Open Access Research Article
EXPLORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MEDIATION IN RESOLVING CRIMINAL MATRIMONIAL CASES: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS
Published Paper
Article Details
EXPLORING THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF MEDIATION IN RESOLVING CRIMINAL MATRIMONIAL CASES: A
COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS
AUTHORED BY - VARSHINI KASHYAP & SHREYA VIJRA
UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES,
4TH-YEAR STUDENTS
Abstract
In
India, the pervasiveness of domestic violence, especially against women, is a
cause for worry for society at large and the judicial system, which is
responsible for delivering justice in these situations. This raises the issue
of whether domestic abuse cases, which are frequently criminal in nature,
should be settled through mediation. According to an examination of the
problem, the main concern is striking a balance between the interests of many
parties involved in the incidence of domestic violence, including the abuser,
the victim, children, the courts, and society at large. The purpose of this
study is to offer suggestions for how to include mediation in domestic
To
preserve the benefits of mediation while minimizing its problems, this paper
will explore ways to use mediation in domestic violence instances. The focus of
the essay will be on a remedy for adult domestic violence cases as well as the
risks of mediation in child domestic violence situations. The controlled use of
mediation in domestic violence situations must be promoted in a way that
maintains the fear of punishment and is advantageous to all parties concerned,
as has been the case in several Indian court rulings.
Keywords- Cruelty, Domestic
Violence, Mediation, Non-compoundable offence, Divorce
Introduction
Domestic violence
is any violent, forceful, abusive, coercive, or threatening action by a family
member towards another family member. The use of mediation in the context of
domestic abuse is a contentious issue since there is disagreement regarding the
consequences of not punishing the victim in this circumstance. Some claim that
mediation makes the case against domestic abuse as a criminal less strong.
Instead of being punished, the perpetrator gets away unnoticed. It is feasible
to assume that if the abuser takes part in the conciliation phase, there won't
be any bad repercussions. Because of this, the abuser will be able to escape
punishment, and the victim will believe they are partly a fault. The argument
is that counselling can decriminalise domestic abuse and give the perpetrator
permission to continue victimising them. The alternative argument claims that
when the perpetrator admits to having committed the offence, the victim's sense
of self-denial lessens.
Mediation is
victim-centric rather than a society-centric process. As a result, arbitration
through mediation between the victim and the perpetrator modifies the
traditional model of criminal law by putting the victim at the center rather
than the periphery of the entire process.
To resolve the
conflict and impose conditions on the victim's will, the victim is replaced for
the victim rather than the best feasible solution, which the state believes to
be a generic analysis. Even if the state has spent a lot of work identifying
and criminalising these infractions and discriminating against women, women
should be given a choice because the offence is against them and they are at
the mercy of this criminal act.
It was
discovered that the victims were not initially recognised or objected to the
worry that they were disgraced across society since the legal process was not
private and the party's identity was known, which contributed to a worsening of
the family situation. The abuse in the family is heavily mimicked, and the
perpetrators are unwilling to file a lawsuit out of fear of being exposed to
society. The crime's undisclosed and unrecognised seriousness is attributable
to the victim's efforts to keep the incident secret to ease family tensions.
This makes it simple to handle the crucial secrecy issue in ethical mediation,
and mediators should be professionally qualified to maintain a power balance in
such circumstances.
Societal Perception of Divorce
Divorce is a
complex social and legal process that can have far-reaching consequences for
families, communities and the nation as a whole. India is a collectivist
society where “marriage is perceived as a vehicle for maintaining social order
and for forming links between families rather than as a means of fulfilling
personal desires[1]”.
Dissolution of marriages can result in the destruction of these traditions and
values and can often cause a great deal of stress and confusion within the
family unit and societal structure.
In India, the
number of couples seeking a divorce has increased substantially in recent
years. There are several factors that have contributed to this trend. These
include a rising incidence of crime, alcoholism, drug abuse, inter-caste
marriage and the loosening of traditional social structure. The breakdown of
the traditional joint-family system is another major factor which has
contributed to an increase in the incidence of divorce in the country. In the
past, most Indian families were extended and consisted of several generations
living under one roof, including the husband's parents, his brothers and
sisters and their children. However, with rising urbanization and economic
changes, the traditional joint-family system has been replaced by nuclear
families consisting of the husband, his wife and their children.
In a
traditional joint-family system, all members depend on one another for support
and help, and this extended family helps provide guidance and stability for the
members in times of need. On the other hand, nuclear families have fewer family
members living with them and are relatively more independent. however, the
patriarchal outlook of society has not seemed to change much even after so many
years. Traditionally, Indian men are seen as the head of the household and
their decisions are respected and regarded as final by all members of the
family. Even today, fathers are considered responsible for the well-being of
their children, and their wishes are taken to be the norm for the entire
family. Although there has been some progress in this regard over the years,
the influence of the male head of the household is still very strong in Indian
society, and it often leads to unnecessary conflicts within the family.
Despite the
increasing number of divorces in India, the divorce rate remains relatively low
compared to that of many Western countries. This may be due to the cultural and
religious values which are strongly entrenched within Indian society, as well
as the strong social taboos against divorce in most parts of the country.
However, a large number of marriages also end in divorce due to irreconcilable
differences between the husband and wife. These conflicts and differences often
lead the couple to courtrooms to seek divorce. Divorce has a negative social,
psychological, and financial impact on everyone in the family, not just the
divorcing spouse[2]. As
diverse families are served by mental health professionals, they are often
placed within the Western value systems of psychology and counselling, in which
individuation is expected to place boundaries on cohesion and individual goals[3],
and subsequently, marriage counselling on the same scale, quite often do not
prove to be helpful. It is imperative, therefore, for an appropriate mechanism
for Divorce to be in place. The Indian Judicial System has recognized this and
has provided laws that ensure that a divorced couple has access to legal
remedies if needed.
Even in the presence of the mechanism, the
judicial system in India tries to protect these familial units.
Furthermore, if the divorce is contested in India, the process may be prolonged
and expensive, to overcome this Courts often refer these cases to Mediation
under section 89 of the CPC, even so in cases filed under section 498 A of the
IPC. As with other personal matters like marriage, inheritance, etc., religion
plays a significant role in the determination of applicable Indian divorce
laws. The Hindu Marriage Act was passed in 1955 that governs the
dissolution of marriage among Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jains. A Muslim
Marriage Dissolution Act of 1939 governs Muslims. The Parsi Marriage and
Divorce Act was passed in 1936 to regulate the marriage and divorce of Parsis,
and the Indian Divorce Act was passed in 1869 to govern Christian divorces
while a Special Marriage Act was passed in 1954, to govern all civil and
inter-community marriages. A divorce application filed under any of the
afore-mentioned acts has to meet certain pre-requisites, i.e. the application
can only be filed if it meets the grounds of divorce as given in legislative
provisions.
This paper concentrates on one of
such grounds, Cruelty. Cruelty in a marriage is the hardest to define of all
marital offences, as ascertained in the case of Sheldon v. Sheldon[4],
where Lord Denning had stated “The categories of cruelty are not closed. Each case may be
different. We deal with the conduct of human beings who are not generally
similar. Among human beings, there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may
constitute cruelty. In any case, a new type of cruelty may crop up depending
upon the human behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct
complained of. Such is the wonderful (sic) realm of cruelty[5].”
Cruelty in a marriage can be verbal, psychological, emotional, or
even sexual. Indian society has historically viewed women less favourably
than men due to its patriarchal structure. Cruelty comes in many
different forms, making it challenging to define it precisely. Inflicting pain
and suffering on a relationship in a way that makes it challenging for either
person to live with, is referred to as mental cruelty. On the other hand,
beatings slaps, and other physical aggression constitute physical cruelty.
The legislators in India have however tried to throw some
light on the definition of cruelty in section 498A of IPC. As mentioned earlier it does not have a
fixed pattern rather it depends on different circumstances and factors. Cruelty
has been explained as-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment
is to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any
person related to her to meet such demand.
To prevent spouses' and in-laws'
abuse on women, the Criminal Code includes cruelty committed by a
husband or a husband's relative. In addition, a corresponding modification to
the Evidence Act was adopted, transferring the burden of proof of innocence
from the prosecution to the accused in cases involving the abetment of a
married woman's suicide and a wife's passing within seven years of marriage.
Section 498A mandates a three-year prison term as well as a fine for a woman's
spouse who subjects her to cruelty in order to make the offence deterrent.
The cases reported under Section
498A are cognizable if the information
related to the commission of the act is given to the police. Cognizable
offences are those offences that the police can arrest without any warrant by
the First Schedule. Cases under Section 498A are also non-bailable and bail can
only be given at the discretion of the magistrate. Non-bailable offences are
serious offences where bail is a privilege and only the court can grant it.
These offences are also non-compoundable where the complaint cannot be
withdrawn e.g. rape, death, murder, dowry. The case registered under 498A is
non-compoundable except in the state of Andhra Pradesh.
Role of ADR in Divorce Proceedings
ADR in contrast, to judicial
proceedings, can address disputes and discords agreeably and appropriately by
facilitating dialogue. The confrontational character of litigation and
vituperative arguments, however, on the contrary, can cause resentment and even
aggravate already strained familial ties.
In 2013, The Supreme Court of India
while hearing the case of K. Srinivas Rao Vs D.A. Deepa[6],
instructed the criminal courts not to take up any cases brought under Section 489A
of the IPC unless the matter has first been resolved through mediation centres,
but in a select few instances where the cruelty amounts to be particularly
severe and dangerous, the criminal courts may do so. Also, it has been decided
that every mediation centre should establish its private litigation clinics so
that marriage conflicts can be settled out of court.
During the course of the trial,
counsellors assist the Family Courts in resolving marital disputes as per
section 9 of the Family Court Act 1987. Even after counsellors have filed
failure reports post counselling sessions, the Supreme Court insisted that
family courts try to settle disputes through mediation. The Court also said
that the mediation centre should give the family court a reasonable amount of
time to finish the mediation process so that the family courts don't have to
wait any longer to settle disputes. The court also said that the mediation
process could take longer. In addition, the Supreme Court mandated that
criminal courts hearing complaints under section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) refer the parties to mediation centres prior to the complaint's hearing
stage. The court observed that this reference should only be made if the
parties to the dispute are willing to settle the dispute or the facts indicate
that a settlement exists. Non-compoundable offences under Section 498 A of the
Indian Penal Code cannot be resolved through compromise, so the court issued
this directive.
In Mohd. Mushtaq Ahmad v. State[7], a
wife sought a divorce and lodged an FIR under Section 498 against her husband.
Once the couple's problems arose following the birth of their daughter, an IPC
was filed. Section 89 CPC was used by the Karnataka High Court to order the
parties to arbitrate their conflict. After the conflict was resolved
peacefully, the wife opted to drop the FIR, allowing the court to dismiss
criminal proceedings, the FIR, or the complaint in appropriate cases to achieve
the aims of justice.
Mediation
Due to the nature of our society, the
use of mediation in domestic violence cases is questionable. The patriarchal
nature of Indian society is a big factor in the enactment of numerous laws
aimed at safeguarding the rights of women. If courts began to refer more
domestic violence cases to mediation, the very aim of enacting laws like
Section 498A would be undermined. The probability of an abusive partner going
unpunished for an offence by simply paying a settlement amount is a significant
disadvantage of the criminal mediation process, only civil disputes can be
mediated; criminal disputes, particularly those that are non-compoundable,
cannot be mediated. However, Indian courts have taken a different approach in
certain judgements, stating that pre-litigation mediation in matrimonial disputes
should be encouraged if they are suitable for mediation. The Supreme Court of
India held in the B.S. Joshi case[8]
that the High Court can quash a criminal charge in a non-compoundable offence
if the parties have amicably resolved their differences while exercising their
underlying power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
To ensure that mediation is conducted
fairly in matrimonial disputes, the Court issued a few guidelines, including
obtaining the consent of the parties before having to refer them to mediation,
setting a rational time limit for court-referred mediation so that the
settlement is not delayed, and referring complaints under Section 498A to mediation only when there is an element of
the settlement. As an outcome, the Supreme Court has taken a pro-mediation
stance while providing a few guidelines to ensure that the mediation process is
not abused by the partner.
Mediation is a type of dispute settlement that
is typically used in the case of compoundable offences. In this case, the main
issue arises because the offence of cruelty under 498A is classified as a
non-compoundable offence under the IPC. This problem has been discovered and
discussed in several cases over the years. The Supreme Court of India has
issued numerous decisions in which it has advocated for mediation. The court
has mentioned that while issues may be kept referring to mediation, the court
retains jurisdiction and may track the settlement before disposition.
Procedure for Mediation
1. The courts, by Section 89 and Order X
Rule 1A of the CRPC refer the case for mediation.
2. The referring judge is referred to as
a referral judge. He only looks at the facts of the case to determine whether
it is appropriate for mediation or not.
3. The parties mutually agree on the
appointment of a mediation officer to assist the mediation process.
To determine whether mediation can be
used in cases involving domestic violence, it is essential to identify
interests. The first is trying to keep a family together for the sake of the
child, and the second is that society has a common interest in matters of a
criminal nature. As a result, the protection of the family relationship, the
child's interest in the relationship, and easing the burden on the courts to
settle all disputes are identified as the primary interests.
Section
498A was enacted to prevent women from being tortured by their husbands or
relatives, the Court stated that the view would be counterproductive and
would act against the interests of women and against the purpose for which it
was added. The difficulty of mediation in cases of domestic violence comes down
to balancing interests. The fact that domestic violence is a crime and that
society generally holds the belief that the accused must be punished is one of
the reasons why many people would oppose the idea of mediation in cases of
domestic violence. In addition, imposing a criminal penalty, such as a fine or
imprisonment, acts as a deterrent for other citizens and, as a result, may
reduce the number of cases of domestic violence in the community. As a result,
the other aspect of domestic violence cases is one in which the perpetrator is made
to pay for his actions and societal norms of acceptable and unacceptable
behaviour are established. The second interest is this societal desire for
criminals to be punished. Due to the nature of Indian society, it is
questionable to use mediation in cases of domestic violence. Numerous laws for
the protection and advancement of women have been enacted as a result of the
patriarchal nature of Indian society. The very purpose of laws like section
498A would be undermined if courts were
to refer domestic violence cases to mediation more. The most significant
disadvantage of the mediation process in criminal cases is the possibility that
an abuser will not be punished for an offence by simply paying a settlement
amount.
The fact that the victim has the option
of having the criminal proceedings against the abuser quashed if the parties settle
through mediation is the main obstacle in such cases and also the primary
criticism of cases. This sets a bad example for society and in the mind of the
offender, who tends to become less afraid of the consequences of their crimes
because they know they can get away with them without being caught or punished.
This could result in an even higher rate of domestic violence in society
because people who would normally avoid it out of fear of being punished may
now be more likely to do so as the above threat can be eliminated.
Furthermore, ignoring the fact that a
crime is committed not only against the victim but also against society as a
whole and should be punished severely, as well as the fact that the action is
typically brought against the offender by the State, undermines the fundamental
foundation of criminal law by permitting the abuser or abusers to go unpunished
at the victim's discretion. Due to the nature of the crime, which typically
takes place in the privacy of households and is not typically incident-specific,
domestic violence cases fall into the category of those few cases in which the
victim must bring legal action against the perpetrator.
In general, only civil disputes can
be mediated; non-compoundable criminal disputes, in particular, cannot be
mediated. In some judgments, Indian courts, on the other hand, have stated that
pre-litigation mediation should be encouraged in matrimonial disputes if they
are suitable for mediation.
However, in the case of Ram Gopal vs
State of Madhya Pradesh[9], for
instances involving matrimonial and family issues to be resolved through the
use of mediation and to lessen the burden on the subordinate Court, the Court
had requested the competent Law Commission that the offence under Section 498A
of the IPC be made compoundable.
In the case of In Gian Singh v. State
of Punjab and Anr, according to the High Court, certain offences that
predominately and largely have a civil favour, such as those that stem from
matrimonial or family disputes, where the offender and victim have amicably
resolved all of their differences, are still punishable even though they have
not been made compoundable. If the concerned High Court believes that
continuing with the criminal proceedings will contradict the goals of justice,
it may order their dismissal.
Analysis
The main argument of this paper is
that the victim may choose to have the abuser's criminal charges dropped in
cases where the parties settle through mediation. Offenders tend to become less
fearful of the consequences of their criminal acts as they occur, setting a
negative example for society and in their minds because they are aware that
they can avoid punishment by meditating. Those who have previously abstained
from committing domestic violence may now begin doing so because they are aware
that the aforementioned threat can be eliminated. This is because the
possibility of punishment may no longer exist.
The fundamental principles of criminal
law, particularly the idea that a crime must be punished with severe penalties
because it is committed not only against the victim but also against society as
a whole[10], are also
undermined by allowing the abusers to escape punishment at the victim's discretion.
Domestic violence cases are one of the few that must be brought against the
perpetrator by the victim because of the nature of the crime, which typically
takes place in the privacy of a household and is not typically
incident-specific[11].
Even though the abuser needs to be
punished for the crime and there is a legitimate issue at hand, a strict
approach in this regard may prevent mediation settlements. This is because the
abuser would have little incentive to settle. After all, he would still be subject
to punishment regardless of whether a settlement was reached. This problem is
similar to one in economics, where underproduction is caused by a lack of
investment incentives due to poor investment returns[12].
As a result, the abuser needs to be given a financial incentive to make a deal.
Consequently, a middle path must be
taken. Mediation and the subsequent settlement of domestic violence cases must
be encouraged, even though the court must have the discretion to reduce the
offender's sentence based on the severity of the violence. The victim must not
be allowed to request that the criminal case be dismissed if these procedures
are successful. This will assist in achieving both the goals of mediation in
such circumstances by encouraging the abuser to attempt to reach a settlement
and fully utilizing the mediation process. Additionally, it will ensure that no
crime goes unpunished and that no negative social precedent is established.
The plea-bargaining theory, which is
widely used in the United States of America, serves as the foundation for this
tactic. Plea bargaining is the process in which the prosecutor and the
defendant "negotiate an agreement whereby the defendant is permitted to
plead guilty to a reduced prosecution charge[13]."In
other words, it is the process of negotiating a deal between the prosecution
and the defence in which the prosecution offers the defendant leniency,
dismissal, or recommendations in exchange for a guilty plea. Even though
India's overall set of laws doesn't perceive supplication haggling, giving a
lesser sentence in return for the wrongdoer's confirmation of culpability can
be changed and applied to abusive behaviour at home situations where a
settlement has been reached with the victimizer's participation through the
intercession cycle. In keeping with the same idea, it is suggested that the
court might reduce the abuser's punishment by taking into account the abuser's
agreement and a mutual settlement reached through mediation. It is necessary to
develop guidelines for the same to reduce arbitrary decision-making.
Another significant disadvantage is
the possibility that the victim of domestic violence will be persuaded or put
under pressure to reach a settlement that goes against the mediation's
fundamental goal of empowering the parties.
It is common knowledge that the abuser has greater control over the
victim—physical, financial, or emotional—and that there is a power imbalance
between the two parties—especially when the victim belongs to a vulnerable
group like women, minors, or those who are economically disadvantaged[14]. This is
one of the main factors that contribute to domestic violence.
Likely, this will also have an impact
on the mediation procedures. In addition, the victim may be pressured to accept
a settlement with terms that she does not agree with her family and friends or
by widespread public criticism. In addition, it is important to keep in mind
that domestic violence lacks the fundamental elements of trust, honesty, and
transparency necessary for successful mediation[15].
Victims of such violence find it nearly impossible to participate in
alternative dispute resolution processes on a level equal to that of the abuser
due to the very nature of such offences, in which the abuser experiences a
sense of dominance and power while the victims are consistently left feeling
vulnerable and helpless following the abuse.
It is essential to avoid using
mediation as a means of coercion. It is essential to keep in mind that
mediation's primary objective is not only to settle the disagreement but also
to address the psychological needs of the victim so that they can attempt to
move past their trauma and forgive the abuser.
In addition, for the mediation
process to be successful, the mediator must be able to restore the parties' relative
balance. As a result, for a mediation to be successful, the mediator's training
becomes an essential requirement. Additionally, the mediator must be
knowledgeable about the parties' psychological circumstances, the cycle of
violence, and the causes of domestic violence.
Because of the aforementioned
factors, it is evident that the mediator's role is more important in cases of
domestic violence because if it is carried out improperly and without adequate
supervision, mediation in these situations may result in the suppression of the
weaker party and unfair outcomes. As a result, it is suggested that mediation
guidelines for cases involving domestic violence be developed and that only
mediators who have undergone training and carefully adhere to the necessary
standards be permitted to act in such cases.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is possible to
assert that mediation is an excellent method for resolving several disputes and
that disputes involving domestic violence can also be mediated successfully;
however, a significant revision to the criteria for mediation is required. For
dispute mediation, it is inappropriate to distinguish between compoundable and
non-compoundable cases. A case must be independently screened before it can be
referred for mediation, and any incident involving severe domestic violence
harassment should not be kept referred for mediation. If the victim does not
have equal negotiation power in a domestic violence dispute, she or he may be
easily manipulated to serve the accused's interests and desires, which would
defeat the whole purpose of the exercise. To overcome this barrier, mediators
must receive specific training to ensure that the complainant is not
emotionally or mentally abused and is comfortable accepting the accused's choice
to overcome this barrier. If serious changes are made to the process, mediation
can be very successful and can ensure that the family structure does not
collapse while the abuse is stopped.
Bibliography
1. Breckenridge,
L. J. (2023). Collectivism. Salem Press Encyclopedia of Health.
2. Mirzadjanovna,
M. (2022). The effects of divorce on Modern Society. International Journal
of Advanced Research in Innovation, Management & Social Sciences, 11(2),
53-57
3. Ibid.
1
4. (1966) 2 All E.R. 257
5. Ibid.4
6. (2013)
5 SCC 226
7. 2015(3)
AKR 363.
8. AIR
2003 SC 1386
9. Criminal Appeal No. 1489
of 2012
10. Seymour
F.; Force Harris, M. F. Principles of Criminal Law (1880).
11. Mary
Ann Dutton & Catherine L. Waltz, Domestic Violence,
17 Fam. Advoc. 14 (1995).
12. William
H. Oakland, Public Goods, Perfect Competition, and Underproduction, Journal of
Political Economy, Vol. 82, No. 5 (Sept. – Oct. 1974), Pg. 927- 939.
13. Plea Bargaining, 9
Jailhouse Law, Manual 1 (2011).
14. Jane
C. Murphy & Robert Rubinson, Domestic Violence and Mediation:
Responding to the Challenges of Crafting Effective Screens,
39 Fam. L.Q. 53 (2005).
15. Olga
Sitarz, Dominika Bek & Anna Jawarska-Wieloch, Mediation and Domestic
Violence: Theoretical Reflection on the Polish Background, International
Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, Vol. 13 (2), July-December 2018, Pg. 356
– 369.
[1] Breckenridge, L. J. (2023).
Collectivism. Salem Press Encyclopedia of Health.
[2] Mirzadjanovna, M. (2022).
The effects of divorce on Modern Society. International Journal of Advanced
Research in Innovation, Management & Social Sciences, 11(2),
53-57
[3] Ibid. 1
[4] (1966) 2 All E.R. 257
[5] Ibid.4
[6] (2013) 5 SCC 226
[7] 2015(3)
AKR 363.
[8] AIR 2003 SC 1386
[9] Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012
[11] Mary Ann
Dutton & Catherine L. Waltz, Domestic Violence,
17 Fam. Advoc. 14 (1995).
[12] William H. Oakland, Public Goods,
Perfect Competition, and Underproduction, Journal of Political Economy, Vol.
82, No. 5 (Sept. – Oct. 1974), Pg. 927- 939.
[13] Plea Bargaining, 9
Jailhouse Law, Manual 1 (2011).
[14] Jane C.
Murphy & Robert Rubinson, Domestic Violence and
Mediation: Responding to the Challenges of Crafting Effective Screens,
39 Fam. L.Q. 53 (2005).
[15] Olga Sitarz, Dominika Bek & Anna Jawarska-Wieloch, Mediation
and Domestic Violence: Theoritical Reflection on the Polish Background,
International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, Vol. 13 (2), July-December
2018, Pg. 356 – 369.
Article Information
EXPLORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MEDIATION IN RESOLVING CRIMINAL MATRIMONIAL CASES: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS
Authors: VARSHINI KASHYAP, SHREYA VIJRA
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/04/06
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.