Practice of handwritten clauses in settlement agreements needs to be discontinued: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently observed that the practice of handwritten clauses in settlement agreements needs to be discontinued unless the same is countersigned by a mediator in the presence of the parties as well as by the parties themselves (Mahinder Singh v. Meenakshi Yadav)..The observation was made by single-judge Justice Najmi Waziri during the hearing of a contempt petition filed by a husband against his wife alleging wilful disobedience of the orders passed by the family court.It was contended that an undertaking was given by the wife’s counsel that she did not want to pursue the marriage, as the matter had been amicably settled and both parties had agreed to dissolve the marriage. Despite the fact that the wife was not present on the said date, the family court had disposed of the matter based on the lawyer's statement..In the Rajat Gupta case, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had held that the settlement ought to be recorded in clear and unambiguous terms, such terms ought to have been understood by the parties, the parties should have made them of their volition, and their statement before the court ought to have been recorded on solemn oath.The Amicus Curiae appointed in the matter submitted that none of these elements were followed in the case at hand. Noting that the mediation settlement had handwritten clauses which were not signed in places where they were inserted, the Court observed,"The practice of handwritten clauses needs to be discontinued forthwith, unless it is countersigned or initialled by the Mediator/Counsellor in the presence of the parties as well as by the parties. Often when a settlement is recorded, it is after a lot of dialogue between the parties, who have invariably suffered long litigations, harassment and much anguish. They may not know the finer points of recording of the mediated settlement agreements; therefore, it becomes the duty of the Mediator/Counsellor to ensure that the settlement agreement is recorded specifically in terms of the dicta of this court in Rajat Gupta (supra).".Justice Waziri further asked family courts to ensure that whenever a settlement agreement is recorded, it is in accordance with the same. The Court also found that the present case did not qualify as contempt."As noted hereinabove, since the settlement agreement recorded between the parties is not in terms of the decision of the Division Bench, nor was any undertaking of the respondent recorded before the learned Family Court, nor was an affidavit directed to be filed or filed affirming the terms of the settlement; the settlement agreement does not form a part of the court order. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the respondent has committed contempt of court. No contempt is made out.".With these observations, the Court disposed of the petition.Advocates Yogesh Sharma and Yugant Parihar appeared for the petitioner, whereas Advocates Rohit Kumar and Ayush Sharma represented the respondent. Advocate Prabhsahay Kaur served as Amicus Curiae..[Read Order]