INTRODUCTION

“It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps the justice alive.” LJ Earl Warren. The concept of
Conflict Management through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has introduced a new mechanism
of dispute resolution that is non adversarial. A dispute is basically ‘lis inter partes’ and the justice
dispensation system in India has found an alternative to Adversarial litigation in the form of ADR
mechanism.

New methods of dispute resolution such as ADR facilitate parties to deal with the underlying issues in
dispute in a more cost-effective manner and with increased efficacy. In addition, these processes have
the advantage of providing parties with the opportunity to reduce hostility, regain a sense of control,
gain acceptance of the outcome, resolve conflict in a peaceful manner, and achieve a greater sense of
justice in each individual case. The resolution of disputes takes place usually in private and is more
viable, economic, and efficient. ADR is generally classified into at least four types: negotiation,
mediation, collaborative law, and arbitration. (Sometimes a fifth type, conciliation, is included as well,
but for present purposes it can be regarded as a form of mediation
The system of dispensing justice in India has come under great stress for several reasons mainly because
of the huge pendency of cases in courts. In India, the number of cases filed in the courts has shown a
tremendous increase in recent years resulting in pendency and delays underlining the need for
alternative dispute resolution methods. It is in this context that a Resolution was adopted by the Chief
Ministers and the Chief Justices of States in a conference held in New Delhi on 4th December 1993
under the chairmanship of the then Prime Minister and presided over by Chief Justice Of India. It said:
"The Chief Ministers and Chief Justices were of the opinion that Courts were not in a position to bear
the entire burden of justice system and that a number of disputes lent themselves to resolution by
alternative modes such as arbitration, mediation and negotiation. They emphasized the desirability of
disputants taking advantage of alternative dispute resolution which provided procedural flexibility,
saved valuable time and money and avoided the stress of a conventional trial".1
In a developing country like India with major economic reforms under way within the framework of
the rule of law, strategies for swifter resolution of disputes for lessening the burden on the courts and
to provide means for expeditious resolution of disputes, there is no better option but to strive to develop
alternative modes of dispute resolution (ADR) by establishing facilities for providing settlement of
disputes through arbitration, conciliation, mediation and negotiation.
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) (also known as external dispute resolution in some countries, such
as Australia) includes dispute resolution processes and techniques that act as a means for disagreeing
parties to come to an agreement short of litigation. ADR is generally classified into at least four types:
arbitration, conciliation, negotiation, mediation.

1
Vyapak Desai & Sahil Kanuga, Mediation proceedings are confidential says Supreme Court, Indian Law Journal.
http://indialawjournal.com/volume4/issue_1/article_by_desia_kanuga.html

Page 1 of 12
Alternative dispute resolution in India is not new and it was in existence even under the previous
Arbitration Act, 1940. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been enacted to accommodate
the harmonisation mandates of UNCITRAL Model. To streamline the Indian legal system the traditional
civil law known as Code of Civil Procedure, (CPC) 1908 has also been amended and section 89 has
been introduced. Section 89 (1) of CPC provides an option for the settlement of disputes outside the
court. It provides that where it appears to the court that there exist elements, which may be acceptable
to the parties, the court may formulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for
arbitration, conciliation, mediation or judicial settlement.
Due to extremely slow judicial process, there has been a big thrust on Alternate Dispute Resolution
mechanisms in India. While Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a fairly standard western
approach towards ADR, the Lok Adalat system constituted under National Legal Services Authority
Act, 1987 is a uniquely Indian approach.

WHAT IS MEDIATION

Mediation is not something new to India. Centuries before the British arrived, India had utilized a
system called the Panchayat system, whereby respected village elders assisted in resolving community
disputes. Such traditional mediation continues to be utilized even today in villages. Also, in pre-British
India, mediation was popular among businessmen. Impartial and respected businessmen called
Mahajans were requested by business association members to resolve disputes using an informal
procedure, which combined mediation and arbitration.
Another form of early dispute resolution, used by one tribe to this day, is the use of panchas, or wise
persons to resolve tribal disputes. Here, disputing members of a tribe meet with a pancha to present
their grievances and to attempt to work out a settlement. If that is unsuccessful, the dispute is submitted
to a public forum attended by all interested members of the tribe. After considering the claims, defences,
and interests of the tribe in great detail, the pancha again attempts to settle the dispute. If settlement is
not possible, the pancha renders a decision that is binding upon the parties. The pancha's decision is
made in accordance with the tribal law as well as the long-range interests of the tribe in maintaining
harmony and prosperity. All proceedings are oral; no record is made of the proceedings or the outcome.
Despite the lack of legal authority or sanctions, such mediation processes were regularly used and
commonly accepted by Indian disputants.
Mediation bears a striking resemblance, in some respects, to the ancient dispute resolution processes.
In mediation the parties are encouraged to participate directly in the process. The expanded framework
of discussion in mediation consists of both the applicable law and the underlying interests of the parties.

Page 2 of 12
The mediator, an expert in the process of dispute resolution, controls the proceedings, much like a tribal
chief serving in the role of peacemaker. But under the ancient methods if mediation failed, the same
person was authorized to render a binding decision. In India, while judges have been quick to recognize
increased use of mediation as a helpful mechanism for reducing case backlogs and delays, Indian
lawyers have not rushed to embrace mediation. As with American lawyers in the early 1980's, Indian
lawyers are conservative. They do not like change and are reluctant to expose their clients to the
uncertain risks of an unknown ADR process. Also, understandably, Indian lawyers view mediation as
potentially depriving them of income by settling cases prematurely and thereby obviating legal fees that
would otherwise be earned. The same has been true for American lawyers during the growth of
mediation in the US over the last twenty (20) years. In the first place, by their early acceptance and use
of mediation, lawyers became not only the best trained and most qualified mediators (incorporating
their mediator work into their law practices), but the lawyers who did not become mediators became
the gatekeepers for mediation, selecting over 80% of the cases that are mediated and choosing the
mediators for such cases.

Mediation is an informal dispute settlement process run by a trained third party, called a mediator.
Mediation is intended to bring two parties together to clear up misunderstandings, find out concerns,
and reach a resolution. The process is voluntary. During the mediation, each side will present its view
of the issue, and the mediator will work with each side to attempt to work out a settlement. At the end
of the process, the mediator can present his or her findings and present a potential solution to the issue.
The mediation process, unlike arbitration, is non-binding; that is, the mediator does not impose a
decision on the parties, but he/she attempts to present a solution that is acceptable to both parties.

Mediation can be used in divorces, real estate, and labour bargaining, and in other disputes, in an attempt
to avoid taking a case to court.
Mediation, as used in law, is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), a way of resolving disputes
between two or more parties with concrete effects. Typically, a third party, the mediator assists the
parties to negotiate a settlement. Disputants may mediate disputes in a variety of domains, such as
commercial, legal, diplomatic, workplace, community and family matters. The mediator acts as a
neutral third party and facilitates rather than directs the process. Mediators use various techniques to
open, or improve, dialogue between disputants, aiming to help the parties reach an agreement. Much
depends on the mediator's skill and training. As the practice gained popularity, training programs,
certifications and licensing followed, producing trained, professional mediators committed to the
discipline.

Page 3 of 12
Process of mediation

But this process is informal and not binding and the parties may deviate from this process and follow
some other process of their own choice.

The mediator begins by welcoming the parties and introducing himself/herself. The mediator then
outlines the process and the roles of the mediator, the parties, and attorneys (if present). The mediator
ends the introduction by explaining the ground rules for the process. The mediator then asks for
statements from each party. Both parties have an opportunity to tell their story about what happened,
from their viewpoint. Often, these stories are emotional. The mediator may ask clarifying questions, but
typically the parties do not question each other. After both parties have spoken, the mediator may ask
more questions, both to clarify the issues and to provide the other party with greater understanding. At
this point, the mediator may ask the parties to (separate for the purpose of discussion). The mediator
talks with each party, proposing solutions, trying out scenarios, trying to get commitment to a settlement
by both parties. The mediator goes back and forth between the parties during this time, clearing up
misunderstandings, and carrying information, proposals, and points of agreement.

Initiative at National level to Increase mediation as a mode of settlement

1. New Mediation Centers Relieve Courts as Cases Increase in Kashmir

As population, education and awareness of rights increase throughout India, so does the number of court
cases here. To help assuage the backlog of cases, the government is establishing mediation centers, a
phenomenon that has recently spread to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. SRINAGAR, KASHMIR,
INDIA is sitting under the shadow of a gigantic chinar tree in the court complex in Lal Chowk, a
downtown city square, a woman in her mid-30s anxiously awaits her turn at one of Kashmir’s new
mediation centers. The woman, whose last name is Begum, is accompanied by her stepfather, who is
also her paternal uncle. Says she they are waiting for their village head, who has volunteered to speak
at the mediation on her behalf. In the meantime, Begum’s husband, the other party in the dispute, enters
the mediation center to give his side of the story. As he discusses their marital issues with the mediator,
his wife barges into the room and interrupts him. Sofiya Muzamil, the mediator, asks her to stop. “This
is a routine affair here,” says Muzamil, who is also an attorney. “Often parties in dispute engage in
verbal brawl. Sometimes they turn violent and same leads to a scuffle between them. In latter case,
police is to be called in.”Muzamil says that after both parties meet with the mediator, there are joint and
individual follow-ups.

“Various sessions – joint and individual – are held to resolve matter amicably,” she says. “Feasible
options are explored.”

The Begums are at the mediation center to discuss their marriage. They were married 12 years ago, and
the husband is angry that they still don’t have any children, Muzamil says. “Her husband pleads it as
one of the grounds for divorce, whereas Begum says her mother-in-law ill-treats and harasses her,”
Muzamil says. Rebutting these allegations, the husband retorts that his wife is short-tempered, which
leads to frequent disputes.

Page 4 of 12
Abdul Rehman, the village head here to speak on behalf of the wife, tells the mediator that the case
came before a local village committee a few years ago. The committee asked the husband to pay her
five lakh rupees ($9,100) as compensation because he wanted to divorce her.

“But he didn’t agree,” Rehman says. “He said that he can pay one and half lakh rupees only, but that
wasn’t acceptable to us. I wanted the same to be a deterrent for others. Then a case was filed in court,
where it lingered for years.”

He says that they eventually opted for mediation to hasten the resolution process. “During this time
around, we came across mediation center, which is believed to lead towards speedy justice,” he says.
“We expect early disposal of [our] case.”

The mediator says that she has explored various aspects of the dispute and listened to both sides.

“The matter isn’t finally resolved, but all factors are heading towards their divorce,” Muzamil says.

Citizens with more education and awareness of their rights are turning to the state’s newly operational
mediation centers to hasten the judicial process. Because of a backlog of cases, courts send those
concerning issues such as property and divorce to the rising number of centers. Mediators say the overall
response of citizens has been favourable, though some lawyers call the process fruitless.

Although conception of the mediation centers in the state began in 2007, the first ones became
operational last year. There are now 14 district mediation centers in the state, according to the annual
report of the Mediation Monitoring Committee, which is responsible for their functioning.

2. Delhi Mediation Center

With an alarming increase in the number of couples heading for divorce in the Capital, judges have now
stood up to save the sanctity of marriage. From advising the couple to give their marriage a second
chance to making them understand the practicality of life, the judges are doing everything that can
change the mind of the couple heading for separation.

The concept of mediation centres is rapidly gaining popularity, and with a success rate of 63%, this new
role of the gravel-hammering judges has earned them accolades from everywhere. According to recent
court figures, more than 1, 36,000 marriages take place every year while some 8,000-9,000 divorce
cases are filed each year. In fact, an average of 10 cases is filed per day in just one court. However, the
new Additional Dispute Resolution (ADR) method has given the judiciary a more humane approach in
resolving the matter. Sample this: A couple which had filed for a divorce recently went back to give
their marriage a second chance after attending sessions in the mediation centres. "The main problem
with the couple was a communication gap as both were working. So, when they approached us, all we
told them was to talk, be more expressive and resolve their issues over a cup of coffee. It worked for

Page 5 of 12
them and within 5 sittings, they decided to give it another shot," said a mediator judge who refused to
be named.

Earlier, this wasn't the role of mediation centres. The case was generally forwarded to the civil courts
if the couple was not ready to reconcile. However, the new ADR method involves an enhanced role of
the judge. The centres have taken the help of ADJs to do the job of the mediators. In the mediation
centre at Gole market, which comes under Delhi Legal Services Authority, there are five district and
sessions judges, who meet couples everyday between 8am to 7pm. similar mediation centres can be
found in Tis Hazari and Karkardoma. "The role of the judge in these mediation centres is not only to
mediate between the couples but also to understand the dispute between the two parties and come up
with an amicable solution," Sanjay Sharma, the project officer of DLSA, told TOI.

"Mediation in the context of matrimonial disputes is different in form and content from commercial and
property disputes. So we give advice on things like motivation, sentiments, social compulsions, personal
liabilities, and responsibility to solve the matter," said a mediator judge on the condition of anonymity.

The latest figures at the Tis Hazari mediation centre are encouraging. The success rate of settled cases
in Tis Hazari is as high as 63% while at Karkardoma it's close to 60%.

"Out of 7,473 cases handled by the mediation centre in the past three years, 7,264 have been disposed
of by now. About 4,605 cases have been settled successfully," informed Kapoor, the judge in charge of
the mediation centre in Tis Hazari courts.

"Our main job is not to tell them what to do, but to mediate between the two parties. We motivate these
couples to sort out their differences and the judges here try to talk to them about issues like personal
liabilities and responsibilities to solve the matter," Kapoor added.

The judges at the mediation centres believe that the mindsets of the people have changed over the years.
While earlier getting a divorce was considered the last resort for a couple, now they consider it their
first option.

Page 6 of 12
Mediation in Divorce

Nowadays, for significant portion of adult and youngsters marital and family relations are neither
straightforward nor stable. Within the US, in line with the recent researches 13.8 million children,
twenty five% of those underneath the age of eighteen, are living with only one parent and another 5
million kids in two folks homes live with a biological parent and a step parent. And it's a clear estimation
that 0.5 of the marriages can end up in divorce. People prefer to file suits in courts for divorce etc. and
it takes a lot of time as many cases are pending in the courts in India, a country where everyday cases
of domestic violence and quarrels are seen in every 2 people out of 10.Therefore, instead of wasting so
much of time by going through court formal proceedings a person can go to a mediator for settling
disputes. These days, as mediation is very common, some states of the US have quite constant and broad
use of divorce mediation e.g. Taxes and Connecticut. To save time and energy, it is necessary that
alternative like mediation should be adopted in large number which is the best method.

There are higher ways to realize settlement. Divorcing couples should consider their choices in a
constructive and progressive manner starting with the least hostile approach, divorce mediation.
Because the family problems are changing into intensive, likewise divorce has become thus terribly
common. And therefore every concerned one is in the hunt for an effective a approach-out. A divorcing
couples knows that divorce simply does not finish everything concerning a wedding, though it ends the
legal contract between a husband and a wife but, it shatters the household that was based on that
marriage. It conjointly cannot break the link that the youngsters of the marriage create simply by
existing. Mediation, conjointly known as “different dispute resolution" may be a method by which an
impartial third person (generally additional than one person) helps two discordant parties to resolve
dispute through a mutual concession and face-face negotiation. A mediator could be a trained skilled
who does not force rather assists the parties in their own negotiation while not creating choices for the
parties. A mediator rather facilitate the parties understand what is happening to them and encourages
them to barter in sensible faith that brings fruitful leads to future.

Mediators most usually are appointed by the court, typically with agreement by the lawyers for both
sides. Mediators come back in many varieties. A number of them are professional personal mediators,
many of whom are lawyers. They eliminate the requirement for a jury trial regarding ninety percent of
the time. Others are volunteer mediators and several of them are retired attorneys or non lawyers trained
by Dispute Resolution Services. It's a method in which the parties and their attorneys agree to resolve
all issues in an environment of cooperation, honesty and integrity without being engaged in adversarial
techniques in or out of court.

Page 7 of 12
The final benefits and benefits argued to be seen as a result of divorce mediation embody:-

1. Each the parties are liberated to air their concern.

2. A neutral person assists each the parties.

3. The approach is always non-adversarial.

4. Both the parties have management over the outcome.

5. The prices are cut to a nice extent.

6. Nobody's privacy is hurt.

7. A settlement agreement per the family's wants

8. Avoidance of litigation.

Divorce mediation might not be acceptable for both the spouses undergoing the process.
It has several disadvantages still:-

1. The opposite spouse may not cooperate and you can't force him/her.

2. The opposite party could try to show dominance over you and here a court lawyer can solely
offset the imbalance.

3. The opposite spouse may frighten or threaten you, and once a spouse is afraid of personal
safety, the participation interest drastically drops down.

4. Others argue that the decrease in the value of mediation and the upper fee of lawyers is due
to their high expertise in the sector and solely they can higher predict the appropriate outcome
of the case.

Therefore, every divorcing couples should try to settle down their marital issues within
themselves. If they cannot go that manner a minimum of they need to not hide anything from
one another and should bear the mediation process resulting in a conclusion. In circumstances,
things goes out of hand and both the spouses cannot reach to conformity, the traditional
adversarial approach might be a final resort (bearing the prices in mind).

Despite substantial support for divorce mediation disadvantages do exist. Divorce mediation
might not be acceptable for both the spouses undergoing the process. It has several
disadvantages such as the opposite spouse may not cooperate and you can't force him/her. The
opposite party could try to show dominance over you and here a court lawyer can solely offset
the imbalance.
The opposite spouse may frighten or threaten you, and once a spouse is afraid of personal
safety, the participation interest drastically drops down.

Page 8 of 12
Others argue that the decrease in the value of mediation and the upper fee of lawyers is due to
their high expertise in the sector and solely they can higher predict the appropriate outcome of
the case.

The family court law also empowers the family court to consider alternative modes of
reconciliation between couples, including mediation, which could result in couples getting back
together or parting ways amicably by mutual consent. If the mediation results in the couple
dropping their acrimonious charges and if in the meantime six months have elapsed, then the
family court cannot insist on waiting another six months before granting divorce by mutual
consent.

Mediation in India as compared to mediation in United States of America

In the United States, lawyers and the local and state bar associations, as well as the American
Bar Association and the Federal Bar Association, were as enthusiastic as the judges in their
promotion and utilization of mediation. American lawyers understood that the legal system was
overloaded and on the point of collapse from the courts being wrongly utilized for disputes that
could be better and more efficiently handled by mediation and other ADR procedures. By the
mid-1980's, lawyers and State Bar Associations had professionalized mediation in the US, by
developing mediator training standards, by providing lawyer training in mediation and by
prescribing ethical standards for lawyers when acting as mediators and when acting as
advocates in mediation. As a result, trained lawyer mediators made mediation a substantial part
of their law practice. By responding positively and emphatically to incorporate mediation as a
welcome and useful ADR tool in the American legal system, lawyers have not lost business to
mediation, but have rather become ensconced as mediators and as the gatekeepers for
mediation in the US legal systems. In the US, although lawyers initially felt threatened by
mediation and resisted it as an unwanted change in the status quo, the lawyers quickly realized
that mediation was just another tool in their lawyer tool bag.

In India, while judges have been quick to recognize increased use of mediation as a helpful
mechanism for reducing case backlogs and delays, Indian lawyers have not rushed to embrace
mediation. As with American lawyers in the early 1980's, Indian lawyers are conservative.
They do not like change and are reluctant to expose their clients to the uncertain risks of an
unknown ADR process. Also, understandably, Indian lawyers view mediation as potentially
depriving them of income by settling cases prematurely and thereby obviating legal fees that
would otherwise be earned. The same has been true for American lawyers during the growth
of mediation in the US over the last twenty (20) years. In the first place, by their early
acceptance and use of mediation, lawyers became not only the best trained and most qualified
mediators (incorporating their mediator work into their law practices), but the lawyers who did
not become mediators became the gatekeepers for mediation, selecting over 80% of the cases
that are mediated and choosing the mediators for such cases.

Page 9 of 12
Private litigants, too, may harbour anxiety about mediation as an alternative to the court system.
Fearful of exploitation, distrustful of private proceedings, comforted by the familiarity of the
court system, insecure about making decisions about their own interests, or interested in
vexatious litigation or in delaying the case for economic reasons, some litigants may prefer the
lawyer-dominated, public, formal, and evaluative judicial process.

These impressions are inaccurate for a variety of reasons. First, mediation will not frustrate the
preferences of such litigants; indeed, their right to trial will be preserved. An effective
mediation process can quickly allay these fears. Litigants involved in the process are much less
likely to be exploited. They will quickly understand that the mediator has no power or social
control over them or their resolution of the dispute. Second, effective facilitators will gain their
trust over time. Third, if the parties still feel the need for an evaluation of the legal issues, the
mediation can be accordingly designed to deliver that service. At times, litigants can better save
face with members of their family, community, or organization, if they can cast responsibility
for the result on a neutral third party, and for this group, a strong evaluative process may be
appropriate. While judges and the courts provided the initial impetus toward mediation in the
United States, it was the lawyers' and law schools' acceptance of the court's challenge to find
better ways of resolving disputes that lead to rapid and widespread acceptance of mediation in
the United States. Globally, however, the explosion of mediation in Europe and in Asia is being
spearheaded by corporations, as multi-national corporations ("MNC's") seek quicker, cheaper
and less disruptive means for settling internal employer, management and shareholder disputes
and external commercial disputes with trade and distribution partners around the world. At the
first annual European Business Mediation Congress convened October 21-23, 2004 by CPR
Institute of Dispute Resolution, 140 attendees (including representatives from most of the
world's largest law firms) responded to a Survey on European Business Mediation indicating
that 60% viewed MNC's as necessarily leading the charge in globalization of mediation, while,
25% viewed lawyers as the leaders, and only 7% viewed courts as the leaders in mediation on
the international commercial scene. Now that major corporate clients have discovered
mediation and are pushing for it, lawyers who resist the increased use of mediation in India
will likely lose credibility with existing or potential MNC clientele. Once it is understood that
mediation is intended to complement (not replace) the judicial process, that it is highly
adaptable to different contexts, and that expertise in India is already growing rapidly, the
apprehensions may quickly dissipate.

Page 10 of 12
CASE LAWS

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has in the landmark decision Salem Advocate Bar
Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India2 directed that all courts shall direct parties to
alternative dispute resolution methods like arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement or
mediation. The draft “Civil Procedure Alternative Dispute Resolution and Mediation Rules
2003” was also considered by the Supreme Court, for enactment by respective High Courts.
Direction was issued to all High Courts, Central Government and State Governments for
expeditious follow-up action. The draft rules contained the provision that court is referring the
matter to mediation is not disqualified from trying the suit later if no settlement is arrived at
between the parties. There are provisions in draft rules for appointment of mediator and fees of
mediator. But the same is yet to be adopted by the courts.

In the case of M/S. Afcons Infra. Ltd. & Anr vs M/S Cherian Varkey Construction 3, the
Supreme Court has said that while referring to Section 89 by the Court, the court has the
discretion to opt for any of the five methods. However, the practical application of the rule says
that ‘after the pleadings are complete and after seeking admission/denials wherever required,
and before framing issues, the court will have recourse to section 89 of the Code.’ Court will
consider the nature of the dispute and refer the parties to five options available and according
to the preferences of the parties refer the party to mode.

‘In case where the questions are complicated or cases which may require several rounds of
negotiations, the court may refer the matter to mediation. Though the process under Section 89
appears to be lengthy and complicated, in practice the process is simple: know the dispute;
exclude `unfit’ cases; ascertain consent for arbitration or conciliation; if there is no consent,
select Lok Adalat for simple cases and mediation for all other cases, reserving reference to a
Judge assisted settlement only in exceptional or special cases. ‘

Under Hindu Marriage Act, Section 23 and Special Marriage Act, reconciliation proceedings
are mandatory for parties. Section 23 (2) HMA states that before proceeding to grant any relief
under it, there shall be a duty of the court in the first instance, in every case to make every
endeavor to bring about reconciliation between parties where relief is sought on most of the
fault grounds for divorce specified in Section 13. Here the court may refer the party to
mediation to for counseling. If the attempt at reconcilement fails then, parties may arrive at a
peaceful settlement. The nature of Hindu marriage is that of a sacrament and not a contract.
Therefore, every attempt of reconciliation has to be made to avoid divorces that are carried out
in haste.

2
AIR2005SC3353
3
Arbitration Petition (L.) NO.752 OF 2013

Page 11 of 12
CONCLUSION

MEDIATION is not the answer to every dispute between the people in Family. In some
situations the Courts are absolutely necessary and the only recourse for a person is to file
lawsuit. LITIGATION is not the answer to every dispute either. MEDIATION offers the most
practical solution in that majority of disputes. The opportunities to be personally creative in
seeking constructive solutions to the parenting and economic crises of serration and divorce
are legion. Check them out and do homework. There is a better way then battling in the courts.
What the parties to the dispute need are the inclination to evaluate their options – both in terms
of process and substantive dispositions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:-

1. P C Markanda, Naresh Markanda and Rajesh Markanda Law Relating to Arbitration and
Conciliation, Lexis Nexis, 9th Edn. 2016
2. Dr. N.V. Paranjape, Law relating to Arbitration and Conciliation in India, Central Law
Publications, 2nd Edn. 2016.
3. Dr. S.C. Tripathi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Central Law Publications, 7th
Edn. 2015.

WEBSITES OFFERED:-

1. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/mediation-in-divorce-1424-1.html
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/mediation-important-divorce-cases/
3. https://lawrato.com/divorce-legal-advice/what-is-the-maximum-duration-for
mediation-in-case-of-divorce-19402

Page 12 of 12