Settlement Must Be Free and Informed—Not Just Signed: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Divorce Compromise, Orders Fresh Hearing

“Wife Denied Chance to Present Case—No Finality Without Voluntary Consent and Proof”, In a significant decision upholding the sanctity of voluntary and informed compromise in matrimonial proceedings, the Kerala High Court set aside a Family Court judgment that recorded a settlement between estranged spouses without proper evidentiary backing or mutual fulfillment of terms. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar ruled that both parties must be given a fresh opportunity to substantiate or oppose the alleged compromise.

“The wife did not even get herself examined to prove her objections. Nor did the parties act further on the compromise. Justice requires a fresh look,” the Court held.

The appeal arose from O.P. No. 78 of 2012 filed by the wife, C. Rema, seeking maintenance from her husband, C. Mohanan. Parallelly, the husband filed O.P. No. 77 of 2012 seeking divorce. During the pendency of the proceedings, a compromise was recorded before the Principal Counsellor, under which the parties agreed to file a joint divorce petition and settle claims related to gold and maintenance.

While the husband moved an application (I.A. No. 2159 of 2013) to record the compromise, the wife filed I.A. No. 2258 of 2013 challenging it, contending that she was unaware of the full terms and had not consulted her counsel.

Despite her objection, the Family Court allowed the husband's plea and dismissed the wife's challenge, treating the compromise as final.

The High Court scrutinized the terms of the compromise. Clause (2) specifically provided that the husband would pay ₹60,000 and return 12 sovereigns of gold, allegedly given at the time of marriage. However, the Court found that the compromise was not comprehensive or proven.

“Though the wife disputes having arrived at a final settlement, she did not choose to adduce any evidence… not even sought to get herself examined.”

The Court also noted that the original petition filed by the wife did not expressly claim return of gold or patrimony, even though such allegations were made narratively. Moreover, the compromise recorded did not mention maintenance, which was the sole relief formally sought.

“Such vagueness and procedural gaps cannot substitute a judicially endorsed compromise unless the record shows conscious, informed, and voluntary acceptance.”

Importantly, the Court observed that neither party had taken steps to act on the compromise even after many years—suggesting that the settlement lacked finality in practice.

“Neither of the parties have acted any further in terms of the compromise. The absence of follow-through reinforces the need for evidence.”

Granting the appeal, the High Court set aside:

• The Family Court’s judgment in O.P. No. 78 of 2012

• The orders passed on I.A. No. 2159 of 2013 (husband’s plea to record compromise) and I.A. No. 2258 of 2013 (wife’s objection)

The Family Court was directed to:

“Reconsider both applications afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.”

Both parties were directed to appear before the Family Court on June 11, 2025, to proceed with the matter.

This ruling serves as a vital reminder that settlements in matrimonial cases must reflect true meeting of minds and not merely signatures recorded under pressure or misunderstanding. The Kerala High Court’s insistence on due process, examination of claims, and genuine consent ensures that vulnerable parties—especially women—are not prejudiced by procedural oversights.

“A compromise in family law must be real, reasoned, and reciprocal—not just reduced to writing,” the judgment signals.

Date of Decision: May 22, 2025