DV Act | Magistrate Empowered To Refer Matters To Mediation, Record Compromise & Pass Order For Settlement
Case: Mathew Daniel v. Leena Mathew
Coram: Justice Kauser Edappagath
Case No.: OP(CRL.) NO. 390 OF 2020
Court Observation: DV Act, in general, is of civil kind and the reliefs thereunder are of civil nature and the forum prescribed to secure the reliefs 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”
“It is clear that even though Section 28(1) of the DV Act provides that all proceedings under Sections 12 and 18 to 23 and for the offence under Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of Cr.P.C, the court can still lay down its own procedure while dealing with the applications under sub-section (1) of Section 12 or while considering the grant of interim relief or ex parte ad interim relief orders under sub-section (2) of 23. In view of the nature of the proceedings under the DV Act and the procedural flexibility provided under sub-section (2) of Section 28 in deciding the applications under Section 12 or 23(2), it cannot be said that the court is bound to strictly abide by the provisions of Cr.P.C in all cases”
“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”
“The Court further observed that with respect to matters within the ambit of Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act, the same can be enforced in accordance with the law. However, <i>”as far as the settlement that falls outside the ambit of Sections 18 to 22 is concerned, the parties are bound to follow the terms of the settlement”
Previous Posts
Financial Criteria In A Compassionate Appointment Scheme Cannot Be Ignored: Supreme Court
