Smt. Basanthi - Petitioner @HASH Sri. Ashok S. Thalange

A.S. Bopanna, J. - The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 15-3-2016 passed by the Additional Family Judge, Bengaluru, in M.C. No. 4760 of 2014 at Annexure-D to the petition.

The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Due to certain marital discord, the petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (''the Act'' for short) in M.C. No. 4760 of 2014. By the said petition, the petitioner herein had sought that the marriage which was solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on 21-2-2000 at Sri Jagadguru Panchacharya Mangalya Mandira, Gadag, be dissolved by a decree of divorce.

The objections no doubt was filed by the respondent to the said petition and the petition was pending consideration before the Family Court. At that stage, keeping in view the provision contained in Section 89 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and there being an obligation on the Court to refer the matter to mediation, the Court below had referred the petition to the Bangalore Mediation Centre. In the process of mediation, the parties have arrived at a settlement whereby a consent was recorded for dissolving the marriage solemnized on 21-2-2000. Accordingly, a Memorandum of Settlement under Section 89 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005 was drawn out.

In that light, when the Court below took up the matter on 15-3-2016, though the memorandum was brought to the notice of the Court seeking dissolution of the marriage, the Court below has rejected the same as unacceptable and has posted the case for cross-examination of P.W. 1. It is in that light, the petitioner is before this Court.

The fact that the matter had been settled in mediation is not disputed by the respondent. Tire respondent has also indicated that as per the settlement arrived at between the parties both of them agreed that the marriage could be dissolved. No doubt, the Court below while arriving at the conclusion that such memorandum cannot be accepted has referred to the provisions contained in the Act and also that a mutual consent of divorce could only be recorded under Section 13-B of the Act.

However, what cannot also be lost sight is that in order to resolve such issues, Section 89 of CPC had been brought in by amendment whereby there is an obligation to refer the matter to the mediation and thereafter conclude such proceedings.

Such issue in fact had arisen for consideration before this Court in the case of Sri. N. Ramachandrappa v. Smt. M. Geetha, ILR 2010 KAR 1896 wherein this Court referring to this aspect of the matter has held that in such circumstance, when the mediation effected is in the nature of direction to bring the litigation to an end, such agreement between the parties will have to be accepted by the Court and the proceedings will have to be closed.

Therefore keeping in view the observation made by this Court in the decision cites supra, the order dated 15-3-2016 in M.C. No. 4760 of 2014 is set aside. The Court below is directed to take note of the Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the parties before the Mediation Centre and on ascertaining from the parties that they would stand by the settlement reached between them, shall accept the same and close the proceedings in terms thereof by granting the decree of divorce.