The court strives at all times to preserve marriages when a petition for decree of dissolution of marriage is presented before her. The primary reason for this, is because marriage is a sacred institution and ought to be protected and preserved. This is evidently so by the special procedure in adjudicating matrimonial causes.
To this effect, the lawyer representing either the petitioner or the respondent in a matrimonial cause has a duty in law to protect the sanctity of marriage as well as the court. Order II of the Matrimonial Causes Rules, 2004, provides to the effect that a petitioner and respondent should be informed of facilities and organizations reasonably available to assist the parties to reconcile. The certificate in the appropriate form relating to reconciliation must be contained in the petition for divorce and must be personally signed by the lawyer instituting the divorce proceedings to attest to the fact that his client have been properly briefed of the relevant provisions as it relates to reconciliation. From the foregoing, it can be seen that no lawyer can advise his/her client to petition for a decree of dissolution of marriage except where extremely necessary for the mental health, safety and peace of the parties in the marriage.
The court on its part is usually averse with granting the decree for dissolution of marriage. Section 11(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act further places a duty on the court in which a matrimonial cause has been instituted to give consideration, from time to time, to the possibility of a reconciliation of the parties to the marriage. Where the Judge sees a reasonable possibility of reconciliation, he may adjourn the proceedings to enable any of the reconciliatory approach as provided for in section 11(1)(a)(b)(c) to wit: the judge should afford the parties an opportunity of becoming reconciled, the judge with the consent of the parties, interview them in chambers, with or without their respective counsels, as the judge thinks proper, with a view to effecting a reconciliation and or the judge may nominate a person with experience or training in marriage conciliation, or in special circumstance some other suitable person to endeavour, with the consent of the parties, to effect a reconciliation.
It is therefore only when these attempts have failed that the court will resume the hearing of the matter. It must however be noted that in attempting to reconcile the parties, consent plays a pivotal role in the reconciliation process. Where such consent is absent by either of the parties, the judge will be precluded from the reconciliation process and the divorce proceedings will continue until judgement is entered. It is also imperative to note that the extent to which parties are willing to reconcile and the success of reconciliation efforts depend on the specific circumstances of each case.
Conclusively, the court is often times very reluctant to grant the decree for the dissolution of marriage because of the nature of marriage. Hence, the need for litigants to be amenable to reconciliation except where such marriage threatens the very existence of the party.