The Kerala High Court ruled that any alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism may be used to resolve civil disputes, regardless of the venue in which they are currently pending.
In a recent decision (Mathew Daniel v. Leena Mathew), the Kerala High Court ruled that a Magistrate court with jurisdiction under the Domestic Violation (DV) Act has the authority to send the case to mediation.
Justice Kauser Edappagath stated that just because the criminal court is the venue specified by the statute for their enforcement does not mean that proceedings dealing with civil rights come to an end.
“The fact that the criminal court or magistrate court is exercising jurisdiction and the requirements of the Cr.P.C. are being followed does not affect the fact that the proceedings are criminal proceedings. The nature of the relief sought to be enforced, not the nature of the forum having the power to award relief, determines the nature of the proceedings. In its ruling, the Court stated that a proceeding that deals with a civil right does not stop being so simply because the criminal court is the venue for enforcement specified by the statute.
Therefore, it was determined that the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under the DV Act has the authority to send the matter to mediation and to pass an order outlining the parameters of the settlement in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code.
The court’s decision stated, “I hold that the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under the DV Act has the power to refer the matter 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 Court was debating a man’s request to overturn a trial court ruling ordering him to provide his divorced wife $25,000 as a final settlement of all outstanding issues.
The petitioner’s wife had filed an application against him under Sections 18, 19, 20, and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, and the trial court had made its decision based on that application.
Following that, it had instructed the petitioner to pay the specified amount in accordance with the parties’ mediation agreement.
But before the High Court, the petitioner argued that he had signed the mediation agreement without fully comprehending its implications and that it lacked merit. As a result, he filed the appeal to overturn the lower court’s decision.
According to the respondent’s legal representative, the petitioner’s claim that he signed the mediation agreement without fully comprehending its implications is unfounded.
The petitioner’s claim that he signed the agreement without understanding its terms was rejected by the court, which agreed with this position.
But before the High Court, the petitioner argued that he had signed the mediation agreement without fully comprehending its implications and that it lacked merit. As a result, he filed the appeal to overturn the lower court’s decision.
According to the respondent’s legal representative, the petitioner’s claim that he signed the mediation agreement without fully comprehending its implications is unfounded.
The petitioner’s claim that he signed the agreement without understanding its terms was rejected by the court, which agreed with this position.
“Once a settlement has been reached between the parties in a lis, the issue is concluded, and the parties are bound by the settlement. The parties cannot be ordered to use the court’s original jurisdiction to guarantee that the compromise is reached based on the settlement reached during the mediation. The Court denied the petition, stating that such a procedure would go against the mediation process’s original intent.
Advocates Biju Mathew and Sreelal N Warrier spoke for the petitioners.
Sikha G. Nair, an attorney, represented the respondents.
read more at advocatetanwar.com