2022 Supreme(Ker) 514
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
Mathew Daniel – Appellant
Versus
Leena Mathew – Respondent
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sreelal N.Warrier, Sri.Biju Mathew
For the Respondent: Sikha G.Nair, Adv.
Judgement Key Points
- The High Court of Kerala held that a breach of mediation terms cannot be viewed merely as a contract dispute, as disregarding it would have a disastrous effect on the rule of law. (!)
- The court affirmed that a Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under the Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) has the power to refer matters to mediation, record compromises, and pass orders in terms of settlements under Sections 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. (!) (!)
- Orders passed by a Magistrate under the DV Act regarding reliefs falling within Sections 18 to 22 are enforceable in accordance with the law. (!)
- Settlements falling outside the ambit of Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act are still binding on the parties, who must follow the terms of the settlement. (!)
- A party cannot unilaterally withdraw from a settlement arrived at through mediation after the court and parties have acted upon it; doing so would destroy the sanctity of the mediation process. (!) (!)
- For a compromise to be set aside, it must be void or voidable under Chapter II of the Indian Contract Act; mere claims of signing without understanding consequences are insufficient if not substantiated by vitiating factors. (!)
- The burden of proving vitiating circumstances in a compromise agreement lies on the party alleging them. (!)
- The DV Act is predominantly a civil law providing civil remedies, and the fact that proceedings are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) does not change the civil nature of the reliefs sought under Sections 18 to 22. (!) (!)
- Section 28(2) of the DV Act empowers the court to formulate its own procedure for disposal of applications under Section 12 or 23, allowing flexibility beyond strict adherence to Cr.P.C. (!)
- Cases arising from strained or soured relationships, including matrimonial causes and maintenance disputes, are suitable for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes like mediation. (!) (!)
- In the specific case, the court distinguished between the term regarding payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- (which falls under Sections 21 and 22 of DV Act and is enforceable by court order) and the term regarding filing a joint divorce petition (which does not fall under Sections 18 to 22 and is governed by the mediation agreement itself). (!)
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 petitione
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
