Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Madras considered a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner/wife against the order of the V Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai, which had dismissed a joint mutual consent divorce petition. The litigation arose from matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and respondent, who were spouses with pending original petitions for divorce and maintenance. Pursuant to court-referred mediation, the parties executed a settlement agreement on 09.07.2025 before a mediator. Under the settlement, they agreed to withdraw their respective HMOPs, the petitioner undertook to withdraw her maintenance case, and they agreed to file a mutual consent divorce petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. They also agreed that the petitioner would bring the minor child to see the paternal grandfather on the child's birthday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 p.m., and the husband gave up his right to custody. The parties acted on the terms by withdrawing their cases and jointly filed O.P.No.3186 of 2025 for mutual consent divorce. When the matter was posted for appearance, the respondent/husband failed to appear. The Family Court dismissed the Section 13(B) petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to restore her earlier HMOP and maintenance claim. The court had relied on a memo filed by the petitioner revoking consent, although that memo was later withdrawn. The revision petitioner contended that the settlement before the Mediation Centre was binding, that there was no withdrawal of consent by the respondent, and that the Family Court erred in dismissing the petition solely for non-appearance. She further argued that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, rendered prior permission under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act redundant, relying on Kerala High Court decisions. The High Court observed that this was not a case of withdrawal of consent by the respondent, as the only memo revoking consent was by the petitioner and was itself withdrawn. The respondent had merely failed to appear, without expressly resiling from the settlement or withdrawing his consent. Relying on the Bombay High Court in Prakash Alumal Kalandari v. Jahnavi Prakash Kalandari and the Supreme Court in Trisha Singh v. Anurag Kumar and Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, the High Court held that a settlement reached in mediation and acted upon is binding, and the Family Court was duty bound to dissolve the marriage based on the consent terms already on record. The court did not decide the issue of whether Section 30 of the Advocates Act overrides Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, as the Family Court had not refused permission to the counsel. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the order dated 15.04.2026, allowed O.P.No.3186 of 2025, and dissolved the marriage solemnized on 05.09.2022 and registered on 12.09.2022 before the Sub Registrar of Marriage, Kodambakkam, vide Sl.No.246 of 2022. No costs were ordered.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Mutual Consent Divorce - Binding Effect of Mediated Settlement - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(B) - Parties executed settlement before mediator and acted upon it by withdrawing prior proceedings; respondent/husband failed to appear but did not withdraw consent; Family Court dismissed joint petition giving liberty to reopen prior cases; High Court set aside dismissal and granted mutual consent divorce, holding Family Court duty bound to dissolve marriage on consent terms filed (Paras 11-19). B) Family Law - Mediated Settlement - Binding Nature of Settlements - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - A settlement agreement reached during mediation is binding on both parties unless vitiated by fraud, force or undue influence; proceedings initiated after settlement under PWDVA could be abuse of process; Supreme Court and High Courts held parties cannot resile absent justification (Paras 14-16). C) Legal Profession - Right of Advocates to Practice - Section 30 Advocates Act, 1961; Section 13 Family Courts Act, 1984; Rule 41 Family Court Rules - Revision petitioner argued Section 30 Advocates Act made prior permission redundant; Court noted its earlier decision in Nanda Kishore Kolluru held Section 30 would not override Section 13, but left issue undecided as Family Court had not refused permission (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court erred in dismissing a mutual consent divorce petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act when the parties had executed a binding mediated settlement and the respondent merely failed to appear without withdrawing consent; whether prior permission under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act was required for a Senior Advocate to appear.
Final Decision
Civil Revision Petition allowed; order dated 15.04.2026 passed by V Additional Judge Family Court Chennai in O.P.No.3186 of 2025 set aside; consequently O.P.No.3186 of 2025 allowed; marriage between petitioner and respondent solemnized on 05.09.2022 and registered on 12.09.2022 before Sub Registrar of Marriage Kodambakkam, vide Sl.No.246 of 2022 stands dissolved; no costs.
Law Points
- Mediated settlement binding unless fraud
- force or undue influence
- absence of one party without withdrawal of consent cannot defeat settlement
- Family Court duty bound to dissolve marriage based on consent terms filed
- Section 30 Advocates Act not overriding Section 13 Family Courts Act in cited Madras ruling but issue left undecided.
