SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that family courts must make a sincere effort at reconciliation and mediation at the very inception of matrimonial disputes before directing parties to file written objections, observing that compelling spouses to exchange allegations at the outset only deepens the marital rift.
Justice Rahul Bharti passed the judgment on May 6, 2026 in CM(M) No. 85/2026, Kanchan Devi v. Amit Sharma, while exercising the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The judgment was uploaded on May 14, 2026.
The petition was filed by Kanchan Devi through Senior Advocate Amit Gupta, assisted by Advocate Rajeev Chargotra, challenging the manner in which her husband’s divorce petition was being handled by the court of the Principal District Judge, Samba.
According to the judgment, the petitioner and respondent had entered into an inter-caste marriage of their own choice, solemnized according to Arya Samaj rituals on July 18, 2024.
The relationship subsequently deteriorated, prompting Amit Sharma to file a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal District Judge, Samba on July 21, 2025.
After the petitioner entered appearance on August 5, 2025, the trial court proceeded to seek her written reply and, by an order dated April 6, 2026, granted what it termed a “last opportunity” to file objections, warning that her right to file a reply would stand closed if she failed to do so.
Aggrieved by this procedure, the wife approached the High Court.
Justice Bharti held that the trial court failed to comply with its statutory obligation under Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which requires courts dealing with matrimonial disputes to first explore the possibility of reconciliation between the parties.
The Court also referred to Order XXXII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which obligates civil courts to make every endeavour to assist parties in arriving at a settlement in family disputes before proceeding with adversarial litigation.
The Court observed that the trial court had treated the matrimonial case as an ordinary civil suit by immediately insisting on pleadings without first attempting mediation.
Justice Bharti observed that requiring a spouse to immediately respond to allegations in a divorce petition is likely to aggravate the dispute rather than resolve it.
“Filing of reply/objections by the respondent in a matrimonial petition that too of a divorce would mean that the petitioner as a respondent would have to come forth with her version vis-à-vis allegations being made against her from the end of the respondent who as a petitioner is seeking divorce,” the Court observed.
The Court further held: “The reply to be insisted to be filed by the respondent is, thus, then not going to smoothen the strained relationship obtaining between the two and, therefore, any exercise undertaken thereafter for a mutual reconciliation would be nothing but a meaningless venture.”
Emphasising the legislative intent behind matrimonial law, the Court added:
“Although, an attempt to reconcile the marital dispute between the husband and wife can be taken up at any given stage of litigation but then the first initiative has to be at the very inception of the matrimonial litigation when the respondent gets a call to appear in the case.”
The judgment also pointed out what the Court described as a recurring administrative lapse in subordinate courts.
Justice Bharti noted that despite exercising civil jurisdiction as the Principal District Judge, the Presiding Officer had described himself in the impugned orders as the “Principal Sessions Judge.”
The Court observed: “There is no jurisdiction vested in a Principal Sessions Judge to entertain a matrimonial petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Instead, the order should have been bearing the reference as that of the Principal District Judge, Samba.”
Noting that similar mistakes had been noticed earlier, the Court directed the Registrar General of the High Court to issue instructions to all subordinate judicial officers to ensure that orders correctly reflect the jurisdiction being exercised.
“This Court directs learned Registrar General, High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh to address a communication to all the Presiding Officers of the courts below, civil as well as criminal, to ensure their sensitivity towards reference of the court in the context of the jurisdiction being exercised,” the order said.
Allowing the petition, the High Court directed the Principal District Judge, Samba to first undertake reconciliation or mediation between the spouses.
Only if such efforts fail, the Court said, should the trial court proceed to adjudicate the divorce petition on merits and call upon the wife to file her written objections.
“The court of learned Principal District Judge, Samba, is first directed to undertake an exercise for reconciliation or mediation and in the event of failure of the same then only to take up the matter for adjudication on its merits,” Justice Bharti ordered.
The petition was accordingly disposed of, with directions to the Registrar Judicial, Jammu to forward a copy of the order to the Principal District Judge, Samba and the Registrar General of the High Court for compliance.
-x-
