Need To Guard Against Parties Resiling From Mediated Settlements: Kerala High Court Rejects Appeal Against Consent Decree

The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha emphasized that parties cannot be permitted to resile from settlements solemnized through judicial process, cautioning that any such attempts could undermine public trust in the justice system.

The appeals were filed against orders of the Family Court, Kannur. The couples had previously reached a mediated settlement in two original petitions involving marital dissolution and property rights. However, after 230 days, the appellants sought to revoke the compromise, alleging that the settlement was entered into by a power of attorney holder without proper authority or instructions.

According to the appellant, his brother—acting as his Power of Attorney—had agreed to the compromise without his knowledge, while the appellant was incapacitated due to a cardiac ailment. The power of attorney holder, however, denied acting under improper influence and maintained that he had no animosity with his brother.

The Family Court had dismissed the applications to set aside the decree, and the High Court upheld this ruling. “If we are to allow parties who enter into agreements, based on which judgments and decrees are issued under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, to resile from it in a casual manner, the majesty of the judicial system would stand eroded,” the Bench observed.

The Court cited previous rulings including Teena M. Ansari v. Rinoj Eappen [2019 (4) KHC 593] and Mohan P.K. v. Sudakshina Ramakrishnan [2017 (3) KLT 254], reiterating that consent decrees reached through mediation carry binding legal weight unless vitiated by fraud or coercion—none of which were proven in this case.

“Settlements and agreements between parties obtained through mediation… leading to judgements and decrees require to be ensured highest sanctity” the Court asserted

The appeals were consequently dismissed.

Case Title - X v Y

Citation - 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 453

Case No - Mat Appeal 399/ 2025 & Mat Appeal 401/ 2025

Counsel for Petitioner - P S Binu, K Seena

Counsel for Respondent - C Muralikrishnan, V Rohith