Himat and Rani were involved in a marital dispute that escalated to the point of legal intervention. Himat filed for divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty, alleging that Rani's behavior had caused him significant psyc

The facts of the given situation are similar to the case of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa , in which while dealing with a divorce matter, the Apex Court went to the extent of saying that criminal courts could also refer to mediation cases where a complaint has been filed under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court further directed all mediation centres to set up pre-litigation desks or clinics to settle matrimonial disputes at the pre-litigation stage. The above case laws seem to indicate that the higher judiciary is by and large in favour of mediation and is keen on pushing all suitable matters to be resolved through mediation instead of adding to the court's burden. However, in reality, Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) and the above judicial pronouncements have not had the desired impact due to the lack of adequate training given to the judges in the district judiciary, who are empowered under Section 89 to refer matters to mediation. The discretion vested in them has not been used to reduce the court's burden in any noticeable manner. Apart from lack of training, there are several systemic issues that have prevented the adoption of mediation, as discussed in the coming section despite the clear mandate given by the judiciary in favour of mediation. In view of the above mentioned case, it may be said that the decision of the Court is valid.