Magistrate empowered to refer Domestic Violence cases to mediation: Kerala High Court [Read Judgment]

The Kerala High Court recently held that a Magistrate court exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of the Domestic Violation (DV) Act has the power to refer the same to mediation [Mathew Daniel v Leena Mathew]..Justice Kauser Edappagath said that proceeding that deal with rights of civil nature do not come to an end just because the forum for its enforcement prescribed by the statute is the criminal court.“Merely because the jurisdiction is exercised by the criminal court/Magistrate court and the provisions of Cr.P.C. are followed, it does not change the character of the proceedings as criminal proceedings. The character of the proceedings depends not upon the nature of the forum, which is invested with the authority to grant relief, but upon the nature of the relief sought to be enforced. A proceeding that deals with the right of civil nature do not cease to be so just because the forum for its enforcement prescribed by the statute is the criminal court," the Court said in its judgment..Therefore, it held that according to the Civil Procedure Code, the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under the DV Act has the power to refer the matter to mediation and to pass an order in terms of the settlement.“ I hold that the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under the DV Act has the power to refer the matter before it to mediation applying the principles of Section 89 of CPC, record the compromise and pass an order in terms of the settlement applying the principles of Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC," the judgment stated..The Court was considering a plea moved by a man to quash an order by the trial court directing him to pay ₹25 lakh to his divorced wife as a final settlement of all the disputes between the parties. The trial court had passed the order based on the application filed by the petitioner's wife against him under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22, of the Domestic Violence Act.It had then directed the petitioner to pay the said sum as per the mediation agreement between the parties.However, before the High Court, the petitioner contended that he had signed the mediation agreement without understanding the consequences of its terms and it is devoid of merits and hence filed the petition to quash the order of the court below..Counsel for the respondent argued that the contention of the petitioner that he had signed the mediation agreement without understanding the consequences was baseless.The court concurred with this argument and said that the petitioner had failed miserably to satisfy that he executed the agreement without knowing its circumstances.“The said allegation is vague in nature. There is nothing to substantiate the same. The petitioner is a literate person. The mediation agreements were signed before the mediator. The counsel for the petitioner has also signed in it. The terms of the compromise are lawful. The petitioner has miserably failed to prima facie satisfy that he executed the agreements without knowing their consequences,” the Court said. .It also observed that a settlement agreement entered between the parties through mediation has got a certain solemnity attached to it and granting permission for withdrawing from such an agreement would destroy the sanctity of the whole process of mediation.“Once a settlement has been arrived at between the parties in a lis, that concludes the dispute resolved in the settlement and the parties are bound by it. Based on the settlement arrived at the mediation, the parties cannot be directed to invoke the original jurisdiction of the court to ensure that the compromise is worked out. Such a procedure would be against the spirit of the mediation process itself,” the Court said as it dismissed the petition..The petitioners were represented by advocates Sreelal N Warrier and Biju Mathew.The respondents were represented by advocates Sikha G Nair..[Read Judgment]