Once Court-Annexed Mediation Ends In Signed Settlement, Party Cannot Withdraw Consent On Mere Change Of Mind: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a settlement reached through court-annexed mediation, reduced into writing and signed by the parties, cannot be unilaterally withdrawn merely because one party later changes their mind. The Court held that the right to withdraw exists only during the mediation process and not after a binding settlement has been executed.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad passed the ruling while deciding a husband's appeal against a Family Court order refusing him a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
The husband had alleged that after their marriage, the wife repeatedly insisted that he become a ghar jamai, used abusive language towards him and his parents, threatened to implicate him and his family in false dowry cases. The Family Court dismissed his divorce petition, following which he approached the High Court.
During the pendency of the appeal, the matter was referred to the High Court's Special Mediation Drive, Mediation “For the Nation”. The mediation was successful, and both parties executed a written settlement. A joint compromise petition was also filed before the High Court. However, before the appeal could be disposed of in terms of the settlement, the wife informed the Court that she no longer wished to proceed with the compromise despite having signed it.
The High Court framed the central issue as whether a settlement arrived at through court-annexed mediation, followed by a joint compromise petition before the Court, could be unilaterally withdrawn by one party.
Answering the question in the negative, the Bench observed that a settlement reached through court-annexed mediation acquires legal sanctity once it is voluntarily executed by the parties. Referring to the Mediation Act, 2023, the Court noted that such a settlement is enforceable in the same manner as a judgment or decree of a court.
Relying on Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, the Court observed that while a party is free to withdraw during the mediation proceedings, “once the mediation concludes successfully and a formal settlement agreement is signed by both parties and their counsels, the option to unilaterally walk away is extinguished.”
The Bench further observed that once a party has accepted benefits under, or acted upon, a settlement, the doctrine of estoppel would prevent that party from later denying or revoking it. It added that “neither party can back out merely because of a subsequent change of mind or regret.”
Holding that the settlement remained binding, the Court directed both the husband and the wife to comply with the terms of the mediation settlement dated August 19, 2025, including their agreement to dissolve the marriage in accordance with the conditions recorded therein.
Case Title: Shashi Gurung v. Mrs. Shweta Gupta
Case Number: F.A. No. 23 of 2025
Appearance: Mr. Ashish Jha for the Appellant; Mr. Navneet Sahay for the Respondent.