Supreme Court Judge Justice Nagarathna Urges Greater Mediation In Family Disputes

Supreme Court judge Justice B.V. Nagarathna on Saturday (September 26, 2026) urged greater use of mediation and conciliation in family litigation, saying alternative dispute resolution can offer faster and less adversarial outcomes than prolonged court battles.

Address at Guwahati conference

Justice Nagarathna was delivering the inaugural address on ‘ADR (alternative dispute resolution) versus Adjudication in Family Disputes: Challenges and Way Forward’ at the Eastern Zone Regional Conference of the Committee for Family Court Matters, Supreme Court of India, in association with the Gauhati High Court, in Guwahati.

The Supreme Court judge said alternative dispute resolution was never meant to compete with courts, but to complement them.

She told delegates that ADR offers speed, privacy and confidentiality, benefits that conventional litigation often cannot provide.

Justice Nagarathna, who chairs the Supreme Court’s Committee for Family Court Matters, noted that many years often pass between the filing of pleadings and a final judgment in family disputes.

By that stage, she said, “any semblance of subsisting familial bond” is often lost.

She warned that such delay tends to deepen existing inequalities within families.

For that reason, she described reducing the backlog through alternative dispute resolution as a pressing priority.

Citing Department of Justice data, Justice Nagarathna said the country had 822 functioning family courts as of October 2024.

Among the eastern States, she said Bihar had the highest number of pending cases, with 70,365, followed by Odisha with 36,792, Jharkhand with 15,376, Assam with 7,399, and Tripura with 4,010.

Proposal for consolidated referral

Justice Nagarathna laid out proposals across five key areas in which family disputes could be handled through alternative dispute resolution.

For cases involving overlapping issues of domestic violence and elder welfare, she recommended “consolidated referral”.

Under this approach, related proceedings arising from a single household could be directed to one mediator with unified judicial oversight.

She said this was necessary because “it is the family and not the cause of action, which requires resolution”.

Justice Nagarathna also proposed dedicated geriatric mediation panels under District Legal Services Authority.

On matrimonial disputes, she said pre-litigation mediation should be promoted under Section 5 of the Mediation Act.

She further said conciliation should be scheduled at the first hearing of contested divorce and restitution petitions, before written statements were filed.

“Where mediation converts a contested petition into a settlement for divorce, waiver of the statutory period of waiting should follow as a matter of course,” she said.

Child custody and financial settlements

On child custody, Justice Nagarathna favoured bringing child psychologists directly into the mediation process.

She also supported child-inclusive approaches under which a trained professional can convey a child’s views to the parents.

According to her proposal, such approaches would reduce reliance on adversarial custody battles.

On maintenance and alimony, she called for mandatory financial disclosure at the mediation stage.

She also preferred lump-sum capitalised settlements over uncertain monthly payments.

Justice Nagarathna further called for prompt registration of property settlements to ensure enforceability.

These proposals placed financial clarity, enforceability and negotiated resolution at the centre of family dispute handling.

Women, dignity and limits of mediation

Turning to the status of women, Justice Nagarathna highlighted the disproportionate costs of protracted litigation in terms of finances, enforceability and dignity.

She noted that confidential mediation can help secure practical outcomes, including the return of stridhan, or woman’s property, and provision for children’s education.

At the same time, she cautioned that mediation cannot be applied in every family dispute.

“However, I wish to emphasise that none of this applies where there is violence, coercive control or a serious imbalance of power.

There, mediation is not merely inappropriate but could potentially be harmful or dangerous, and may result in further traumatisation,” she said.

Justice Nagarathna also flagged what she described as the growing “weaponisation of litigation”.

She said this refers to the use of the court process to humiliate and financially exhaust a party.

She stressed that this issue coexists with the far larger and underreported problem of genuine victims who suffer in silence.

Judges attending the two-day conference

Supreme Court judges Ujjal Bhuyan and N.V. Anjaria are attending the two-day conference.

The Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court, Ashutosh Kumar, is also attending the conference.

The Chief Justices of the High Courts of Calcutta, Jharkhand, Manipur, Meghalaya, Orissa, Patna, Sikkim, and Tripura are attending as well.

The conference is being held as an Eastern Zone Regional Conference of the Committee for Family Court Matters, Supreme Court of India, in association with the Gauhati High Court.

The address was published on September 26, 2026, at 04:28 pm IST.

Source: The Hindu