Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 14166

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
AJMALA PARVEEN – Appellant
Versus
AFZAL MUHAMMED – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 525 OF 2025|CRL.REV.PET NO. 539 OF 2025|Crl.A NO.431 OF 2023|Crl.A NO.430 OF 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.B.SURJITH, SMT.RAHANA JOSE, SMT.AKSHAYA REGHU, SHRI.LIJO JOSEPH
For the Respondents: SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU, SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH, SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH, SHRI.KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU, SMT.P.LAKSHMI, SMT.AYSHA E.M., SHRI.HASHIM K.M., SHRI.ABUASIL A.K., SMT.HANIYA NAFIZA V.S., SHRI.M.I.INSAF MOOPPAN, SHRI.RISHI VINCENT, SHRI.MANU KRISHNA S.K., SRI.P.K.ABDUL RAHIMAN, SMT.C.SEENA

The court recognizes mediation agreements in domestic violence proceedings, emphasizing amicable dispute resolution.

Headnote:The court addressed a case involving a mediation agreement between parties in a proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. It was noted that although a power of attorney signed the mediation agreement for the 2nd respondent, it is permissible in this context as the respondents are not accused. Consequently, the court disposed of the revision petitions per the agreement terms. The mediation agreement is integral to the ruling, confirming the court's inclination to uphold amicable settlements in domestic disputes.

Table of Content
1. parties settled their dispute through mediation. (Para 1)
2. court observed procedural adherence in mediation agreements. (Para 2)
3. court's ruling based on mediation terms. (Para 3)

J U D G M E N T

(Dated this the 25th day of February, 2026)

In these cases, the matter has been settled between both the parties in mediation. On behalf of the 2^nd respondent, his Power of Attorney namely the 3^rd respondent signed in the mediation agreement.

2. The Registry noted a defect that power of attorney is not permissible for accused in criminal matters. In the instant case, the respondents are not accused persons, but parties to a proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act .

3. The dispute in this case is quasi civil in nature and now the parties amicably settled the dispute in mediation. The mediation agreement signed by all the parties is produced. Therefore, the defect noted is overruled.

In the result, both these Crl.Rev.Pet. are disposed of as per the terms of the mediation agreement dated 04.11.2025 and the modified agreement dated 17.02.2026. The mediation agreement as well as the modified mediation agreement will form part of the judgment.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 14166

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMC. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JAJMALA PARVEEN – AppellantVersusAFZAL MUHAMMED – RespondentCRL.REV.PET NO. 525 OF 2025|CRL.REV.PET NO. 539 OF 2025|Crl.A NO.431 OF 2023|Crl.A NO.430 OF 2023

The court recognizes mediation agreements in domestic violence proceedings, emphasizing amicable dispute resolution.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
AJMALA PARVEEN – Appellant
Versus
AFZAL MUHAMMED – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 525 OF 2025|CRL.REV.PET NO. 539 OF 2025|Crl.A NO.431 OF 2023|Crl.A NO.430 OF 2023