a civilized parting of spouses where a marriage has irretrievably broken
down needs to be incorporated in the statute book as an additional ground for divorce, but only in
cases where both the parties to the marriage jointly petition the court for such relief. This, in the
opinion of the authors, will have an immediate two-fold benefit. First, where parties have
irreconcilable differences and want to part amicably, an option will be available to them to part
legally and logically without resorting to a protracted time- consuming legal battle on ‘trumped-
up’ grounds. Secondly, recourse to divorce in foreign jurisdictions may decline once a proper
legal option of irretrievable break down is available on Indian soil. Irretrievable breakdown can
thus serve as an

Additional ground for divorce in the HMA 1955 and the SMA 1954, and to prevent hasty
divorces or misuse, sufficient statutory safeguards can be incorporated to arm the judiciary to
prevent any abuse of the process of law. Keeping the Hindu ceremonial and sacramental concept
of marriage intact is essential. Erosion of values in matrimonial life must be checked, and
traditional marriage protected. The institutions of family, home and children of the marriage, as
they exist today under Hindu law, need protection. Hindu law therefore does not need any major
overhaul. It is self-sufficient, but does need some immediate amendment.

The above views of the authors clearly depict the inbuilt conciliatory settlement theory
embedded in the Indian Family law to save the marriage by in-house settlement. But, marriages
solemnized in India according to personal laws of non-resident Indians who have permanently
migrated abroad need to find resolution in the existing statutory family laws either by suitable
amendments or a brand new legislation which will incorporate corresponding mandatory
conciliatory procedures. For this problem, the authors have advocated their suggestions in this
regard in the following words:

A reading in totality of the matters in the overseas family law jurisdiction gives an indication that
in such affairs, it is the judicial precedents which provide the much available guidance and
judicial legislation on the subject. With the large number of non- resident Indians now
permanently living in overseas jurisdictions, it has now become important that some composite

30 | P a g e
legislation is enacted to deal with the problems of non-resident Indians to avoid them from
importing judgments from foreign Courts to India for implementation of their rights. The answer
therefore, lies in giving them law applicable to them as Indians rather than letting them invade
the Indian system with judgments of foreign jurisdictions which do not find applicability in the
Indian system. Hence, it is the Indian legislature which now seriously needs to review this issue
and come out with a composite legislation for non-resident Indians in family law matters. Till
this is done, foreign Court judgments in domestic matters will keep cropping up and Courts in
India will continue with their salutary efforts in interpreting them in harmony with the Indian
laws and doing substantial justice to parties in the most fair and equitable way. However, in this
process, the Indian judiciary has made one thing very clear i.e. the Indian Courts would not
simply mechanically enforce judgments and decrees of foreign Courts in family matters. The
Indian Courts have now started looking into the merits of the matters and deciding them on the
considerations of Indian law and the best interest of the parties rather than simply implementing
the orders without examining them. Fortunately, we can hail the Indian judiciary for these
laudable efforts and till such time when the Indian Legislature comes to rescue with appropriate
legislation, we seek solace with our unimpeachable and unstinted faith in the Indian Judiciary,
which is rendering a yeoman service.

Therefore, the dire pressing need of the day in the current social milieu where 30 million Indians
now live outside India, is to create a law and infrastructural machinery for ADR mechanisms in
resolving marriages solemnized in India but which have been fractured or broken abroad. For the
lack of resolution, they lead to inter-parental child removal custody conflicts, disputes of
maintenance and differences over settlement of matrimonial property. It is these limping
marriages which need reconciliatory formulas in India to prevent them from being split abroad
on grounds and reasons which do not find favor with the personal family laws of the parties in
India. These cross border marital conflicts should not stem into or branch out into other ancillary
issues multiplying the problem. This, in the opinion of the authors ought to be the focus of the
legislative intent today in creating, harmonizing and balancing the societal structure of Indians,
non-resident Indians and all those who form relationships with them to build families abroad.
ADR needs to be developed in a big way for resolving limping unions.

31 | P a g e
 SUGGESTIONS

Some suggestions can be mooted by the authors to improve the situation and to make ADR a
reality in the structure of the current Indian family law.

Participation of citizens:

Alternative Dispute Resolution cannot see the light of the day unless citizens also “participate” in
that movement. The citizens can help in the achievements of these benign objectives by
restraining themselves while invoking jurisdictions of the “traditional courts” where the matter in
dispute can be conveniently and economically taken care of by ADR mechanisms. The right to
speedy trial is not a fact or fiction but a “Constitutional reality” and it has to be given its due
respect. The courts and the legislature have already accepted it as one of the medium of reducing
the increasing workloads on the courts. The same is also gaining popularity among the masses
due to its advantages 20 . We need “private initiatives” for not only establishment of ADR
facilities in India but equally a “liberal use” of the same by the citizens. This initiative needs
awakening by self-consciousness and not by implementation of laws. Spouses, parents and
couples need to realize the advantages of reconciliation, mediation and alternative dispute
resolution methods in the family structure. Matrimonial reliefs carved out by settlement will
serve better than results obtained by adversary litigation involving time, efforts, finances and
above all by breaking a family.

More Authority Should Be Given To The Family Courts:

Family matters should not be litigated in any court unless of an extraordinary grave nature; they
should be amicably resolved. Family disputes such as divorce, matrimonial property division,
custody of children and maintenance should not come into the higher courts and they should be
resolved mutually and conclusively in the family court itself. It would save the time of the
superior courts where other matters could be resolved in the time which would have been
consumed for settling matrimonial disputes. Family disputes are such disputes that can be

20
Dr. S.C. Tripathi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Alternative means of settlement of Disputes, Pg.
154, Central Law Publication, Edition 15th

32 | P a g e
resolved even in the home itself by a unanimous consensus. Mandatory reconciliatory procedures
should assume finality so that matters can be put to rest conclusively without any further
challenge.

33 | P a g e
 Conclusion

Family law conciliation is technically done outside of the normal court procedures. However, it
is generally still necessary to work with a lawyer during the conciliation process. An
experienced family law attorney can provide legal advice and guidance, and can review the
various agreements that may have been reached. Also, a lawyer near you can provide
representation in court if the conciliation process proves to be unsuccessful, or if there are
outstanding issues to be resolved in court.

The necessity and urgency of creating more Family Courts under the Family Courts Act, 1984 in
India is a very important factor which will contribute to the resolution of family law disputes by
ADR. The current handling of matrimonial litigation by conventional courts in jurisdictions
where there are no family Courts is a poignant reminder of the situation created by lack of family
courts in such jurisdictions. The availability of trained counselors, mediators, professionally
trained persons and above all specialist family law judges would all form part of a well organized
team in a family court which in turn would itself create a mechanism and structure for alternative
disputes resolution of family law disputes. This would therefore, give a new dimension to the
existing matrimonial scenario in the Indian jurisdiction.

India has the laws to promote alternative dispute resolution modes in the existing litigative setup
but the infrastructure, professional assistance and the medium through which these beneficial
reconciliatory mediation procedures are to be implemented are lacking within India21.

Therefore, creating the via media by which the beneficial ADR laws can be implemented in
family law disputes is what is required today. Additionally, legislative changes are required for
providing reconciliatory methods of marriages of non-resident Indians. The package is
wholesome. The need is dire. The numbers are huge. The sooner we begin, the sooner reform
will start.

21
Supra Note 20

34 | P a g e
 Bibliography

Books:

 Arbitration Conciliation and Mediation, Vishnu S Warrier, Lexis Nexis, 3rd Edition.
 Alternative Dispute Resolution by Sukumar Ray, Eastern Law House
 Arbitration Step by Step, PC Markanda, Lexis Nexis, 7th Edition
 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with alternative means of settlement of disputes
by Dr. S.C. Tripathi, Central Law Publication, 7th Edition
 Hindu Law, Paras Diwan, Allahabad Law Agency
 Constitution of India, MP Jain, Lexis Nexis

Online Resources:

 www.manupatra.com
 www.indiakanoon.com
 www.scconline.com
 www.shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in

Bare Acts:

 Constitution of India
 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

35 | P a g e