Court Emphasizes Mediation Cannot Be Forced in Mutual Consent Divorce Cases
In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court has set aside a lower court's decision to dismiss a mutual consent divorce application, highlighting that mediation cannot be imposed mandatorily upon parties in such cases. The Division Bench comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya ruled on July 20, 2026, that the dismissal by the trial court was contrary to established legal principles.
The case involved Danish Karim and Ranjana Chowdhury, who jointly filed for divorce by mutual consent under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The trial court dismissed their application due to the couple's failure to attend a court-directed mediation session. The High Court observed that mediation requires the consent of both parties and cannot be imposed without mutual agreement.
The judgment emphasized that while courts can encourage reconciliation in matrimonial disputes, such actions are not applicable in mutual consent divorce cases where the parties have already agreed to separate. The trial court's insistence on mandatory mediation was deemed a misconception of the law, leading to the wrongful dismissal of the divorce application.
The High Court's decision reinstates the application for mutual consent divorce and remands it back to the trial court for disposal in accordance with the law, without the imposition of forced mediation.
Bottom line:-
Divorce by mutual consent under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Non-compliance with a court's direction to attend mediation cannot result in dismissal of the application for mutual consent divorce, as mediation requires consent of both parties and cannot be forcibly imposed.
Statutory provision(s): Special Marriage Act, 1954 Section 28, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 89
Danish Karim v. Ranjana Chowdhury, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2944625
