Can Divorce Mediators Handle Cases of Domestic Violence? THEME: Mediation and Women’s Rights

This article was authored by Arti Gupta and Radhika Sarda from the National Law School of India University, Bangalore


The Court’s response to domestic violence in most cases, as has been argued, is to refer it to mediation on the pretext of it being a “matrimonial dispute”. This specific reasoning is just a manifestation of the public-private dichotomy that radical feminists brought to light. The private sphere, which subsumes familial relations, stays immune from public scrutiny. This immunity serves to hide the prime cause of domestic violence against women- the equations of power men acquire over women. This essay explores the possibilities, drawbacks and plausible solutions that ought to be recognized when any domestic violence dispute is referred to mediation. The essay lays special emphasis on ascertaining psychological harm and a culture of battering before any dispute is taken to the mediation table. Most importantly, through this essay, the authors strive to resolve the general ethical conundrum that arises when either mediation or intervention of the criminal justice system is seen as the only recourse battered women ought to take.

The Devil Is In The Court’s Response

The marriage was solemnized on 22nd February, 2002. All Hindu rites and rituals were followed. As a married couple, they resided together at District Baitual, M.P. The marriage was seemingly happy, until she mustered some courage. Babita Raghuvanshi walked to Police Station Sarni, District Baitual on 5th March, 2003. She alleged that her husband, Jitendra Raghuvanshi, and his relatives were torturing and harassing her in the marital home. An FIR was registered for offences punishable under Section 498-A (‘Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty’)[1] of the Indian Penal Code. Suddenly, in the year 2012, during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the parties, under mysterious circumstances, decided to “amicably” settle their dispute with the help of family members and well-wishers. Babita Raghuvanshi filed an affidavit stating that she did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against her husband.

The above described scenario is neither imagined nor exaggerated. Babita Raghuvanshi existed (hopefully, she still does). Her affidavit was rejected and an appeal was filed, which went up to the Supreme Court of India in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors v. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr.[2] The question was whether Section 498-A, a non-compoundable offence, can be mediated among the parties. The judgment paid no heed to the violence that had actually been committed; it did not delve into the question of whether Babita voluntarily chose to mediate; it involved no condemnation of spousal abuse. Justice P. Sathasivam’s decision can be succinctly put as follows, “In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase.”[3]

The Court’s response sends across several messages. First, a “genuine”, or out of court, settlement of an offence can be resorted to solely because there has been a spurt in the number of such cases. Such a stance exhibits an attitude of diverting domestic abuse cases to alternative methods, so the courts can pursue “real” criminals. It perpetuates the belief that wife battering cases are, given their frequency, not important enough for the Court to spend its valuable time on.[4] Second, the language of the Court shrouds actual abuse (which could have been grave) as a mere “matrimonial dispute”. No wonder Section 498A falls under the chapter “Offences Against Marriage” and not “Offences Against Human Body” under the Indian Penal Code.

When the Court terms a possibly gruesome act of violence as a “matrimonial dispute”, it is also implying the private nature of it. It is this ‘private’ characteristic of a family dispute that makes others perceive it as more amenable to alternate methods of dispute resolution. A family is considered to be a self-contained system.[5] Under such a belief, all parts of the family are equally responsible for whatever happens within it. Violence within a family is, then, seen as an act unique to that particular family. It is in this context that mediation is resorted to. Law, or the legal system, composed of abstract rules and principles, is viewed as combatant and adversarial.[6] Mediation is visualized as the “other” of formal law, as informal, non-hierarchical, cheaper, precise, and efficient. It is specifically preferred in domestic violence cases on the basis that parties in a marital relationship will benefit from a cooperative space to express themselves, and negotiate a solution rather than the adversarial process which lays emphasis on winning and losing. The farcical nature of shoving domestic violence under the rug as “matrimonial” is starkly evident. It is only domestic violence that is being termed so, and not patricide[7] which, as a matter of fact, also happens wholly within the family.

At this stage, it becomes crucial to give a form to the term “domestic violence” as used throughout the essay. Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘PWDVA’), “domestic violence” has been defined as violence committed against a woman who has been in a “domestic relationship” with the abuser.[8] A “domestic relationship”, under the Act, encompasses any relationship wherein two people have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household. Yet, for the purpose of this essay, any reference to violence only envisages violence committed by a man against a woman when both of them share a marital relationship or a relationship in the nature of marriage.[9] This narrowing down of the scope is being done for two reasons. First, as will be shown, there is something particularly peculiar about violence committed in a marital relationship or in a relationship in the nature of marriage. Second, the implication of taking a recourse to mediation has special implications when the violence is committed in such relationships.

Why Do Men Batter Women?

My husband is in the kitchen.

He is channelling his anger, practising his outrage. I am the wooden cutting board banged against the countertop. I am the clattering plates flung into the cupboard. I am the unwashed glass being thrown to the floor. Shatter and shards and diamond sparkle of tiny pieces. My hips and thighs and breasts and buttocks. Irreversible crashing sounds, a fragile sight of brokenness as a petty tyrant indulges in a power-trip. Not for the first time, and not for the last.[10]

Mediation, as a method of conflict resolution, looks at disputes in terms of relationships and responsibilities. Herein, we must resist the temptation to brand family violence as something peculiar to a particular relationship. Susan Schechter argues that instead of paying attention to why violence is committed in any individual relationship, or by any specific individual, we should focus on why men batter women.[11] It is crucial to give due consideration to the message that radical feminists have been trying to put across- violence against women is a form of sex discrimination.[12] Violence perpetrated on women is not an individual act, specific to the family or the relationship they belong to. As Catharine MacKinnon expounds, women are subjected to violence “because they are women: not individually or at random, but on the basis of sex, because of their membership in a group defined by gender”.[13] Acts of male violence against women “express and actualize the distinctive power of men over women in society”.

A relevant question that now arises is this- how do men come to acquire power over women? When the family structure is seen in isolation from external social attitudes that permeate the family, we overlook the sex role socialization that families are vulnerable to. Industrialized society, with its market-family dichotomy disregarded the value of women’s work at home. When their work in the home is economically unrewarded, it foregrounds their economic dependence on men. Both men and women are starkly aware of this economic dependence of women. When the husband realizes that it is his monetary support that the wife is dependent on, her work around the house, and she herself, becomes a fit subject for his inspection.[14] He believes that as the head of the household, he is obliged to chastise and discipline her whenever her behaviour deviates from his expectations. Coupled with this is the historical belief that a man’s wife is his property, and that he is entitled to chastise her, even through the use of violence. Recall how the English Common Laws of 1800s articulated the “Rule of Thumb” which directed that the thickness of the rod with which a man could beat his wife should not be thicker than his thumb.[15] Another reason for men’s power over women is that male dominance is sexual. The acts of dominance over women are perceived as sexually arousing.[16] The fact that men have power over women means that interests of male sexuality determine what sexuality itself means. And sexuality, in the male paradigm, encompasses violence.[17] An example of the same is sexual violence which is portrayed as erotic and acceptable in widely available pornography, women are shown to be brutalized and to be loving it, asking for it.[18] Therefore, it is women’s economic dependence, the belief that a man is entitled to beat his wife, and the pervasive association of violence with sexual arousal which exacerbates women’s powerlessness.

The reasoning behind the violence could be multiple- an attempt to control the way the victim dresses, keeps her hair, keeps the house, cooks the meal, who she interacts with, and where she goes. Any deviated behaviour on the part of the victim can instigate an overly violent encounter, the purpose being solely to establish control over her. Interestingly, after any violence, the couple also experiences the “honeymoon” phase, which involves apologies by the accused, promises not to abuse again, forgiveness, and excuses, all forming a part of a cycle. With the completion of each such cycle, the intensity and frequency of the violence accelerates, until the “honeymoon” phase is no longer required.[19] The notion of the man controlling the wife has another important facet to it. It elucidates how the use of violence can be strategic and purposeful- something done after taking into consideration alternatives, benefits and plausible consequences. It has been argued before that violence is the tool the husbands use to get their own way in the relationship- when they notice that even a single act of violence can leave a lasting impact. The wife learns to appease the husband so as not to provoke him to further violence. Battering, consequently, is perceived as a “rational” choice.[20]

It should, however, be remembered that violence against women is a mechanism of control over not just individual women in the family, but over women as a whole.[21] Domestic violence serves a terroristic function, threatening not only the individual who has been actually abused, but all other women who are afraid that they could be next. Therefore, all women, including those who have not been directly abused, bear the brunt of violence used against women.[22] This is how violence against women serves as an instrument of social control.

When the Supreme Court regards domestic violence as a “matrimonial dispute”, the privatization of the family, and women’s secondary nature within it, is attempted to be insulated from public scrutiny. The immunity from public scrutiny allows violence to continue while everyone says ‘Mind your own business. This is a family problem’.[23] The Supreme Court’s resort to mediation for the supposedly “matrimonial dispute” frustrates the attempts to eradicate the institutionalized causes of battering, all under the garb of “keeping the family together”.

A caveat, dear readers. Our purpose here is to not make normative claims about whether mediation should happen in domestic violence disputes, or that it should never happen. We are acutely aware of the hurdles the law, and the legal system, pose to women.[24] And we also acknowledge the benefit that an alternate intervention like mediation can confer on women. Therefore, we do not intend to make any black and white statements about the appropriateness of mediation. Herein, we only wish to explore how mediation might play out for battered women taking recourse to it, and what can be the way forward.

Are All Scars Visible?

In using there are always two.

The manipulator dances with a partner who cons herself.

There are lies that glow so brightly we consent

To give a finger and then an arm

To let them burn.[25]

A prevalent belief is that those victims of domestic violence who have faced a “culture of battering”, in the form of cyclic stages described above, or in a systematic pattern of physical, emotional sexual and financial abuse, are not appropriate for mediation.[26] Nothwithstanding, a decision to refer a case to mediation is always made by evaluating only the seriousness of the physical injuries inflicted on the victim. Implicit in such a view is the belief that minor physical injuries are not grave enough to be taken to the court. Yet a pertinent question that arises is- what amounts to a serious injury? Strategic abusers tend to cause injuries in places covered by clothing or hair, which cannot be easily seen. Or some abusers utilize rubber instruments which lead to internal injuries but leave no evidence on the surface of the skin.[27] Most significantly, taking the seriousness of the physical injury as the only metric ignores the frequency of the injury and the intensity of the psychological harm caused to the victim. A woman’s continued subjection to oppressive, vicious, and harmful behaviour can cause mental anguish and pose a threat to her quality of life.[28] Economic and emotional harm, as recognized in the PWDVA as forms of domestic violence can be as detrimental to a woman’s well-being as physical abuse.[29]

Ignorance of psychological harm has further implications. When the woman is emotionally weak, she will be unable to strongly take a stance for herself at the mediation table. Emotional harm, caused by intimidation and threats, make the woman fearful. Therefore, she might choose to not be assertive of what she wants during mediation out of the batterer’s fear. Psychological harm, in this way, leads to unequal bargaining power on the part of the victim, which distorts the effectiveness of the mediation process. Anyone rendering the services of mediation should undertake the responsibility of pre-screening domestic violence. If there is a clear case of threat of further violence to the victim or her children, the mediator should necessarily suggest filing criminal charges or seeking a protective order against the other party. If the woman is adamant on opting for mediation, assistance should be given to the abused party with a counsel even for mediation as far as possible, especially for severe domestic violence cases. Counsels act as power-equalizers, when there is a lack of equal bargaining power at the mediation table.[30] Lawyers, after understanding the circumstances surrounding the specific domestic violence case, can adequately counsel clients about whether or not mediation is a suitable process for the case.[31] Further, lawyers can constructively involve themselves in a mediation process by speaking on behalf of their clients, evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed solutions against legal norms, and suggesting withdrawal from mediation itself if it disregards the interests of the woman.


Reconciliation Over Termination

one thing I dont need

is any more apologies

i got sorry greetin me at my front door

you can keep yrs

i dont know what to do wit em

they dont open doors

or bring the sun back[32]

It is significant to note that a problem is not posed by just resorting to mediation, but by narrowly defining the goal of mediation as an attempt to bring about a more harmonious relationship between the parties. The usage of the terms “mediation” and “conciliation” interchangeably in common parlance reinforces this goal. The success of family courts is proclaimed by the number of reunions they have brought into effect.[33] The way prosecutors determine their success on the basis of the number of convictions, mediator measure their success on the basis of whether or not an agreement is reached.[34] Irrespective of the extent of the violence, the desirable result is always reconciliation, the compromise being more independence for the women in the same patched-up marriage.[35] While it might be economically practical for the woman to stay in the relationship, pushing her back to the same domestic conditions (with only superficial changes) is not in her best interests.

When the end purpose in mind is to reconcile, emphasis is laid on other subsidiary issues, like child custody and financial problems, which seem more amenable to compromise, all under the belief that settling some issues will help in settling others too. Consequently, the mediation digresses from the issue of violence or only addresses it tangentially.[36] When the question of violence is overlooked, it might lead to a scenario where the victim senses a general apathy towards her biggest problem, i.e. halting of any further violence. .[37] Yet, at this point, we should also give heed to the fact that mediation can serve the purpose of not only strengthening a relationship, but also terminating it.[38] Efforts to mediate between a husband and a wife can be undertaken by anyone- a psychiatrist, a marriage counsellor or a mutual friend. Nevertheless, such a mediation should not be completely closed to the idea that, given facts and circumstances, the best solution might be to embrace the inevitability of ending the relationship.[39]

Attempts at reconciliation or “keeping the family together”, also proceed on the assumption that parties’ relationship is the problem. When the problem is with the relationship itself, both parties are seen to be somewhat responsible.[40] This sharing of responsibility in battering incorporates assumptions from the victim-blaming theories. Such an approach assumes that the victim did something to incite the beatings and the thrashings- the husband grew violent because the wife antagonized him. This leaves unchecked the conditions that institutionalize abuse, such as a woman’s isolation in the family, her economic dependence on her husband and the socialization that bolsters the belief that the husband is entitled to beat his wife.[41] Unfortunately, many mediators themselves encourage both parties to realize how they contributed to the violence. They believe that even if the man took the first step towards assault, the wife provoked him to do so.[42] Branding the wife’s behavior as “provocative” has the effect of justifying the husband’s battering his wife back into submission. Despite expectations of neutrality, a mediation process ought to involve condemnation of the acts of the accused. Not doing so reinforces the normalization of such an act in the eyes of the accused as well as the victim, further disempowering the latter.

Another major reason why mediation is preferred over traditional dispute resolution through courts is that the latter makes no room for expression of emotions. Some believe that the mediation setting can be utilized by the woman to give an outlet to her anger, which, if expressed in a court proceeding, could be detrimental to her case.[43] Although mediation acts as a setting in which emotions can be expressed, expression of certain emotions, specifically anger, is simply discouraged. Such a suppression of anger can be particularly problematic for women who, in the middle of a traumatic experience, have found a voice for their anger for the first time. Women have been socialized not to express anger and any such expression has generally been labeled as undesirable. Whenever expression of anger is overtly encouraged, it is always done to permit parties to “vent” it.[44] For example, Bethel and Singer write:

“By encouraging disputants to vent their spleen and to retell past outrages perpetrated against them in the relationship, and by working towards new solutions to old problems, the mediators seemed to use the process to accustom disputants to articulating their conflicts…”[45]

When anger is simply seen as something to be “vented”, it discredits the anger of its legitimacy by simply not taking it seriously enough. Anger that is just “vented” is not viewed as a way towards clarity and strength. Further, when both parties are encouraged to “vent” their anger, the women, who had actually been subjected to abuse, is also made to endure the abuser’s venting. The privilege of expressing anger should not be given equally to both parties, especially when such a privilege was not equally available during the course of abuse.[46]


A Woman’s Right To Self-Determination

‘Will you walk out of this marriage?’

It’s a question I never answer one way or another. I answer him with other questions, or with a declaration of everlasting love.

There’s no honest answer. Only answers that make my life safer, the nights less painful.[47]

A general ethical conundrum arises when we look at either state intervention or mediation as “the” choice women ought to resort to. This manifests in the form of the state either mandating mediation in domestic violence disputes, or by banning any mediatory mechanism in the same. Any mandatory policy, whether in the form of mandatory mediation or banned mediation, essentializes women subjected to abuse- it assumes that all women would choose only mediation or only state intervention, if they had the unfettered ability to make that choice, and that the coercion that these women experience is keeping them from exercising the “rational” choice embodied in the mandatory policy.[48] Anything in the nature of a mandatory policy discounts a woman’s self-determination.

In the former approach, of mandating mediation, there is an underlying presumption- that the state is better equipped than the parties themselves to decide that mediation will work in that particular case. The parties might know something that the mediator will be unaware of: the victim might know that her husband is a convincing liar, that after spending several years with her husband, she is unconsciously extremely accommodative of his demands.[49] Hence, it is wise to concede to the fact that mediation might not be the best possible course of action in certain disputes, irrespective of what might be superficially visible

It was the latter approach, of banning mediation, that had been taken by the Maharashtra government when it banned all pre-litigation counseling and mediation for all domestic violence cases without the directions of the Court.[50] Such an approach proceeds on the belief that arrest has a deterrence effect on domestic violence.[51] However, it is crucial to give heed to the economic dependence of victim on the abuser. As a consequence of this economic dependences, she will be wary of the fact that his arrest will deprive her of her livelihood. Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that it will only deter her from approaching the police.

A guiding principle for domestic violence policy that seeks to honour the autonomy of women subjected to abuse must be to only enact policies that women can control. It is also important to counter the dominant narrative that every woman is helpless, who is acted upon rather than acting, and therefore in need of the substituted judgment of the legal system. Banning mediation completely takes this choice away from the women to decide amongst a range of alternatives. Furthermore, for women who are hesitant to take refuge in the state machinery in any form, the ban on mediation leaves them without any alternative and therefore completely at the mercy of their violent husbands. Mediation might not be an appropriate dispute resolution mechanism for certain domestic violence cases. Nevertheless, women should be allowed to make this decision for themselves.

The decision making of women, however, should not be left unassisted. When a woman takes refuge in the mediation process and chooses to return to the violent relationship, a degree of intervention by feminist collectives and groups, is not wholly undesirable. Solanki and Gangoli write:

“…feminist organizations opted to increase women’s bargaining power every time they effected reconciliation, and have devised multiple redressal strategies over time.  For instance, women’s groups follow certain procedures when a woman decides to go back to a family context that is violent. They go over the dangers of such a decision with women: they remind them that violence may continue, that their step of reporting of violence can, at times, lead to more retaliatory violence if they go back, and that this option may be a dangerous one for them. Should women still persist in making these choices, feminist groups once again remind women of legal options, ask them to lodge a complaint at the nearby police station, and to call them every time there is an episode of violence.”[52]

This kind of intervention by feminist organizations is necessarily in the form of recommendations, reminders, and a promise to be open to women if the violence is perpetuated. There is no imposition of any supposedly feminist choices on women, which would be paternalistic and reeking of the belief that battered women cannot take control of their lives.

Fortunately, the Maharashtra government circular was nullified, in most part, by the Bombay High Court in Dr. Jaya Sagade, Director v. State of Maharashtra.[53] The court, in its reasoning, highlighted the importance of counselling and mediation in making the woman aware of her choices and helping her making an informed decision. It emphasises that the woman should not be forced to use any specific mechanism, neither mandatory mediation nor mandatory state intervention. It further issues guidance to the mediation agencies to refer any case of extreme physical violence, by giving due consideration to any psychological abuse, to the criminal justice system.


As Lon Fuller has written, the purpose of mediation is to re-orient the parties towards each other (not necessarily reconcile them), not by imposing pre-determined rules on them, but by assisting them in arriving at a new perception of their relationship.[54] However, the subject of mediation in domestic violence cases should not be whether violence was committed. Violence, which is antithetical to the idea of bodily integrity, can never be a subject of compromise.[55] Mediation, on the other hand, is directed towards persons– towards parties and their decision to examine their relationship with each other. Only the judgment of law can adjudicate upon whether or not an act was committed.[56] An extensive dependence on the mediation process for deciding on the acceptability of acts could obscure the essential guideposts people need in order to orient their actions towards each other. When we see the essence of mediation as compromise, such an approach might seem alluring. However, it should be remembered, “As between black and white, gray may sometimes seem an acceptable compromise, but there are circumstances in which it is essential to work hard toward keeping things black and white.”[57]


[1] Indian Penal Code § 498A (1860).

[2] Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58 (Supreme Court of India).

[3] Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58 (Supreme Court of India). Also, See B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 (Supreme Court of India); Gurudath K. v. State of Karnataka 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 12715 (High Court of Karnataka); Mohammed Mushtaq Ahmad v. State 2015 SCC OnLine Kar 8910 (High Court of Karnataka).

[4] Dianna R. Stallone, Decriminalization of Violence in the Home: Mediation in Wife Battering Cases, 2 Law & Ineq. 493, 508 (1984).

[5] Trina Grillo, The Mediation Alternative: Process Dangers for Women, 100 Yale L.J. 1545, 1561 (1991).

[6] Janet Rifkin, Mediation from a Feminist Perspective: Promise and Problems, 2 Law & Ineq. 21, 25 (1984).

[7] Merriam-Webster (last visited Jan. 26, 2020).

[8] Domestic Violence Act § 3 (2005).

[9] D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469 (Supreme Court of India).

[10] Meena Kandasamy, When I Hit You or, a Portrait of the Writer as a Young Wife 56 (Atlantic Books London 2017).

[11]  Susan Schechter, Women and Male Violence: The Visions and Struggles of the Battered Women’s Movement 225 (South End Press 1982).

[12] Catherine MacKinnon, Difference and Domination: On Sex Discrimination, in Feminism Unmodified 32 (HUP 1987).

[13] id.

[14] Stallone, supra note 4, at 502.

[15]  Frances Olsen, The Family and the Market: A Study of Ideology and Legal Reform, 96 Harv. L. Rev. 1497, 1509-11 (1983).

[16] Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State 127 (HUP 1989).

[17] id.

[18] Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women 202 (1981).

[19] Kathleen O’Connel Corcoran & James Melamed, From Coercion to Empowerment: Spousal Abuse and Mediation 7 Mediation Q. 303, 310 (1990).

[20] Stallone, supra note 4, at 504.

[21] Claire Houston, How Feminist Theory Became (Criminal) Law: Tracing the Path to Mandatory Criminal Intervention in Domestic Violence Cases 21 Mich. J. Gender & L. 217, 225 (2014).

[22] SF GoldFarb, Violence Against Women and the Persistence of Privacy 61 OHLJ 1, 15 (2000).

[23] Schechter, supra note 11, at 225

[24] MacKinnon, supra note 16, at 162.

[25] Marge Piercy, Song of the Fucked Duck (last visited Jan. 26, 2020).

[26] Jane C. Murphy & Robert Rubinson, Domestic Violence and Mediation: Responding to the Challenges of Crafting Effective Screens, 39 Fam. L.Q. 53, 57 (2005).

[27] Lisa G. Lerman, Mediation of Wife Abuse Cases: The Adverse Impact of Informal Dispute Resolution on Women, 7 Harv. Women’s L.J. 57, 75 (1984).

[28] Gopika Solanki and Geetanjali Gangoli, Defining Domestic Violence and Women’s Autonomy in Law 12(1) Socio-Legal Review 51, 73 (2016).

[29] id.

[30] Murphy, supra note 26, at 58.

[31] Murphy, supra note 26, at 58.

[32] Ntozake Shange, Sorry, (last visited Jan. 26, 2020).

[33] Srimati Basu, Judges of Normality: Mediating Marriage in the Family Courts of Kolkata, India 37(2) Signs 469, 483 (2012).

[34] Lerman, supra note 27, at 83.

[35] Basu, supra note 33, at 484.

[36] Lerman, supra note 27, at 84.

[37] Andree Gagnon, Ending Mandatory Divorce Mediation for Battered Women 15 Harv. Women’s L.J. 272, 278 (1992).

[38] Lon L. Fuller, Mediation – Its Forms and Functions, 44 S. Cal. L. Rev. 305, 308 (1971).

[39] id.

[40] Stallone, supra note 4, at 509.

[41] Stallone, supra note 4, at 509.

[42] Lerman, supra note 27, at 86.

[43] Leigh Goodmark, A Troubled Marriage: Domestic Violence and the Legal System 124 (NYU Press 2012).

[44] Grillo, supra note 5, at 1575.

[45] Charles A. Bethel & Linda R. Singer, Mediation: A New Remedy for Cases of Domestic Violence, 7 Vt. L. Rev. 15 (1982).

[46] Grillo, supra note 5, at 1575.

[47] Kandasamy, supra note 10, at 77.

[48] Goodmark, supra note 43, at 130.

[49] Grillo, supra note 5, at 1582.

[50] AG/312/2014, Department of Women and Child Development, Maharashtra (24 July, 2014).

[51] Philip M. Boffey, Domestic Violence: Study Favors Arrest, N.Y. Times, April 5, 1983, at C1.

[52] Solanki, supra note 28, at 63.

[53] Dr. Jaya Sagade, Director v. State of Maharashtra (2016) 1 Mah LJ 947 (Bombay High Court).

[54] Fuller, supra note 38, at 328.

[55] Laurie Woods, Mediation: A Backlash to Women’s Progress on Family Law Issues 19 Clearinghouse Rev. 431, 435 (1985).

[56] Fuller, supra note 38, at 328.

[57] Fuller, supra note 38, at 328.

Categories: Law/Legal

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *