Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 29631
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, PREETA A.K., JJ
JESEENA – Appellant
Versus
ABOOBAKKAR – Respondent
MA (EXE.) NO. 3 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G.SREEKUMAR
For the Respondents: K.PAUL KURIAKOSE, ABRAHAM P. BINU, T.A.RAFEEK, PAUL P. ABRAHAM
A court may record a mediation settlement agreement under the Civil Procedure (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Rules, 2008, to dispose of pending litigation, provided the parties have voluntarily resolved their disputes and complied with the agreed-upon terms.
Headnote:The parties entered into a mediation settlement agreement under Rule 24 of the Civil Procedure (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Rules, 2008, to resolve disputes regarding maintenance, matrimonial claims, and execution proceedings arising from a Family Court decree. The court considered the terms of settlement which included a lump-sum payment by the respondent in exchange for the appellant’s waiver of all past, present, and future claims regarding maintenance and property rights for herself and her children. The court addressed the primary legal question concerning the validity and enforceability of a mediated settlement in an execution appeal. It held that once parties have reached a voluntary resolution and fully complied with the conditions of the settlement agreement, the court should record the terms and bring the pending litigation to a close. The appeal is dismissed as closed, in terms of the memorandum of mediation settlement filed by the parties.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties settled all matrimonial and maintenance disputes via court-annexed mediation. (Para 1) |
| 2. execution appeal closed following fulfillment of mediation settlement terms. (Para 2) |
Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the dispute between them has been settled through mediation. The memorandum of mediation settlement agreement filed under Rule 24 of the Civil Procedure (Alternative Dispute Resolution ) Rules, 2008, which reads as follows:
MEMORANDUM OF MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FILED UNDER RULE 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION) RULES, 2008
1. The Appellant herein is the petitioner in O.P.No.165 of 2014 on the files of the Family Court, Thrissur. The 2nd Respondent in the above appeal is the sole respondent in the said O.P.No.165 of 2014, which is a petition, filed seeking return of gold ornaments or its equivalent value and also for return of money. As the sole respondent remained ex-parte, the said O.P.No.165 of 2014 was allowed, directing the 2nd respondent herein to return 80 sovereigns of gold ornaments and on his failure to return the gold ornaments to pay the value of such gold ornaments at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per sovereign together with 6% interest. The 2nd respondent was also directed to return Rs.2,70,000/- to the appellant with 6% interest.
2. Pursuant to the above, the appellant filed E.P.No.35 of 2017 in O.P.No.165 of 2014 before the Family Court, Thrissur. In the said Execution Proceedings, the Appellant purchased the property having an extent of 7.930 cents comprised in Re-Survey No.40/1part in Venmenad Amsam/Village, by way of auction and sought for delivery of the property.
3. The 1st Respondent herein, who is a third party in O.P.165 of 2014 thereupon filed a Claim Petition as E.A.No.152 of 2022 in E.A.No.9 of 2020 in E.P.No.35 of 2017 in O.P.165 of 2014, seeking an order declaring that none other than the 1st Respondent has any right over the property owned by him and purchased by the appellant and a further declaration that the attachment and sale in auction in E.A.No.9/2020 in E.P.No.35/2017 in O.P.No.165/2014 is not binding on the said property. Though the appellant filed her objections to the said application, the same was allowed as per order dated 27.07.2023, by the Family Court, Thrissur. The above appeal was filed by the appellant, against the said order dated 27.07.2023 in the said Claim Petition E.A.No.152/2022.
4. The appellant and the 2nd respondent were husband and wife. Their marriage dissolved vide ex-parte order dated 13.03.2015 in O.P.No.618 of
2014 on the files of Family Court, Thrissur.
5. While so, the appellant had filed M.C.No.72 of 2014 seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The said M.C was allowed vide order dated 14.10.2016 directing the 2nd respondent to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.5000/- to the appellant and at the rate of Rs.2500/- each to the minor children from the date of the petition.
6. Thereafter, the appellant filed M.C No.13 of 2018 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which is pending consideration. 7. The above appeal was referred for mediation by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. In the course of mediation, the parties have resolved their disputes in above appeal; and the appellant and the 2nd respondent have resolved their disputes in M.C No.72 of 2014 and M.C No.13 of 2018; on the following terms and conditions:
A. The 2nd respondent shall pay a total amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupee Twenty Lakhs Only) to the Appellant in two instalments by way of Demand Drafts, in full and final settlement of all her claims as well as all the claims her children against the 2nd respondent and the 1st Respondent.
B. Out of the aforesaid Rs.20,00,000/-, it is agreed by the appellant that, Rs.1,00,000/- shall be the compensation and
