THEME: Mediation and W omen’s Rights
This article was authored by Anuhsri Mandal and Megha Shaw from NUJS, Kolkata.
Abstract
In a largely patriarchal country like India, cases of domestic violence are grossly prevalent. Here comes the need for courts and other deciding bodies to interfere, and to protect the victims from such a fate. In India, courts are often not equipped to deal with such cases as the situation is delicate, and the victims more so. There lies an imbalance of power, a form of psychological manipulation where the victim is often not in the right state of mind to come face to face with the abuser. Moreover, litigation is a time consuming and expensive process– the victim, more often than not a woman, may not have the proper financial status to appear in court and receive effective justice. Such is the bleak state of domestic violence victims in India, and even elsewhere.
Mediation is an effective process which can go a long way in tackling such a dry situation. Not only is this process cheaper than litigation, mediation allows the parties to come to a mutually beneficial solution. However, it is necessary to involve a highly trained mediator to deal with such cases, so that the conclusion arrived at is fair. Alexandria Zylstra, in Mediation and Domestic Violence: A Practical Screening Method for Mediators and Mediation Program Administrators, has stressed on the need for proper safeguards to ensure the same.
This paper underlines the issues– the ethicality and feasibility– involved in mediation in domestic violence cases. It analyses the sociological, psychological and economical aspects of the parties involved, and comes to a conclusion on what can be done and what methods can be adopted from other countries, to ensure effectiveness of the mediation process.
Introduction
Mediation is described as “an informal process in which a neutral third party with no power to impose a resolution helps the disputing parties try to reach a mutually acceptable settlement.”[1] Mediation law refers to a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) where the parties take the aid of a mediator to “isolate disputed issues in order to develop options, consider alternatives, and reach a consensual settlement” [2] in order to accomplish their goals.
Unlike in litigation process, the parties are not burdened with the formality of court proceedings and they can mediate in a confidential and peaceful surrounding where they are not in haste. This enables the achievement of maximum satisfaction by accumulating the interest of both parties as against single party winning the case in a trial. Mediation is expanding in all areas to decrease the burden on the courts and increase its efficiency. Apart from civil disputes, mediation is also practiced in cases of family disputes and some of the criminal cases too.
Violence is a very serious problem still existing in the society at large and within the four walls of the houses to dominate and control the behavior of known or unknown persons. In the case of domestic violence it has been observed that in most of the cases there is a targeted victim where the domination of the other party reaches to such an extent that the offender makes the victim feel guiltier as if she is at fault. The act of violence also involves a mens rea to engage in all forms of non-accidental acts to impair and undermine the individual freedom by inducing psychological and physical harm.[3] Use of strength, either financial, physical or emotional to coerce, constrain and compel the family member to effectuate harm, sorrow and deterrence comes under the ambit of domestic violence.[4]Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul, 11 May 2011) describes the term “domestic violence” as all the actions of psychological, sexual, physical or economic violence happening within the domestic entity or any family between erstwhile or present spouses or partners, regardless of the fact that the perpetrator is living in the same space as the victim or not.[5]
Ethicality of Mediation in Domestic Violence Cases
Use of mediation in the field of domestic violence is a controversial subject because of the debate revolving around the repercussions of not penalizing the abuser in this case. Many feel that mediation dilutes the message that domestic violence is a crime. Instead of being punished the offender gets away, unaccountable. If abusers are allowed to participate in a conciliatory process, it may be inferred that there are no adverse fall outs to their behavior and the abuser may avoid responsibility and victims may feel partially blamed.[6] It is argued that mediation can trivialize the crime of domestic violence and the offender can buy the freedom of accused and continue the violence on the accused. While the other side argues that when the offender admits the commission of such crime meanwhile the mediation process, that attitude itself reduces the feeling of self-blaming by the victim.[7] Mediation is also very victim centric rather than society centric because it avoids punishing the offender for mere purpose of creating deterrence in the society. Thus, settlement by mediation by the victim and offender changes the criminal law prototype by putting victims at the focal point, rather than on the margin of the whole process.[8]In effect, the victim takes the place of the state to resolve the dispute and impose terms and conditions as per want of victim rather that what the state feels is the best possible solution from a generic analysis. It has taken a lot of years by the state to recognize such crimes and oppression of women and make it a criminal offence although women should be given a choice because the crime is against her and she is at the receiving end of such criminal act.[9]
When the abuser is sharing the same living space with victims, it has a prolonged continuous detrimental impact on the mind of the victim where the victim maybe tend to get addicted to the abuser especially when she thinks that she can also suffer the damage out of love for the abuser in a relationship.[10] There is no way out of it for the victim because she does not have a place to develop her strength to fight against the abuser as home does not remain a friendly and healthy place to gain support and peace.[11] The state of seclusion, fright, anxiety and depression are similar traits to develop among women who are battered along with collateral harm that accompany from domestic violence.[12]Sometimes the abuser tries to justify the act by stating that they were under the influence of alcohol but that could not just be the reason. The reasons may include the anti-social experience of the offenders live and feel worthy by hurting someone in a way to control them by use of force. It is often indicated that the perpetrator who is engaged the other deviant acts are mostly engaged in the act of domestic violence[13]. It is not restricted to the people of lower strata but it also encompasses an influential class of people.
It is a tendency observed in these cases that the victim do not disclose or complain initially because of fear of being shamed in society as the litigation process is not confidential and the identity of the party is also disclosed which creates a worse situation in the family. Due to the fear of getting exposed to the society, the victim does not readily opt for litigation and the act of violence is intensely concealed within the family. The severity and magnitude of this crime is unrecognized and unacknowledged because the victim tries to reduce the further dispute in the family by concealing the crime[14]. Thus, the main issue of confidentiality can be easily solved the ethical mediation practice and would require proper training of the mediators to maintain the power balance in these kind of cases.
However the domination of abuser has to be taken into account to decide whether the particular case be mediated or not, because domestic abuse is the application of force or other methods to intimidate or control an intimate partner[15]. It is not about conflict, but pertains to desire to control and dominate.[16] There is unequal bargaining power between the parties.[17] Even the mere presence of the offender may be intimidating and contact with the abuser may be the last thing that victims want.[18] A victim may seem willing to participate in mediation because she believes she has no other option. An impartial third party helps in resolution of disputes but the third party lacks the authority to enforce a solution and offset the lop-sidedness in an unequal bargaining situation.[19] Mediation entails joint decision-making based on honesty, desire to settle the dispute and willingness to compromise which may be lacking in a battering relationship.[20] The rudimentary requirement of ethical mediation practice is governed by minimal basic standards which in inculcated during the training of the mediator to decide a fit case for mediation. The mediators has to stick to the rudimentary obligations to serve the goals of mediation. There are three basic principles of mediation namely: Unbiasedness, Ascertainment of self-determination of the parties and the confidentiality of the case.
The core principle of mediation practice is self-determination and what distinguishes mediation from other alternative dispute resolution processes. Sticking to the rudiment of self-determination in the process of mediation implies that the parties are in a position to make voluntary, well informed and unpressurised settlements. A mediator should not conduct mediation if a mediator reasonably believes that a participant is unable or unwilling to participate due to lack of safety, capacity, or if any party is experiencing undue influence. [21]It is stated that women generally have been conditioned to consider the needs of their spouses over their own, and to pay attention to the abuser’s needs and denigrate their own in a mediation setting.[22] Researchers agree when the victim abandons the abuser, it enrages him and that time is most perilous for her[23] and the mediation conference may in fact give him access to her and reveal her whereabouts[24]. Nor can the victim be safeguarded from future abuse as mediators are not trained to gauge the power dynamics of the couple involved. But it is necessary for us to realize that violence ranges from rare to sporadic to recurring occasionally and in all cases the victim is not subdued totally so to suspend her ability to negotiate favorably[25] and all victims may not have the ability to undertake expensive legal representation. Mediation, on the other hand, offers a viable alternative. Adversarial Litigation encourages blame, counter blame, threats, humiliation, escalates hostility and is not aimed to improve communication skills or empower the participants by controlling the process.[26] Litigation in fact encourages the abuser to litigate and deny past behavior.[27]
Feasibility of Mediation in Domestic Violence Cases
Is is well settled that the mediation in domestic violence cases should not be mandatory as highlighted in Article 48 of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence to avoid mandatory alternative dispute resolution to allow the courts to take strict actions where required.[28] It has to be decided on a case to case basis after the proper screening of the cases if it can be mediated or urgent action is required to curtail the imminent threats to life of victims. Although it is discussed throughout the world that matters pertaining to family can be resolved by the mediation and it will also help in settling of family disputes without further shattering of family bond.
The issue of power imbalance, as already discussed in the article, has to be solved by the mediator first to restore the parties at an equal footing. If the victim is in a position to enforce her rights and set up her demands without compromising on any of her rights to negotiate for what she has been already protected or granted under the law. The mediator should realize that victim is not suppressed by the offender while engaging in mediation to reach a settlement. The self determination of victim is very necessary to continue the mediation process voluntarily and not under the pressure of the offender. If the power imbalance still subsists even in the presence of mediator then mediator should stop the process in between and refer it for a trail.
A study found that mediation resulted in greater reduction in physical, verbal, and emotional abuse than litigated settlement.[29] Unlike traditional litigation, mediation creates guidelines governing future relations and provide a supportive, empowering environment for women and enables them to formulate safety devices. These further the healing process.[30] Effective mediators are trained to balance the power between participants. In fact, the dominant literature in the field of international mediation asserts that mediation is the preferable format for disputes especially when there are great differences of power.
Benefits of mediation in domestic violence cases involving the child and its custody
It must also be noted that in a domestic violence setting, it is not only one of the parents who suffer from the consequences of violence from an intimate partner. The children of the two individuals suffer, as well. Sometimes, they suffer more than the mother (or the father) as they are more vulnerable in a tumultuous environment. There are instances of parents kidnapping their children to international places. In such cases, where there is a spectrum of domestic violence against the parent, the issue is whether such dispute be mediated or not. It is argued that in the absence of careful domestic screening in the foreign country, required safeguards and trained mediators, the kidnapper may force the other parent into signing a detrimental agreement. Researchers state that in the absence of such legal and diplomatic remedies, mediation may prove to be the only available option to ensure the wellbeing and return of the abducted child or ensure access to both the parents. Mediation may counterbalance the negatives involved and result in an appropriate, mutually satisfying and safe co-parenting access.[31]
The contentious and costly nature of the adversarial process for resolving child custody disputes have given way to less divisive forms of dispute resolution, i.e. mediation. However, where intimate partner abuse is reported, the fall out of the abuse exposed child cannot be ignored and their safety is paramount. Given the criticality of the exposed children, adequate mediator assessment, documentation and decision as to how and to what extent to proceed is extremely important and has to be judged on a case to case basis.[32]
Mediation involving where an abusive parent is representative of the child
If the parent accused of IPA is also the legal representative of the victim- child, the court appoints a guardian. It is obvious that there cannot be any balance in the relation between the abused child and the parent. It is stated that in such a case a mediator will not be able to create the needed balance. Mediation should involve maturity of the child, expert and trained mediator, special proceedings geared to the needs of the child. Mediation has to be for the benefit of the child and he should be in a position to understand what is beneficial for him. Mediation should not be conducted if the child is unable to understand the purpose and nature of the mediation due to inadequate psychological development. The same applies when the victim is a small child, in particular one who is a victim of sexual offences.[33]
There are several approaches to improve court mediation programs to tackle the issue of domestic violence. A vital step is initiation of screening procedure for domestic violence prior to mediation. Screening implies collecting viable, reliable and necessary information by the mediator to determine the presence of IPA and its nature.[34]More than one method should be used to obtain information in a neutral and safe environment. Once the initial screening process has been completed, one must determine which cases should be excluded, which should undergo modified mediation, and which can proceed as usual. Screening for domestic violence should be a continuous process done even during the mediation process.[35] Training on family dynamics should be imparted to the mediators.[36] Mediation is not recommended if the abuse is ongoing and it should be recognized that not all cases are appropriate for mediation.[37]
It is vital that the success of the program should not be linked to the number of cases which have resulted in full or partial agreement. The mediators should not be under pressure that they will be judged by the number of cases mediated or the cases settled. This results in accepting or rejecting inappropriate cases.[38]
Safe-guards during mediation and practices followed in different countries
Mediation may include victim’s advocates to balance negotiating power and remove intimidation and underrepresentation[39] It is also critical that courts take safety measures to protect all mediation participants. Careful attention should be paid by mediators to the physical layout of the building, internal alarm systems, and access to security personnel.[40] If there is a gross inability to conform to the rules of mediation, there should be provision for termination of mediation.[41] There should not be any legal consequences if termination or mediation is sought or be considered a failure.[42] Address and telephone number of participants and the mediator should be kept confidential and provisions for separate entrances, different arrival times, and escorts to cars and transportation systems should be ensured for personal safety.[43]
Many courts in the USA have different parameters for inclusion/ exclusion of domestic violence cases for mediation. Some of these methods or parameters will be discussed briefly. These methods, if implemented properly in India, may help in tackling the difficulties associated with mediation and domestic violence.[44]
Courts in Pennsylvania are allowed to require parties to attend mediation orientation sessions if both parties consent to mediation. Delaware stipulates representation by advocate along with the consent of the abused partner. Other states including Alabama, Hawaii, and Tennessee, apart from consent, specially trained mediator are insisted.[45]
In Texas, if there is a request for exclusion on grounds of domestic violence but the court overrules it and refers for mediation, the judge must include in the order that face to face contact be avoided. This is done in order to encourage the victims to speak up about their issues and experiences, and to not be intimidated by the abuser.[46]
In Alaska, there exists a practice of multi-tiered evaluation process. There, present, is a detailed set of rules for mediation involving domestic violence. The court cannot order mediation in the existence of an order of protection.[47] If domestic violence is alleged but there is no order of protection, custody mediation is only permitted if the victim agrees to the mediation. Both parties have the right to disagree to mediation and such decision will not impact other decisions of the court.[48]
Judicial Training and Mediator Training is essential for individuals who are referred cases it is felt that there is widespread lack of training to deal with such contentious, delicate and potentially dangerous situations. It renders mediation a flawed process or even potentially dangerous.[49]
There are some special rules regarding the structure of mediation. This is done in order to ensure that no unwarranted incidents can occur between the parties during, before or after the mediation process.
Shuttle mediation is used where the parties remain apart while the mediator moves between them.[50] Co-mediation is adhered to in mediation to ensure greater safety. The presence of two mediators allows for a tighter control of the session.[51] Telephone interviews are at times done to avoid direct contact.[52]
California mandates separate intake sessions and on request the victim and batter are interviewed in different rooms and conduct the mediation on separate days and times.[53]Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Tennessee, and many local courts in California permit victims of domestic violence to bring a support person to the mediation to assist them.[54] Oregon and Texas require mediators to implement safety procedures to minimize risks of intimidation or violence.[55]
Pennsylvania empowers mediators to terminate mediation if the mediation is “inappropriate” or the case is “unsuitable” for mediation.[56] Pennsylvania’s requires the mediator’s duty to screen for abuse throughout the mediation process as it is a “continuing ethical obligation.[57] West Virginia permits, the mediator to report to the court “credible” information about domestic violence or child abuse.[58]
Reaction of Lawyers
Researchers in the USA have revealed that Attorneys tend to support mediation programs, especially in settings where they play an active role in the process.[59] For example, in Maine, where attorneys are expected to be involved in mediation, cooperation from lawyers are largely seen and wide number of issues are negotiated. Most lawyers opine that police have a mind set against women when it comes to abuse and feel that violence victims are given more sympathy and informed or “refuse to recognize that a woman might be abusive.”[60] They also tend to feel that domestic violence victims receive more sensitive and informed handling by mediators. Further, litigation leads to blaming and trashing a parent, which impedes future reconciliation.[61]
Mediation practices followed in India
The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was amended in 2002 to incorporate section 89[62] to include mediation as an ADR mechanism. According to this section, the court can decide whether or not the particular case should go for mediation, arbitration or judicial settlement through Lok Adalats for amicable settlement. This is known as court-referred mediation. Upon failure of the same, litigation shall continue; on the other hand, if it is successful, a report is given to the court and the case is disposed off.
There is also something known as pre-litigation mediation, which refers to the parties undertaking mediation individually, with no interference or reference of the Court.
In India, the matter of domestic violence, which is a criminal offence under section 498A of the IPC, is settled in the court of law as per due procedure. However, mediation between the parties is also resorted to settle the issues amiably. Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act refers to mediation to settle disputes while Section 89 CPC guides at court directed mediation but they deal with “civil” matters. Domestic violence in Section 498-A of IPC is a non-compoundable offence[63] and no compromise is permitted. However, courts have taken a differing stance. The Supreme Court in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa[64] stated that –
“…though offence punishable under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code is not compoundable, in appropriate cases if the parties are willing and if it appears to the criminal court that there exist elements of settlement, it should direct the parties to explore the possibility of settlement through mediation….”
Recently in May 2019 in Praveen Singh Ramakant Bhadauriya vs. Neelam Praveen Singh Bhadauriya[65] when the parties mutually settled issues, the Supreme Court, permitted quashing cases under Domestic Violence Act after granting divorce. In Ramgopal and Anr. vs. State of M.P. and Anr,[66] requested Law Commission of India and Union Government to make certain offences, including 498A of IPC, compoundable to reduce the burden on courts and encourage reconciliation. This reveals that the judiciary in India encourages mediation to settle domestic violence issues.
The High Court of Kerala, in T Vineed v. Manju S. Nair,[67] held that it is the duty of the court to the public to actively make an attempt for alternative redressal of disputes. In other words it is not only a statutory obligation of the court to refer to cases for mediation. This imposed obligation gives the parties various avenues to gain access to justice. The burden upon the subordinate and high courts is, thereby, reduced.
In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors,[68] the definition of mediation is also elaborated on as follows:
“Settlement by `mediation’ means the process by which a mediator appointed by the parties or by the Court, as the case may be, mediates the dispute between the parties to the suit by the application of the provisions of the Mediation Rules, 2003 in Part II, and in particular, by facilitating discussion between parties directly or by communicating with each other through the mediator, by assisting parties in identifying issues, reducing misunderstandings, clarifying priorities, exploring areas of compromise, generating options in an attempt to solve the dispute and emphasizing that it is the parties’ own responsibility for making decisions which affect them.”[69]
Ultimately, it is the court which decides whether a certain case, with its unique facts and scenarios, should be referred for ADR or not. Often, the question of whether or not therein exists “elements of settlements,” that settles the opinion of the judges. It is not necessarily mandatory, as various factors have to be considered by the judges before coming to an effective conclusion.[70] If the parties are disagreeable for either arbitration or conciliation or if there is a lack of a proper mediator to deal with a specific case, the court should try to guide the parties to go for Lok Adalat or judicial settlement.
Government of Maharashtra issued a circular on 24th July, 2014 stating that mediation for cases under the Domestic Violence Act can only be carried after the case is filed and direction are given by the court for mediation. The Bombay High Court in Dr. Jaya Sagade vs. The State of Maharashtra[71] in this regard stated that domestic violence related cases can be mediated without court order. It further stated that if there is a probability of recurrence of domestic violence then a Domestic Incident Report (DIR) under Section 10(2) of the DV Act must be filed before commencing counselling. The court set aside the impugned circular but in order to provide protection to the abused woman stated the mediation be done on the voluntary and informed consent of the woman and there would be no pressure to settle her claim.
However, there is vociferous opposition to mediation in such cases. Courts are increasingly allowing and even directing mediation unaware that domestic violence is even present. Further, there is a need to discuss as to how mediators should handle such cases. Doubts have been raised the expertise of court mandated mediation programs and the capability of mediators to adequately screen and handle domestic abuse cases .Mediators are burdened with a huge number of cases , which have to be disposed within a short time and lack adequate training and psychological build to tackle contentious domestic violence issues.
Family law judges typically support mediation as they opine that mediators are more equipped and trained to deal with cases of domestic violence and are more sensitive to such issues than judicial officers.[72] They tend to question the ability of judges to detect and handle such issues. They even favor mandatory mediation as it felt that it leads to more commitment from parents and sustain over a period of time.[73] However, judges feel that they are empowered to waive-off mandatory mediation, if they feel that it is inappropriate. Many feel that victims are “unattractive witnesses” and present poorly and judges are often uninformed and unsympathetic.[74] Judges have huge pending cases and are transferred regularly and handle these cases in a routine manner with little training and harmful biases. Many feel that such cases don’t belong to the court.[75]
Post Mediation and Regulatory Framework
Courts should not only facilitate mediation but assure that the agreements entered into are fair and consistent with basic public policy. Agreements that are so unjust as to offend basic sensibilities should be disallowed. Some sort of follow-up mechanism should be devised, where mediation has been successfully completed, to ensure that the intended results have been achieved, the agreements are being upheld and safety of all parties are ensured.[76]
Another issue that arises in the absence of a framework regulating mediation is in relation to the enforceability of a settlement agreement. Although, there exist data in other jurisdictions to show that parties are more likely to comply with mediation settlements than court orders, situations do arise where one party does not comply with the terms of the settlement and the other party approaches the judiciary for enforcement of the same. There exist separate mechanisms for enforcement of settlements based on whether they were a result of pre-litigation or court referred mediation proceedings.
In Afcons InfrastructureLtd. v. CherianVarkey ConstructionCo. (P)Ltd. the apex court of India has discussed about enforceability of mediation where it is held that only the mediation agreement obtained after it is referred for mediation by the courts are enforceable when court take notes of the settlements and disposal recordings.[77]The enforceability of pre litigation mediation is still not certain and even the rules for mediation in cases of court referred mediation differ from state to state. There is no standard mediation rules enforced uniformly throughout the country. In Ravi Aggarwal v. Anil Jagota[78], it is held by Delhi High Court that the parties to mediation cannot be bound by the settlement agreement if there is no record of the settlement in the court.[79] There is no binding decision whether a non-compoundable offence can be solved by mediation and its enforceability.
There are four main reasons for the regulation of mediation[80]: first, the mediators should be certified ones and this would prevent cost and time wastage on fraud mediation practices; second, to promote the rampant use of mediation and awareness in the society about mediation; third, for the use of regulatory framework to improve the quality of mediation by training of mediators and; fourth, to make the profession more dependable and trustworthy.[81] There should be proper training for different types of mediators trained in various field of dispute resolution. The proper certification of mediators to solve the case of domestic violence and in the areas of family law will make the process fast, efficient and cost effective.[82]
CONCLUSION
It cannot be denied that criminal mediation has become an integral aspect of the current criminal justice system. It affects, whether positively or negatively, the fundamental liberties of both the defendant and the plaintiff, effectively altering the methods in which criminal cases are traditionally processed and screened. It is a must that transparency, confidence and accountability are required in any criminal justice system in order to enable its effectiveness. The outcome and process of criminal mediation relies heavily on such matters.
While we are in support of mediation, especially in domestic violence cases, we disagree with the views taken by many scholars that there is a need for mandatory mediation. The screening method should be an effective one and the safeguards, as discussed, must be implemented securely. Information about one’s rights and duties, along with the merits and demerits of mediation, must be clearly communicated to the victim (and, if required, to the perpetrator), so that he/she can make a clear and informed decision on what their next step should be. Assurances must be provided to the victim, in case he/she is doubtful of the mediation system.
One cannot deny the necessity of regulating and standardizing the mediation process, whilst keeping in mind that the process cannot be static. Its flexible and innovative nature must be preserved. Effective laws, codes and standards must be analyzed and put to practice. There should not be a “one size fits all” approach, and decisions on its regulations must be made while keeping in mind the socio-economic atmosphere of the country involved.
Mediation, or any other alternative dispute resolution methods, should not be imposed on the party but the enforcement of settlement should have uniform standard. It is, after all, the victim who, at the end of the day, will have to live with the conclusion so arrived. It must, therefore, be in their hands to decide on the method to choose to come to a particular conclusion.
[1] Robert a. Baruch Bush & Joseph P. Folger, The Promise of Mediation: the transformative approach to conflict Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco (2005).
[2] Id.
[3] Olga Sitarz, Dominika Bek & Anna Jaworska-Wieloch “Mediation and Domestic Violence: Theoretical” , University of Silesia, Poland , K. Jaishankar, Vol. 13 (2) (2018.)
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Jessica Pearson, Divorce Mediation Domestic Violence , 40, Mediation Quarterly (2007).
[7] Jennifer Gerarda Brown, The Use of Mediation to Resolve Criminal Cases: A Procedural Critique, 43 Emory L. J. 1247 (1994).
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Supra note 3.
[11] Supra note 3.
[12] Supra note 3
[13] Supra note 3.
[14] Supra note 3.
[15] Alexandria Zyistra, Mediation and Domestic Violence: A Practical Screening Method for Mediators and Mediation Program Administrators (2020).
[16] Karla Fischer, Neil Vidmar & Rene Ellis, The Culture of Battering and the Role of Mediation in Domestic Violence Cases,2158 (2020).
[17] Supra note 15.
[18] Supra note 16.
[19] Leonard L. Riskin, Understanding Mediators Orientations Strategies, and Techniques: A Grid for the Perplexed (2020).
[20] Rene L. Rimelspach- Mediating Family Disputes in a World with Domestic Violence: How to Devise a Safe and Effective Court-Connected Mediation Program (2020).
[21] Supra note 1.
[22] Supra note 16.
[23]Supra note 16.
[24] Holly Joyce, Mediation and Domestic Violence:Legislative Responses (2020).
[25] Supra note 24.
[26] Supra note 20
[27] Id.
[28] Supra note 3.
[29] Professor Desmond Ellis, Family Mediation Pilot Project Final Report, Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario (1994).
[30] Supra note 24.
[31] Julia Alanen , When Human Rights Conflict: Mediating International Parental Kidnapping Disputes Involving the Domestic Violence Defense.
[32] Connie J. A. Beck, Michele E. Walsh, Mindy B. Mechanic, Caitilin S. Taylor – Mediator Assessment, Documentation, and Disposition of Child Custody Cases Involving Intimate Partner Abuse: A Naturalistic Evaluation of One County’s Practice.
[33] Olga Sitarz, Dominika Bek, & Anna Jaworska-Wieloch, Mediation and Domestic Violence: Theoretical Reflection on the Polish Background, University of Silesia, International Journal of Criminal Justice (2018).
[34] Anita Vestal, Domestic Violence and Mediation: Concerns and Recommendations at https://www.mediate.com/articles/vestala3.cfm on 24-1-2020
[35] Supra note 20.
[36] Supra note 6.
[37] Supra note 34.
[38] Supra note 20.
[39] Supra note 20.
[40] Supra note 6.
[41] Supra note 20.
[42] Supra note 20.
[43] Supra note 6.
[44] Supra note 15.
[45] Supra note 20.
[46] Supra note 15.
[47] Supra note 15.
[48] Supra note 15.
[49] Supra note 15.
[50] Supra note 34.
[51] Supra note 6.
[52] Supra note 34.
[53] Supra note 15.
[54] Supra note 15.
[55] Supra note 15.
[56] Id.
[57]Id.
[58] Id.
[59] Supra note 34.
[60] Supra note 6.
[61] Supra note 6.
[62] Code Civ. Proc., §89.
[63] Code Crim. Proc., § 320
[64] K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 (India).
[65] Praveen Singh Ramakant Bhadauriya v. Neelam Praveen Singh Bhadauriya. (2019) 6 SCC 259 (India).
[66] Ramgopal and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Anr, (2010 ) 13 SCC 540 (India).
[67] T Vineed v. Manju S. Nair (2008)1KLJ 525.
[68] Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors, (2010) 8 SCC 24(India).
[69] Id.
[70] Id.
[71] Dr. Jaya Sagade v. The State of Maharashtra (2015) SCC Bom 5975.
[72] Supra note 6.
[73] Id.
[74] Id.
[75] Id.
[76] Supra note 20.
[77] Supra note 68.
[78] Ravi Aggarwal v. Anil Jagota, (2009) SCC OnLine Del 1475(India).
[79] Id.
[80] Rashika Narain & Abhinav Sankaranarayanan, Formulating a Model Legislative Framework for Mediation in India, 11 NUJS L. Rev. 75 (2018).
[81] Id.
[82] Id.
