JUDGMENT Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and Sri K.K. Singh for the opposite party No. 2. With the consent of the parties’ counsel at this stage, the writ petition is being decided finally. 2. There has been a divorce suit pending between the parties before the opposite party No. 1, Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Lucknow. The FIR was also lodged by the opposite party No. 2 against the petitioner. Against the First Information Report, the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 3495 (M/B) of 2008 in which a Division Bench of this Court has passed an order and referred the matter to the Mediation Centre situated at Lucknow. The parties have entered into the settlement agreement dated 22.9.2008 which was accepted by this Court and writ petition was decided finally by the order dated 12.1.2009, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. In the writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court has observed that in view of considering the agreement entered into between the parties, the FIR is quashed. Thus, settlement agreement entered into between the parties has been approved by this Court. 3. Section 89 provides that where it appears to Court that there exist elements of settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, for settlement of disputes outside the Court, the Court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for possible settlement to the Mediation Centre or for conciliation or arbitration or for any judicial settlement including the settlement through Lok Adalat. 4. Keeping in view the mandate of Section 89 of CPC, Courts are referring the matters for amicable settlements to the Mediation or Conciliation or to Lok Adalat. Once the settlement agreement entered into between the parties before the Mediation Centre is placed before the Court and the Court accepts the same, then it is binding on the parties, on the terms and conditions entered into between the parties through an agreement before the Mediation Centre. Once the settlement agreement entered into between the parties before the Mediation Centre is placed before the Court and the Court accepts the same, then it is binding on the parties, on the terms and conditions entered into between the parties through an agreement before the Mediation Centre. Once the settlement agreement entered into between the parties is accepted by the Court then it is not only binding on the parties but also it is binding on the legal heirs, authorities, Courts, arbitrators, tribunals etc. It shall be obligatory for the Courts or quasi-judicial authorities or the tribunals or even the State authorities including the police authorities to adjudicate the matter finally in terms of the settlement agreement entered into between the parties before the Mediator. 5. Under Section 73 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 settlement enter into between the parties is final and binding on the parties. Such settlement may be executed as a decree by the Court under Section 74 of the said Act. 6. Under The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 also the provision contained in Section 22-E makes a settlement binding on all the parties thereto. Every award of the permanent Lok Adalat under this Act is deemed to be decree of the Civil Court and may be executed accordingly. 7. The judgment and order of the High Court delivered under writ jurisdiction in pursuance to power conferred by Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India in case attains finality is binding. Its non-compliance may call for action under Article 215 of the Constitution of India as well as under the Contempt of Court Act. The judgments of the High Court under writ jurisdiction may also be executed as a decree of Civil Court. 8. Thus in case, a writ petition is allowed or decided finally in terms of agreement enter into between the parties before the mediator appointed by the Court then it shall deem to be part of order of Court and binding on the parties concerned. In case some related matter is pending before the family Court, arbitrator, police or other authorities or any other Court or quasi judicial authorities then dispute should be adjudicated keeping in view the settlement before the mediator, approved by High Court. In case some related matter is pending before the family Court, arbitrator, police or other authorities or any other Court or quasi judicial authorities then dispute should be adjudicated keeping in view the settlement before the mediator, approved by High Court. Such authorities or the quasi judicial authorities have to decide the issue pending before it in terms of such agreement ratified by the High Court. 9. In the present case, since the parties have entered into settlement agreement on 22.9.2008 a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, there is no option for the Family Court except to decide the pending case in terms of the settlement agreement. The Family Court is not required to record evidence or to proceed further expecting the parties to adduce evidence or argue the case on merit. Of course, in the event of doubt with regard to genuineness of settlement agreement, the Family Court may ask to prove the genuineness of settlement agreement by filing certified copy or otherwise if necessary. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, (opposite party No. 1) is directed to decide the pending suit in terms of settlement agreement dated 22.9.2008, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, expeditiously, if possible on the next date or within three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Court, whichever is earlier. There shall be no orders as to costs. ————