A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing a transfer petition filed by a woman seeking to move a defamation suit, instituted against her by her husband's friend, from Assam to Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner contended that she was already engaged in multiple litigations with her husband in Ghaziabad and therefore sought consolidation of proceedings.
During the hearing, counsel for the wife submitted that the defamation case arose from a representation she had made to the Air Force authorities in Delhi. She alleged that her husband, an Air Force officer, was conducting an independent business in contravention of service rules. The representation was made after the husband had lodged a false complaint accusing the wife and her brother of stealing an Air Force helmet. The wife stated that her communication to the Air Force was intended only to ascertain the whereabouts of the helmet after it had been allotted.
Justice BV Nagarathna, while noting the factual submissions, expressed concern over a broader practice observed in matrimonial litigation. She remarked that many wives adopt the course of writing complaints against their husbands to their employers, which often leads to termination of employment. The judge observed that such action exacerbates the financial difficulties of the parties because loss of livelihood diminishes the capacity to pay maintenance.
Justice Nagarathna stated, 'This is what many wives are doing. Writing against the husband to the employer. Then they will be terminated. Getting divorce is one thing but getting them out of their livelihood is worse.' She further added that writing to the employer in the context of matrimonial disputes is 'the worst thing' wives can do, as it jeopardises the husband's job and consequently affects any maintenance amount that may be sought later.
Justice R Mahadevan concurred with the observations, emphasizing that the court's role is to encourage amicable settlement rather than actions that aggravate estrangement. The bench noted that the parties were already involved in multiple proceedings and that referral to mediation could facilitate a resolution.
Consequently, the court passed an order referring the matter to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre for exploration of settlement possibilities. The order read, 'In order to explore the possibility of settlement between the parties, the matter is referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.' Justice Nagarathna also advised the counsel appearing for the wife to counsel her to resolve all outstanding disputes and withdraw the allegations made against the husband and his friend.
The observations underscore the court's caution against extralegal actions that may have adverse economic repercussions on matrimonial parties. By highlighting the link between employment loss and maintenance claims, the bench sought to dissuade parties from resorting to complaints to employers as a tactical tool in matrimonial disputes. The referral to mediation reflects the judiciary's preference for negotiated settlements over adversarial escalation.