A division bench of the Kerala High Court has decisively underscored that agreements reached through court‑facilitated mediation and converted into consent decrees cannot be casually withdrawn by parties long after their execution. Two matrimonial appeals, where the spouses sought to revoke previously negotiated mediated agreements, were summarily dismissed, reinforcing the principle that the judicial process imparts solemn and binding effect to such settlements.
In both cases, families had reached comprehensive mediated settlements recorded before the Family Court in Kannur, resolving disputes concerning marital dissolution and property distribution. Parties had voluntarily consented to the terms, which were reduced to writing and formally recorded. Based on those terms, the Family Court issued consent decrees binding on both sides. However, significantly later—more than seven months after the judgments—one spouse from each couple sought to withdraw from the settlement. They claimed various deficiencies such as lack of authority on part of the power‑of‑attorney holder who executed the agreement, or absence of genuine consent at the time. Such claims surfaced only after the decrees had been issued and relied upon by the parties in disposing of pending litigation.
The High Court rejected these belated attempts to rescind the mediated settlement. The bench emphasized that if courts were to permit parties to backtrack from terms recorded under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure merely because they later regretted the decision, the very purpose and credibility of mediation would collapse. The Court observed that permitting such casual withdrawal from mediated settlement would gradually erode the public trust and predictability that lie at the heart of judicial dispute resolution.
The appellants argued that their agreements were executed without actual consent, pointing to the fact that power‑of‑attorney representatives had entered into the settlement allegedly without their instruction, perhaps even under influence. But the Court scrutinized the factual matrix and noted that no antagonism or apparent coercion existed between the principals and their attorneys. The alleged infirmities were not substantiated by credible evidence and appeared opportunistic when raised long after the dispute had been resolved.
The bench held that once a mediated settlement culminates in a consent decree with court approval, it acquires the same finality and enforceability as a judgment given after adjudication. Parties cannot, as a rule, retract their acceptance, unless exceptional circumstances like fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, or procedural illegality can be convincingly demonstrated. In the absence of that, the agreements stand irrevocable once judicially recorded. Even the lapse of many months, during which courts had disposed of other related matters based on the consent decree, weighed heavily against reopening the issues.
The Court recalled precedent and underlying statutory logic: mediated settlements serve as reliable, enforceable resolution mechanisms which reduce litigation burdens and reflect mutual collaboration. Respecting the sanctity of a consent decree—even if one party later wishes to relitigate—is essential to preserving the integrity of such processes. To permit easy recission would impair judicial economy and shift mediated exits into revived controversy.
It further emphasized that court‑recorded mediated settlements, once reduced to decrees, cannot be lightly set aside through civil revision or appeal. To maintain uniformity, the judicial system must treat them as final unless fundamental grounds justify setting them aside. Allowing frivolous or belated challenges would result in uncertainty and undermine courts’ willingness to refer disputes to mediation in the first place.
In both appeals, the bench found no credible ground to permit revocation of the settlement. The Family Court’s refusal to set aside the decrees was therefore correct and legally sound. The High Court dismissed both appeals outright, affirming that mediated settlements recorded and decreed by courts must retain binding effect and cannot be rescinded casually after execution.
The decision thus sends a strong message: parties entering mediated settlement must understand that the arrangements they accept and formalize in court carry the full force of a decree. The lapse of time, reliance on the decree by courts or parties, and absence of substantive legal unfairness together compel judicial restraint from interfering at later stages. Upholding the finality of consent decrees protects mediation as a durable and predictable path to dispute resolution. Continuous judicial deference to court-validated agreements cements trust in alternative dispute resolution and enhances recognition that settlement through mediation, once sanctified by decree, is not reversible at will.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.