The Bombay High Court these days refused to intervene with an order of the family court
docket directing a seventy-five-year-old guy to pay Rs.1 lakh in compensation to his 72-12 months-old spouse under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
A division bench of Justice Akhil Kureshi and Justice Sarang Kotwal denied comfort to Subhash Anand, the appellant husband who challenged the order of the Family Court, Mumbai, dated September 18, 2018. The court also authorized the respondent wife to get right of entry to the upper ground of the house wherein her husband is living at the floor ground.
“Since numerous years they’re having a matrimonial dispute. The unlucky factor of the matter is that at such advanced age, the Respondent Wife had filed the Criminal Misc. Application before Gurgaon Court complaining of home violence on the fingers of the husband,” the court determined.
In her utility before the circle of relatives court, the respondent spouse had prayed for restraining her husband from dispossessing her from the matrimonial home in Walkeshwar, Mumbai.
The circle of relatives court allowed her software and surpassed numerous guidelines, including restraining the appellant husband or his servants from entering the higher floor of the house to protect the wife’s right to reside under Sections 17 and 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
In its order, the family courtroom said-
“The respondent is directed to pay reimbursement of Rs.1 lakh to the petitioner underneath Sec.22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for committing an act of home violence through inflicting mental torture, emotional misery to the petitioner.”
Appellant husband’s lawyer Pandit Kasar submitted that the husband has agreed not to dispossess the wife without an order of the court docket. Whereas, respondent spouses recommend Chandana Salgaonkar argued that the husband has in the past proven abusive and violative tendency and therefore, the order exceeded via the family courtroom need to be persevered with none interim modification or live.
The court docket made positive minor modifications to the family court order, however, refused to live it and located-
“We have perused the order passed by means of the Family Court and sifted through the opposite documents on a document with the restrained purpose of offering for meantime relief pending the very last listening to of Family Court Appeal. When the husband himself has agreed now not to dispossess the spouse from the said belongings, anyways, consequently, the question of staying route issued by the Family Court in this recognize does now not stand up.”
One if the most popular modern trends in family law is the collaborative law which refers to the structured process which provides parties seeking divorces or parties involved in other disputes an alternative names of resolving their dispute rather than a going through the costly, lengthy litigation process in courts. Collaborative law allows the parties to the marriage or proposed civil union to take the control of their destiny by hiring family lawyers committed to the process of resolving disputes in family and relationships within the family setting amicably through discussions and negotiations without the courts being involved.
The reason why modern family law discourages the parties from going to court is that courts decision have a win-lose outlook. The court litigation is also complex, and as is the case with all matters of law is costly and may take a long time to solve the matters.
In collaborative family law, disputes between family members can be settled amicably so as to ensure that their relationship as a family is preserved. The collaborative family lawyers agree that they will not represent their respective parties in court litigation if either party decides to go to court. In the jurisdictions where it has been applied, collaborative family law has achieved good results in the amicable solution of family disputes. In some instances, it has successfully reconciled parties who would otherwise have divorced had the matter been decided by the courts.