IN THE COURT OF FAMILY JUDGE,
HYDERABAD
MAT. PET. No. XX of 2025
Filed under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954
Between
Ms. Maya (Petitioner)
AND
Mr. Jagadish (Respondent)
WRITTEN STATEMENT / CONCILIATION
MEMORIAL
Filed on behalf of the Conciliator
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A humble submission of the material facts forming the basis of this
conciliation exercise:
Mr. Jagadish, 26, Engineering graduate from Hyderabad, previously
employed at Montek Soft Solutions, earning Rs. 12 lakhs annually.
Ms. Maya, 27, Computer Science engineering graduate from Delhi
University, Assam native, employed as team manager in the same
company, earning Rs. 20 lakhs annually.
The parties developed a romantic relationship and, overcoming
parental and cultural objections, solemnized their marriage on
March 2, 2023, under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Post-marriage, they led a harmonious life in a rented flat in
Shaikpet, Hyderabad.
In April 2024, Mr. Jagadish lost employment due to market
recession, remaining unemployed for about 10 months while
supported by Ms. Maya's income.
Differences surfaced in February 2025, culminating in Mr. Jagadish
leaving the matrimonial home on June 11, 2025, and residing with
bachelor friends in Kukatpally.
Employment was eventually secured in September 2025 at a
pharma outsourcing firm, with monthly earnings of Rs. 42,000.
Ms. Maya’s repeated efforts—personal and through friends—to
resume cohabitation failed.
On October 6, 2025, Ms. Maya initiated Petition under Section 22,
SMA, seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights. Ms. Maya, now mother
to a one-month-old daughter, remains alone.
Both parties appeared before Family Court and matter stood
referred to the Conciliator under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act,
1984.
II. ISSUES FOR CONCILIATION
The conciliation focuses on resolving the following pivotal issues:
1. Reasons for marital discord post-February 2025.
2. Specific factors behind Mr. Jagadish’s decision to leave on June 11,
2025.
3. Unresolved financial issues stemming from Mr. Jagadish’s job loss.
4. Present expectations/demands of Ms. Maya regarding conjugal life
resumption, especially vis-à-vis her infant daughter.
5. Present expectations/concerns of Mr. Jagadish concerning return
and cohabitation.
6. Prospects of reconciliation considering their shared history, the
infant child’s welfare, and current circumstances.
7. Possible terms/conditions for a mutually agreed reconciliation or
resolution.
III. CONCILIATION EFFORTS & FINDINGS
The Conciliator, through individual and joint sessions with the parties,
directed efforts at:
Identifying points of conflict and communication breakdown.
Assessing emotional and practical impact of Mr. Jagadish’s
unemployment.
Understanding each party’s narrative regarding separation and
intention to resume cohabitation.
Evaluating willingness for reconciliation.
Facilitating discussions on the welfare of the infant daughter.
Bridging cultural, financial, and personal differences.
Recognizing influence of family and friends upon decision-making.
IV. OBSERVATIONS & REPORT
a. Background and Marital History:
Initial happiness and successful navigation of family, linguistic, and age
barriers. Marriage under Special Marriage Act, 1954, and brief marital
harmony.
b. Genesis of Discord:
Discord began post Mr. Jagadish’s job loss. Emotional and financial
tensions rose, with Mr. Jagadish reportedly feeling diminished by
unemployment and the income disparity.
c. Mr. Jagadish’s Stance:
Withdrawal stemmed from perceived failure and pressure, subsequent
efforts at employment, current modest income, and ambivalence
regarding return. Cites emotional disturbance, miscommunication, and
external pressure.
d. Ms. Maya’s Stance:
Expresses persistent willingness for reconciliation, repeated overtures.
Deep concern for daughter’s upbringing, disappointment at Mr.
Jagadish’s withdrawal; no explicit legal or welfare justification for
separation.
e. Impact of Child:
Both parties acknowledge paramount importance of child’s welfare; Ms.
Maya regards it as impetus for family reunification, while Mr. Jagadish
expresses concern but remains distant.
f. Financial Dynamics:
Ms. Maya’s higher earnings and sole support during Mr. Jagadish’s
unemployment created strains. Differences over financial responsibility
and expectations intensified.
g. External Influences:
Familial and social influences periodically aggravated latent differences;
partial impact from parental objections and circle of friends.
h. Communication Gaps:
Significant breakdown in effective communication observed, contributing
to escalation and sustained separation.
i. Feasibility of Reconciliation:
Conciliator assesses partial possibility, subject to both parties’
willingness and support mechanisms.
j. Proposed Terms/Solutions:
Suggested terms include joint counseling, structured financial planning,
mediation on expectations, periodic review meetings, and prioritization
of child’s welfare. If reconciliation is infeasible, parties may be advised to
pursue amicable separation.
k. Recommendation to Family Court:
Based on the above, the Conciliator recommends further counseling and
mediation, with a preference for reconciliation given infant child’s
welfare, barring grave and irreconcilable differences.
V. PRAYER
In the light of the facts, issues, and observations, the Conciliator
respectfully submits that:
The efforts for reconciliation be continued via family counseling
and mediation.
The paramount welfare of the minor child should guide all
proceedings.
Directions be issued for periodic status reports, supporting
reconciliation or, if not possible, guiding amicable resolution under
law.
VI. LEGAL CITATIONS
For Petitioner (Ms. Maya):
Section 22, Special Marriage Act, 1954: Restitution of Conjugal
Rights, deprivation must be without reasonable excuse.
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: Duty to maintain
wife/child (analogous value).
Relevant case law: No reasonable excuse in financial distress if the
other spouse is supportive; case law on welfare of minor children
as the primary consideration in family disputes.
For Respondent (Mr. Jagadish):
Section 22, SMA: Withdrawal for “reasonable excuse”;
mental/emotional distress as a recognized cause.
Case law: Courts have sometimes upheld economic pressure,
incompatibility, and mental anguish as “reasonable excuse”.
Case law limiting RCR decrees, especially where forcing
cohabitation is unjust or futile.
Place: Hyderabad
Date: First week of November 2025
This memorial format follows the structure, sequence, and focus seen in
your PLC simulation sample, adapted for the present matrimonial RCR
conciliation dispute.