New Delhi, Sept. 27 -- Mediation as a means to settle family disputes can lead to further traumatisation of women in cases where they are victims of violence, Supreme Court judge justice BV Nagarathna said on Saturday. Addressing the regional conference of the Supreme Court Committee for Family Court Matters in Guwahati, the judge said that mediation is not meant to be a substitute for adjudication as a woman's bargaining position is as worthy as her legal entitlement. Sharing her views on the topic "ADR versus Adjudication in Family Disputes", justice Nagarathna viewed this subject from the perspective of women. She stated that mediation offers speed, privacy and confidentiality where women can arrive at a decision on the return of "stridhan", provision for the schooling of the children, a capital sum in place of an instalment, etc. "I wish to emphasise that none of this applies where there is violence, coercive control or a serious imbalance of power. There, mediation is not merely inappropriate but could potentially be harmful or dangerous, and may result in further traumatisation," the judge said. Justice Nagarathna, who is tipped to become the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in September next year said, "Mediation is not meant to be substituted for adjudication and a woman's bargaining position is worth precisely what her legal entitlement is worth." Noting gaps in the existing mediation process, she proposed that in mediation of child custody cases and visitation rights, the focus should not be on getting a custody decree but to arrive at a "mediated parenting plan". To achieve this goal, she proposed that a qualified child psychologist be attached to the mediation process rather than be consulted later for a report. Stressing on having a "child-inclusive" mediation, the judge said that experience has shown that in a contested custody matter, the counsel for each parent is only seeking to establish that the other parent is unfit. "Is not a mediated parenting plan a better instrument than a custody decree," the judge said, suggesting that a trained child psychologist must ascertain the views of the child and convey them to the parents during mediation. Based on this, a parental plan must be drawn out that could be reviewed by returning to the mediator. "The welfare of the child is paramount, and the rights of parents are subordinate to it. The difficulty is not with the principle. But, adversarial procedure is structurally ill-suited to serving it," she said....