Suresh Kumar Koshta vs. Smt. Bharti Koshta — Visiting Rights Mediation
A first appeal involving matrimonial disputes including visiting/access rights for children. The matter was referred to Giribala Singh in her capacity as Deputy Secretary, MPSLSA (Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority), with the report required to be submitted on the same day at 4:00 PM.
Background & Facts
Suresh Kumar Koshta and Smt. Bharti Koshta were parties to a matrimonial first appeal before the MP High Court. The dispute involved visiting rights — typically the right of the non-custodial parent to access the children. The court gave a same-day deadline for the mediation report.
MPSLSA role: This case shows Giribala Singh in a dual role — as mediator AND as an official of the State Legal Services Authority — indicating she was already moving toward the institutional ADR framework of MPSLSA even before her formal appointment as Member Secretary.
Giribala Singh's Role
Giribala Singh mediated this case in her capacity as Deputy Secretary, MPSLSA. She was required to submit the mediation report on the same day at 4:00 PM — an extremely tight deadline that required efficient facilitation. The MPSLSA role adds institutional weight to her capacity as a neutral mediator.
Outcome & Verdict
The matter is indexed at the referral stage with a same-day 4pm deadline for the report. The outcome of the mediation (whether visiting rights were agreed upon) is not in the public record. The urgency of the deadline suggests a matter involving a child's immediate welfare.
Indiagram AI Analysis
Automated judicial intelligence assessment
Child visiting rights mediation with same-day reporting deadline. Giribala Singh acted in her MPSLSA capacity as Deputy Secretary — a dual institutional role giving her both facilitation and authority.
The dual role of MPSLSA official and mediator adds legitimacy to the process. The same-day deadline shows the court treating child access rights with the urgency they deserve.
The MPSLSA capacity rather than purely judicial capacity for this referral is notable — it reflects the court's use of the legal services infrastructure for ADR rather than purely the judiciary.
Outcome unknown from public records. The combination of MPSLSA institutional role and tight deadline suggests this was a priority child welfare matter.
Disclaimer: This page is based on publicly available court records. AI assessments represent analytical opinion, not legal advice. Indiagram is an independent civic intelligence platform and does not represent any party in these proceedings.
Case Details
Help spread civic intelligence