Point of Law : Court has held that viewing breach of the terms of compromise as a matter of mere contract between the parties and disregarding it has a disastrous effect on rule of law.

JUDGMENT :

This original petition has been filed to quash Ext.P3 order passed by the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery (for short, ‘the court below) in MC No.38/2018 pursuant to the settlement arrived at in mediation.

2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the DV Act) against the petitioner claiming various reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22. The court below referred the case to mediation. The entire dispute between the parties was settled at the mediation. Ext.P1 mediation agreement dated 6/2/2019 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent. As per the terms of Ext.P1, the petitioner and the respondent mutually and amicably consented to a divorce. It was further agreed that the shared household which stood in the name of the petitioner would be sold within six months for mobilizing money to pay maintenance and other monetary benefits to the respondent and the sale proceeds would be shared equally between the petitioner and the respondent. Initially, the court below passed an interim order restraining the petitioner from alienating the property. It was in force till 12/11/2018. Since the matter was settled at the mediation, and it was agreed to sell the shared household to the third party and to share the sale proceedings, the injunction order was not extended. But the property could not be sold as agreed. Therefore, both parties requested the court below to refer the matter again for mediation. Accordingly, the court below again referred the case for mediation. At the second mediation, another mediation agreement (Ext.P2) was entered into between the parties on 22/1/2020. As per the said mediation agreement, the parties mutually and amicably consented to divorce and further the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- within six months to the respondent to settle the entire dispute. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an affidavit at the court below on 9/7/2020 stating that he was compelled to sign the mediation settlement agreement without understanding the consequences of its terms. He sought permission to withdraw from the said settlement. The court below after hearing both sides passed Ext.P3 order whereby the petitioner herein was directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- in terms of the final settlement of all the disputes between the parties as agreed in Ext.P2. The mediation agreement dated 22/1/2020 was made part of the Ext.P3 order. Later, the court below made a correction regarding the date of Ext.P2 agreement in Ext.P3 order as per Ext.R1 (a) order. Ext.R1(b) is the corrected order of Ext.P3. The court below in Ext.P3/Ext.R1(b) found that the contention of the petitioner that he had signed the mediation agreement without understanding the consequences of its terms is devoid of merits and that the parties are bound by Ext.P2 mediation agreement. The petitioner seeks to set aside Ext.P3/Ext.R1(b) order in this original petition.

3. I have heard Sri. Sreelal Warriar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sikha G.Nair, the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Sreelal Warriar submitted that the DV Act does not contain any provision to refer the matter to mediation. Drawing my attention to Section 28(1) of the DV Act, the learned counsel submitted that the proceedings under Sections 12 and 23 of the DV Act are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) and, thus, Section 89 and Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) which provides for settlement of the dispute through alternative dispute resolution mechanism and compromise of the suit is inapplicable to the proceedings under the DV Act. The counsel further submitted that the terms of the settlement in Ext.P2 are unconscionable and incapable of performance. The counsel also submitted that the court b