IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1944 OP(CRL.) NO. 390 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 38/2018 OF JMFC, KALAMASSERY PETITIONER:

MATHEW DANIEL AGED 69 YEARS S/O. DANIEL, RESIDING AT CHAKKATTIL HOUSE, GCRA CROSS ROAD 18, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KOCHI-682 033 BY ADVS.

SREELAL N.WARRIER SRI.BIJU MATHEW RESPONDENT:

LEENA MATHEW, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. MATHEW DANIEL, RESIDING AT KOCHOKKAN HOUSE, KESHAVANPADY, THIRUVANKULAM P.O.-682 305 BY ADV SIKHA G.NAIR THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

8.06.2022, THE COURT ON 16.08.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

“C.R.”

J U D G M E N T Dated this the 16th day of August, 2022 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 `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 `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