Parties Cannot Casually Back Out Of Court-Recorded Mediation Settlements: Kerala High Court

Appeal was filed by a man challenging the decision of a family court in a divorce matter.

A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice MB Snehalatha observed, “It is not a mere desideratum but an absolute requisite that settlements and agreements between parties obtained through mediation ― which are then recorded by Courts under the applicable statutory provisions, leading to judgments and decrees ― require to be ensured the highest sanctity; and that efforts by parties to resile from the same ― however, ingenious it may be ― needs to be guarded against and strongly deprecated, lest it shatter the very edifice of trust of the people, on which the legal system rests.”

Background

The dispute stemmed from a divorce case initiated by a husband on grounds of cruelty. Alongside, he sought a declaration that a disputed property was solely owned by him. Meanwhile, the wife filed petitions seeking past maintenance, return of her gold ornaments, and patrimony.

Eventually, both parties reached a settlement through mediation, and the terms of the agreement were explicitly recorded. Based on this mutual compromise, the family court decreed both petitions.

However, more than 230 days after the decree was passed, the husband approached the family court with a plea to set aside the compromise decrees. He claimed that the settlement had been entered into by his brother, who held his power of attorney, without his knowledge or consent. According to the husband, his brother had allegedly colluded with the wife’s brother to facilitate the compromise.

The family court, finding no merit in these claims, rejected the husband’s plea to overturn the decrees. Aggrieved by this outcome, the husband filed an appeal before the High Court.

Findings

The High Court took note of the fact that the husband’s power of attorney holder his own brother did not express any enmity toward him. The brother later alleged that he was coerced into signing the compromise by the wife's brother. However, the Court found no evidence to substantiate this allegation.

Emphasizing the importance of legal finality and procedural integrity, the Bench ruled that permitting parties to casually walk away from a legally recorded compromise would amount to an erosion of the judicial system's authority.

"If we are to allow parties – who enter into agreements, based on which judgments and decrees are issued under the ambit of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC - to resile from it in a casual manner, the majesty of the judicial system would stand eroded; and the integrity of the processes severely compromised. This has been correctly noticed by the learned Family Court; and we cannot, therefore, find any error in the impugned order," the Court stated, adding that the family court had rightly dismissed the plea to set aside the decree.

Accordingly, the High Court upheld the family court’s order, thereby maintaining the original compromise-based decree.

Cause Title: P.V. Padhmanabhan v. Sunitha. K

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates PS Binu and K Seena

Respondent: Advocates C Muralikrishnan (Payyanur) and V Rohith