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’s wife to get the right of entry to the upper ground of the house wherein her husband is living on the ground floor.
“For numerous years, they’ve had a matrimonial dispute. The unlucky factor of the matter is that the Respondent Wife had filed the Criminal Misc at such an advanced age. Application before the Gurgaon Court complaining of home violence on the fingers of the husband,” the court determined.
In her application 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 court of relatives allowed her software. It 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 under 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.”
The Appellant’s husband’s lawyer, Pandit Kasar, submitted that the husband has agreed not to dispossess the wife without an order of the court. Whereas respondent spouses recommend, Chandana Salgaonkar argued that the husband had proven abusive and violent tendencies in the past. Therefore, the order issued via the family courtroom needs to be enforced without 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 using the Family Court and sifted through the opposite documents on a document with the restrained purpose of offering for the meantime relief pending the final hearing of the Family Court Appeal. However, when the husband himself has agreed now not to dispossess the spouse from the said belongings, anyway, consequently, the question of staying route issued by the Family Court in this recognize does not stand.”
One of the most popular modern trends in family law is 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 going through the costly, lengthy litigation process in courts. Collaborative law allows the parties to the marriage or proposed civil union to control their destiny by hiring family lawyers committed to resolving disputes in family and relationships within the family setting amicably through discussions and negotiations without the courts being involved.
Modern family law discourages the parties from going to court because courts’ decisions have a win-lose outlook. The court litigation is also complex, and as is the case with all matters of law, it is costly and may take a long time to solve matters.
In collaborative family law, disputes between family members can be settled amicably 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.
