Family court insists for written statement without conciliaton
Jyot
(Querist) 28 October 2015
This query is : Resolved
In one case of family court, Petitioner from foreign country filed divorce petition through her power of attorney holder under the ground of cruelty. The POA holder has appointed a lawyer for court proceedings in family court.
The respondent does not want divorce and he wants to sustain their marriage life. He wants to do conciliation with his wife in family court. But, the family court did not refer the matter for conciliation to the Counsellor according to family courts act and rules and insisted the respondent to file his written statement.
Then, the respondent did not file his written statement. But, respondent filed an application-X under section 9 of the family courts act after 200 working days of respondent’s notice excluding public holidays. In that application-X, he is requested to family court to try for conciliation with his wife according to section 9 of the family courts act.
But, by mistake, the advocate of petitioner understood that the application-X is according to Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. So, by mistake he wrote on respondent’s application-X that the application-X is for Restitution of Conjugal rights and this type of application could be filed separately and could not be filed in the suit of the divorce.
The hearing of the application-X filed by the respondent is still pending.Now, the advocate of the petitioner has filed an application-Y to close the stage of written statement of the respondent after 140 working days from the respondent’s application-X and after 340 working days from the respondent’s notice.
The Judge has permitted the last date to the respondent to file his written statement and insisted to respondent to file his written statement on next date without fail and told that if respondent does not file his written statement on last date, the judge will close the stage of written statement of respondent. The judge has also decided to do hearing of application-X on the same court date which was filed by the respondent.
Now, the advocate of the respondent is still insisted to respondent for not filing of written statement of respondent on next court date. The advocate of the respondent tells to respondent that as the hearing of the application-x filed by the petitioner is pending, he does not want to file the written statement of the respondent.
I am from the respondent side. I am afraid of close the stage of written statement and ex-parte divorce. I am very confused and cannot decide what to do?
Question 1: Should respondent ready to file written statement on the last and next court date given by judge of family court? OR the respondent should agree with his advocate for not filing of written statement on next court date & wait for hearing of application-X?
Quetion 2: Does not conciliation mandatory in family court? What can respondent do if he wants to do conciliation with his wife and family court does not refer the matter for conciliation and insist for written statement although the respondent has filed the application-X for trying of reconciliation according to section 9 of the family courts act?
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 29 October 2015
query too long.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 29 October 2015
The respondent may prey that the decision on the application is necessary before submitting written statement.
If court does not agree, may approach higher court / file written statement / may prefer to proceed without WS. Decide as the circumstances warrant.
K.S.Srinivas
(Expert) 29 October 2015
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.
From a reading of the various 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.
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 30 October 2015
Though a very long query,the suggestion given by Adv Goyal is appropriate.I partially agree with Mr.K S Srinivas,though the court advocates reconciliation process,it does not yield a favourable result.
