Karnataka HC Upholds Refusal To Grant Husband A Compromise Award After Wife And Children Reject Joint-Memo Terms

The husband challenged the Family Court’s dismissal of his application in Crl. Misc. No. 209/2020.

He sought recall of the order dated 18 February 2021 referring the matter to the Lok Adalat and an award based on a joint memo filed that day.

Alternatively, he sought to set aside the memo, contest the case on its merits, and obtain repayment of ₹20 lakh with interest and return of jewellery.

He asserted that the money and jewellery had been delivered under the settlement; the wife and children disputed that they accepted the settlement as proposed.

The Family Court held the application time-barred under the residuary limitation period and also rejected it on the merits, noting that the gift deed contemplated by the settlement had not been registered and the respondents did not accept the settlement.

The husband brought this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The application invoked Sections 13, 19(5) and 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

The judgment’s operative reasoning was that a compromise award could not be passed on the joint memo when the respondents did not accept the settlement; payment alone did not empower the court to record a compromise.

The Family Court had also applied the Limitation Act’s residuary article, finding the application filed more than three years after the order of 18 February 2021.

The High Court considered that recalling the referral order would not enable the court to record the proposed settlement: the respondents were unwilling to accept its terms, and the gift deed required by the memo remained unregistered.

Because the parties’ agreement was no longer mutual, the court could not pass a compromise award merely because the husband claimed to have paid the money and delivered the jewellery.

The court therefore found no basis to interfere with the Family Court’s dismissal under Article 227.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and closed any pending interlocutory applications.