JUDGMENT : K. Harilal, J. 1. This Mat.Appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the decree and judgment passed in OP 199/14 of the family court, Kannur. The appellant and respondent are husband and wife respectively. The respondent herein filed the aforesaid original petition against the appellant herein seeking a decree directing the appellant to pay Rs.11,25,000/- with interest as the amount fixed as per mediation agreement entered into between the appellant and the respondent in OP 730/2012 and MC 340/12 and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the damages caused to the respondent by the appellant due to the non-performance of the mediation agreement. The averments in the original petition, which are required for consideration of this appeal, in brief, are as follows: 2. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 15.9.2003 and they lived together in matrimony as husband and wife till 11.11.2011. During the aforesaid period of cohabitation, the appellant treated the respondent with cruelty and brutally attacked her frequently and eventually ousted her from the matrimonial home. Against the act of cruelty, she had preferred a criminal case against the appellant under sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The police registered Crime No.1659/2012 against him. At the time of marriage, she was given 106 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her mother and relatives. The appellant had obtained all those gold ornaments and appropriated the value of the gold for his business purpose. In addition to that, he had obtained Rs.7,00,000/- from the respondent on various occasions. When the relationship got strained, she made a request to return the gold ornaments and money to her. But, the appellant did not return the same. Consequently, she filed OP 729/2012 and MC 240/2012 for getting past and future maintenance. She further filed OP 730/2012 for return of gold ornaments and money obtained by the appellant. All the above original petitions and MC were ordered to be tried jointly. When the case was posted for cross-examination of the respondent, all the cases were referred for mediation on the request of the appellant. After conducting various sittings during the mediation process, all the matters in dispute were settled finally and a mediation agreement had been drawn and signed by both parties. As per the terms of the compromise, the appellant had agreed to pay altogether Rs.11,25,000/- to the respondent. After conducting various sittings during the mediation process, all the matters in dispute were settled finally and a mediation agreement had been drawn and signed by both parties. As per the terms of the compromise, the appellant had agreed to pay altogether Rs.11,25,000/- to the respondent. Out of the above amount, Rs.2,25,000/- had to be paid by the appellant to the respondent on 10.2.2014 after signing the joint petition for divorce. Out of the balance amount, the appellant had to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on 10.4.2014 and the remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- on the date of evidence in the joint petition for divorce. In accordance with the terms of the compromise agreement, on 10.2.2014 the respondent came to the family court at 10 a.m. for receiving the money and for signing the joint petition for divorce and waited till 5 p.m. But, unfortunately, the appellant did not turn up. On inquiry, the respondent came to know that the appellant absconded with an intention to avoid payment to the respondent. In the light of the above circumstance, the respondent was compelled to file a petition for divorce as OP 168/2014 under section 13(1)(a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. From the attitude of the appellant it was clear that he entered into the agreement with an intention to get all the cases closed pending against him only. The appellant violated the conditions of contract and caused damages to the respondent. In anticipation of promise, she entrusted Rs.1,00,000/- to a person for obtaining visa to go to Dubai. But, she could not go and lost Rs.1,00,000/- that has been paid for visa. She suffered great mental pain and agony due to the breach of contract. Hence, she is entitled to get Rs.5,00,000/- as damages from the appellant. Thus, the aforesaid original petition was filed claiming a total sum of Rs.16,25,000/- (11,25,000 + 5,00,000). 3. The appellant filed a counter statement denying the averments in the original petition; but he admitted that the cases were referred for mediation and a settlement was arrived at. According to him, as per the mediation agreement, the respondent had agreed to withdraw the criminal case, which she initiated against the appellant under sections 406 and 498-A IPC. But, she did not withdraw the criminal case in order to get more financial gain from the appellant. According to him, as per the mediation agreement, the respondent had agreed to withdraw the criminal case, which she initiated against the appellant under sections 406 and 498-A IPC. But, she did not withdraw the criminal case in order to get more financial gain from the appellant. After the mediation agreement, when the appellant approached the respondent, she asked for an amount, which was more than the amount that was agreed in the mediation. She said that she will not go to the family court on 10.2.2014 unless the full amount is paid. Later on, the respondent had tried to make an impression that the appellant was absconding with an intention to avoid payment to the respondent. Actually, the breach of contract was committed by the respondent. Subsequently, she had filed OP 168/2014 for divorce and obtained an ex-parte decree. Besides, she filed MC 151/2014 under section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the family court and obtained an order directing the appellant to pay Rs.10,000/- per month. He denied the allegation that the respondent was given 106 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage and he had obtained Rs.7,00,000/- from the respondent. Actually, she was given 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments and she herself had pledged the same in bank and later redeemed the same from the bank by utilizing the money sent by him from gulf. According to him, when the mediation agreement became unenforceable, the respondent ought to have taken steps to revive the case. That apart, mediation agreement cannot be enforced partially which is beneficial for the respondent and leaving the rest of the part which is favourable to the appellant. With the aforesaid averments, he prayed for dismissal of the original petition. 4. On the aforesaid rival pleadings, both parties adduced evidence, which consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A24 from the part of the respondent and the oral testimony of the appellant and Exts.B1 to B9 from the part of the appellant. After considering the aforesaid evidence, the family court allowed the original petition in part by granting a decree directing the appellant to pay Rs.11,25,000/- with interest and rejecting the claim for Rs.5,00,000/- as damages. 5. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent. 6. After considering the aforesaid evidence, the family court allowed the original petition in part by granting a decree directing the appellant to pay Rs.11,25,000/- with interest and rejecting the claim for Rs.5,00,000/- as damages. 5. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent. 6. The sum and substance of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the mediation agreement entered into under section 89 CPC is not enforceable, unless a decree is passed accordingly. When the agreement has become unenforceable due to the absence of a decree, the respondent ought to have taken steps to revive the original petitions and MC. A mediation agreement cannot be taken as a basis for a subsequent suit seeking specific performance of the terms of mediation agreement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that a mediation agreement can be enforced by filing a suit for specific performance of the same, even if no decree was passed on the basis of that agreement. However, she advanced arguments to justify the findings, whereby the family court passed the decree for specific performance of the mediation agreement. 7. In view of the arguments at the bar, the questions that emerge for consideration in this appeal are as follows: (1) Whether a decree can be passed in a latter suit, on the basis of a settlement agreement in writing and signed by both the parties, in mediation, in a former suit, after the same has become unenforceable, for want of compromise decree, on the basis of the said compromise agreement? (2) What is the scope and extent of purpose of a settlement/compromise agreement executed by both parties, under the aforesaid Rules? (3) What is the procedure to be adopted by court, on submission of a settlement agreement, after mediation? 8. In the former suit, it is not disputed that when the case was posted for evidence in a joint trial, all the aforesaid cases were referred for mediation at the request of the appellant and all the matters in dispute were settled and parties entered in Ext.A1 compromise agreement; but no decree was passed on the basis of Ext.A1 compromise agreement. On the other hand, the family court dismissed the original petitions and MC, after recording the compromise in mediation. The order dismissing O.P.730/2012 reads thus: “Matter is settled in mediation. Report received. On the other hand, the family court dismissed the original petitions and MC, after recording the compromise in mediation. The order dismissing O.P.730/2012 reads thus: “Matter is settled in mediation. Report received. Compromise in mediation is recorded. OP is dismissed in view of mediation.” 9. The resolution on the questions in controversy centers around section 89(2)(d) and Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC and Rule 24 of the Civil Procedure (Alternate Disputes Resolution) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). The aforesaid provisions reads thus: Section 89(2) (d) “Section 89.- Settlement of disputes outside the court.--(1) xxxx (2) (a) to (c) xxxx (d) for mediation, the court shall effect a compromise between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed.” Order 23 Rule 3 Compromise of suit— Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties or where the defendant satisfied the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree is accordance therewith so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit: [Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but not adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment.] [Explanation—An agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule;] Rule 24 of the Civil Procedure (Alternate Disputes Resolution) Rules, 2008. Rule 24: Settlement Agreement: (1) Where an agreement is reached between the parties in regard to all the issues in the suit or some of the issues, the same shall be reduced to writing and signed by the parties or their power of attorney holder. If any counsel have represented the parties, they shall attest the signature of their respective clients. If any counsel have represented the parties, they shall attest the signature of their respective clients. (2) The agreement of the parties so signed and attested shall be submitted to the mediator who shall, with a covering letter signed by him, forward the same to the Court in which the suit is pending. (3) Where no agreement is arrived at between the parties, before the time limit stated in Rule 22 or where, the mediator is of the view that no settlement is possible, he shall report the same to the said Court in writing. 10. Let us examine the first two questions together. On a combined reading of the aforesaid provisions, we find that mediation is a process, which starts from a reference order to the mediator, and ends in a compromise decree, in terms of a settlement agreement, contemplated under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC read with Rule 24 of the Rules, by the court, which made the reference to the mediation. The said settlement agreement is intended for passing a decree, by the court, in terms of the settlement, so as to make it executable, in execution of the compromise decree to be passed by the court, on the settlement agreement. What is required under the explanation to Order 23 Rule 3 is that the terms of settlement agreement must be lawful. According to Rule 14, the mediator is not bound by the provisions of the CPC or the Evidence Act. While formulating the terms of the agreement, the disputes, not falling under the suit referred to mediation, also can be included, in the absence of any kind of bar against the same. According to Rule 15, the mediator is guided by the principles of fairness and justice. The mediator can formulate the terms of settlement and put it to the parties for approval. The terms of settlement need not be confined to the rights and liabilities raised by the parties in the referred cases only. It may go beyond the pleadings and reliefs sought for. In a mediation, where the intention is to give an end to the long term process of litigation, the parties may abandon their rights or accept the terms, which they may not agree, if they proceed with the suit, on merits. It may go beyond the pleadings and reliefs sought for. In a mediation, where the intention is to give an end to the long term process of litigation, the parties may abandon their rights or accept the terms, which they may not agree, if they proceed with the suit, on merits. Thus, the sole aim and object of the settlement agreement, is to give an end to the litigation, out of court, by passing a compromise decree. Therefore, the settlement agreement may not reflect the actual rights and claims thereon or liabilities, raised or denied in the suit. In short, the settlement agreement cannot be taken as a platform, for another round of fresh litigation, where no decree was passed, on the basis of the settlement agreement. 11. Coming to the question No.3, we find that, on receipt of the settlement agreement forwarded by the mediator, it is obligatory on the part of the court, to pass a compromise decree on satisfaction of the statutory requirements, under the proviso to Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC. The court shall not dismiss or close the suit, after recording the terms of settlement. When the settlement agreement comes up for consideration of the court, where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other party that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the court shall decide that question, pass a compromise decree or not to pass a compromise decree, on the basis of the decisions to be taken on that question. Where the court finds that the settlement agreement is not lawful and the challenge against the satisfaction or adjustment is sustainable, it is incumbent upon the court, to reject the settlement agreement and post the case for disposal, on merits, in court. The only course of action, available to the court on receipt of the mediation agreement, is to pass a compromise decree or to post the case for disposal, on merits, in case the mediation fails or the court rejects the settlement agreement, under the proviso to Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC. To sum up, a suit can never be dismissed or closed, in case the mediation fails or the settlement agreement is not acceptable. On the other hand, the suit shall be decided on merits, after trial. 12. To sum up, a suit can never be dismissed or closed, in case the mediation fails or the settlement agreement is not acceptable. On the other hand, the suit shall be decided on merits, after trial. 12. In the above view, we find that, in the instant case, the court went wrong, by dismissing the suit, after recording the terms of settlement in OP 730/2014. Subsequently, the family court again went wrong, by passing a decree in a latter suit on the basis of that settlement agreement in the former suit. Thus, the entire proceedings in OP 199/2014 are vitiated by illegality and irregularity. Hence, the impugned decree and judgment would stand set aside. The respondent is at liberty to seek appropriate remedies against the judgment passed in O.P.No.730/2014, either before the same court or before this court, in accordance with law and this judgment will not stand in the way of such proceedings. The Matrimonial appeal is allowed.