Orissa HC: Mediated settlement can’t be reopened

Cuttack: The Orissa high court has held that a mediated settlement, once voluntarily signed by parties, cannot be reopened to raise fresh claims as this would erode the finality guaranteed under law. The two-judge bench of Justices Manash Ranjan Pathak and Sibo Sankar Mishra gave the judgment on Jan 21 while dismissing an application filed by a woman seeking return of gold ornaments after a matrimonial dispute had already been amicably settled through mediation.The court order, which was uploaded on Feb 6, observed that a mediated settlement agreement “acquires finality and enforceability akin to a judgment or decree of a civil court” and stressed that the sanctity of the mediation process — being an extension of judicial proceedings — must be preserved.The case is related to a marriage solemnised on July 21, 2010. The couple separated within 40 days of marriage, following which prolonged litigation ensued. The family court at Khurda granted a decree of divorce in 2019 on the ground of cruelty, which was challenged by the wife before the high court.After multiple hearings, the matter was referred to the Orissa High Court Mediation Centre on July 28 last year. The mediation succeeded and a final report, dated Nov 21, 2025, recorded a comprehensive settlement. Under its terms, the husband agreed to pay Rs 13 lakh as permanent alimony in three installments by March 2026 and to hand over specified household articles. Both parties also agreed to withdraw pending criminal cases and waive future claims.But, on Dec 2, 2025 — 12 days after the mediation report was submitted — the wife moved an application seeking return of gold ornaments allegedly given at the time of marriage. The husband opposed the plea, contending that the ornaments had already been taken by her and that such an application was not maintainable after a concluded settlement.Rejecting the application, the bench noted, “The mediation report listed even minor household articles, making the claim of inadvertent omission of valuable gold jewellery untenable.” The bench also relied on Clause 6 of the settlement, which records that the wife “shall have no right to claim any movable or immovable property of the husband in any manner”.