Parties cannot casually challenge mediation agreements: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that permitting parties to resile from mediation agreements in a casual manner would cause immeasurable damage to public faith in the legal system.

A Division Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and MB Snehalatha urged courts to protect the sanctity of such agreements based on which decrees and judgments are passed.

"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," it observed.

The Bench made the observation while considering appeals moved by a husband challenging the orders of a family court in his divorce case.

He had moved the family court seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and for a declaration that he is the absolute owner in possession of a property which the subject matter of a dispute with his wife.

The wife moved a petition as well seeking past maintenance, return of her gold ornaments and patrimony.

Both petitions were decreed based on a compromise arrived at by the parties in which the terms of agreement were specifically recorded.

However, over 230 days after the decree was issued, the husband moved the family court seeking to set aside the decree in both the petitions on the ground that the compromise was entered into by his power of attorney without his instructions. He alleged that the power of attorney had done so deliberately to help the wife.

However, the family court rejected the same prompting him to move the High Court challenging the family court's decision.

The High Court noted that the husband's power of attorney was his brother and the two men did not seem to or claim to have any animosity towards each other. The brother told the Court that he had been forced to signed the decree by the wife's brother. But the Court failed to find any truth to the submissions.

It, therefore, dismissed the appeals, upholding the orders of the family court and consequently, the decree based on the initial settlement between the parties.

"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 judgment stated.

The husband was represented by advocates PS Binu and K Seena.

The wife was represented by advocates C Muralikrishnan (Payyanur) and V Rohith.

[Read Judgment]