The obligation to approach the court with clean hands and the need for a blemishless conduct when seeking extraordinary relief.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“Issue an order or direction in the nature of Certiorari and quash the mediation report dated 17.5.2011 passed before Mediation centre under section 89 of Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) rules, 2005 and consequently acceptance of the report by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-1 Bangalore, (MMTC-1) in C. Misc. No. 32/2010 dated 27.5.2011, Annexure-B and A and also subsequent order in C. Misc. No. 244/2011, dated 1.3.2012 as per Annexure-F.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

It is the case of the Petitioner that the marriage of the Petitioner and the Respondent was solemnized on 10.02.1995 at Bengaluru as per Hindu customs, rites and usage. The parties initially lived in a rented house at Thanisandra, Bengaluru and out of their wedlock they had 2 children namely, a son Master M. Harshith Kumar (born on 01.11.1996) and a daughter Kum. Sushmitha (born on 11.02.1999). In the year 2005, they shifted from the rented house to the house of the parents of the Petitioner situated at K.G. Halli, Bengaluru. Subsequently, the Respondent started business of Fancy Store and Saree business in their own shop. As her business improved, she neglected to look after the Petitioner and his aged parents. As a result of which, the disputes arose between the parties culminating in the Petitioner and his parents being thrown out of their own house in January 2009. Now the Petitioner and his parents are residing in a rented house.

3. The Respondent filed a Petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DV Act’ for short) in C. Misc.No. 32/2010 before the Trial Court seeking for various reliefs. The Trial Court passed an order dated 12.05.2010 granting interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month payable by the Petitioner to the Respondent and her children. Subsequently, the matter being referred for mediation, a Memorandum of Settlement dated 17.5.2011, was signed by both the parties and their counsel.

4. The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition has assailed various terms of the Memorandum of Settlement, inter-alia, contending that he has not agreed for the said terms and made allegation against the Mediator that he has not explained the contents of the Memorandum, as also made allegation against his counsel alleging that he has colluded with the Respondent and misguided the Petitioner thereby, played fraud on him in obtaining his signature on the Memorandum of Settlement.

5. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Memorandum of Settlement was sent to the Trial Court and his Counsel told him to appear before the Trial Court on 30.5.2011, but the case was called in the Trial Court on 27.5.2011 itself and the Memorandum of Settlement was accepted on the same day in the absence of the Petitioner, without his consent. Hence, the Trial Court committed an error in accepting the Memorandum of Settlement without following the prescribed procedure in the absence of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had appeared in C. Misc. No. 244/2011, the other Petition filed by the Respondent and in the said proceedings, the Petitioner had engaged the same Counsel and when he was informed by the Trial Court regarding various aspects that the Petitioner was required to fulfill and comply with, in terms of the settlement arrived at before the Mediation Centre, the Petitioner suspected the Memorandum of Settlement and the Counsel who represented him. Thereafter, the Petitioner along with the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for him in the present Writ Petition, verified the case file and Memorandum of Settlement and came to know the misrepresentation and fraud played on him by the Counsel in not disclosing the details of the Memorandum of Settlement in collusion with the Respondent. Hence, the Petitioner contends that the Memorandum of Settlement dated 17.5.2011 and the acceptance of the same by the Trial Court