IMPORTANT POINTS
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. When the settlement agreement comes up for consideration of the court, where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other party that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the court shall decide that question, pass a compromise decree or not to pass a compromise decree, on the basis of the decisions to be taken on that question.

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/