Back
2019 Supreme(Ker) 910
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K.HARILAL, ANNIE JOHN, JJ.
M.Sethumadhavan, W/O Late Krishnan Nair – Appellant
Versus.
Savitha V.C., W/o Sethumadhavan - Respondent
Mat.Appeal.No.365 of 2018
Decided on : 24-08-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.K.SIMOD SIVAN
For the Respondent: SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN, SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA
IMPORTANT POINTS
The court finds that the settlement agreement is not lawful and the challenge against the satisfaction or adjustment is sustainable, it is incumbent upon the court, to reject the settlement agreement and post the case for disposal, on merits, in court. The only course of action, available to the court on receipt of the mediation agreement, is to pass a compromise decree or to post the case for disposal, on merits, in case the mediation fails or the court rejects the settlement agreement, under the proviso to Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC.
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure- Order 23 Rule 3-A suit can never be dismissed or closed, in case the mediation fails or the settlement agreement is not acceptable-The suit shall be decided on merits, after trial-On receipt of the settlement agreement forwarded by the mediator, it is obligatory on the part of the court, to pass a compromise decree on satisfaction of the statutory requirements, under the proviso to Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC. The court shall not dismiss or close the suit, after recording the terms of settlement.
Statement of facts:
This Mat.Appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the decree and judgment passed in OP 199/14 of the family court, Kannur. The appellant and respondent are husband and wife respectively. The respondent herein filed the aforesaid original petition against the appellant herein seeking a decree directing the appellant to pay Rs.11,25,000/-with interest as the amount fixed as per mediation agreement entered into between the appellant and the respondent in OP 730/2012 and MC 340/12 and Rs.5,00,000/-as compensation for the damages caused to the respondent by the appellant due to the non-performance of the mediation agreement.
Finding of the court:
The court went wrong, by dismissing the suit, after recording the terms of settlement in OP 730/2014. Subsequently, the family court again went wrong, by passing a decree in a latter suit on the basis of that settlement agreement in the former suit. Thus, the entire proceedings in OP 199/2014 are vitiated by illegality and irregularity. Hence, the impugned decree and judgment would stand set aside.
Result: Matrimonial appeal is allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
A settlement agreement arising from mediation must be lawful for the court to enforce it. If the agreement is found to be unlawful, the court must reject it and proceed to decide the case on its merits, either by passing a compromise decree or by further trial if the settlement fails or is rejected (!) (!) .
-
The court cannot dismiss or close a suit solely because the parties have reached a settlement through mediation. Instead, the court is obligated to pass a decree in accordance with the settlement terms if they meet the statutory requirements. If the settlement agreement is unlawful, the court must reject it and continue with the case on its merits (!) (!) .
-
When a settlement agreement is submitted after mediation, the court must examine whether the agreement is lawful. If it is, the court shall pass a decree based on the agreement. If not, the court must reject the agreement and proceed to decide the case on merits (!) (!) .
-
The process of mediation is intended to resolve disputes out of court with a view to passing a decree that reflects the settlement. The agreement may include terms beyond the original pleadings, but it cannot serve as a basis for initiating a new or subsequent suit seeking enforcement of the same terms unless a formal decree is passed (!) (!) .
-
The court's role upon receiving a settlement agreement is to either pass a compromise decree if the agreement is lawful and statutory requirements are satisfied, or to reject the agreement and proceed with a full trial if it is unlawful or challenged. The court should not dismiss or close the case solely based on the settlement unless a decree is issued (!) (!) .
-
In the specific case discussed, the court erred by dismissing the case after recording the settlement in mediation and subsequently passing a decree based solely on that settlement agreement. This was deemed illegal and irregular, leading to the setting aside of the decree and judgment. The respondent was permitted to seek remedies against the earlier order through appropriate legal channels (!) .
-
The overarching principle is that mediation agreements are meant to facilitate settlement and should lead to a decree when lawful. If the agreement is unlawful or the court finds it unenforceable, the case must be decided on its merits, not dismissed or closed prematurely (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further clarification or assistance with this case.
JUDGMENT :
K.Harilal, J.
1. This Mat.Appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the decree and judgment passed in OP 199/14 of the family court, Kannur. The appellant and respondent are husband and wife respectively. The respondent herein filed the aforesaid original petition against the appellant herein seeking a decree directing the appellant to pay Rs.11,25,000/-with interest as the amount fixed as per mediation agreement entered into between the appellant and the respondent in OP 730/2012 and MC 340/12 and Rs.5,00,000/-as compensation for the damages caused to the respondent by the appellant due to the non-performance of the mediation agreement. The averments in the original petition, which are required for consideration of this appeal, in brief, are as follows:
2. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 15.9.2003 and they lived together in matrimony as husband and wife till 11.11.2011. During the aforesaid period of cohabitation, the appellant treated the respondent with cruelty and brutally attacked her frequently and eventually ousted her from the matrimonial home. Against the act of cruelty, she had preferred a criminal case against the appellant under sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The police registered Crime No.1659/2012 against him. At the time of marriage, she was given 106 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her mother and relatives. The appellant had obtained all those gold ornaments and appropriated the value of the gold for his business purpose. In addition to that, he had obtained Rs.7,00,000/-from the respondent on various occasions. When the relationship got strained, she made a request to return the gold ornaments and money to her. But, the appellant did not return the same. Consequently, she filed OP 729/2012 and MC 240/2012 for getting past and future maintenance. She further filed OP 730/2012 for return of gold ornaments and money obtained by the appellant. All the above original petitions and MC were ordered to be tried jointly. When the case was posted for cross-examination of the respondent, all the cases were referred for mediation on the request of the appellant. After conducting various sittings during the mediation process, all the matters in dispute were settled finally and a mediation agreement had been drawn and signed by both parties. As per the terms of the compromise, the appellant had agreed to pay altogether Rs.11,25,000/-to the respondent. Out of the above amount, Rs.2,25,000/-had to be paid by the appellant to the respondent on 10.2.2014 after signing the joint petition for divorce. Out of the balance amount, the appellant had to pay Rs.1,00,000/-on 10.4.2014 and the remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/-on the date of evidence in the joint petition for divorce. In accordance with the terms of the compromise agreement, on 10.2.2014 the respondent came to the family court at 10 a.m. for receiving the money and for signing the joint petition for divorce and waited till 5 p.m. But, unfortunately, the appellant did not turn up. On inquiry, the respondent came to know that the appellant absconded with an intention to avoid payment to the respondent. In the light of the above circumstance, the respondent was compelled to file a petition for divorce as OP 168/2014 under section 13(1)(a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. From the attitude of the appellant it was clear that he entered into the agreement with an intention to get all the cases closed pending against him only. The appellant violated the conditions of contract and caused damages to the respondent. In anticipation of promise, she entrusted Rs.1,00,000/-to a person for obtaining visa to go to Dubai. But, she could not go and lost Rs.1,00,000/-that has been paid for visa. She suffered great mental pain and agony due to the breach of contract. Hence, she is entitled to get Rs.5,00,000/-as damages from the appellant. Thus, the aforesaid original petition was filed claiming a total sum of Rs.16,25,000/- (11,25,00
