AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)
PetitionerAjay Pal Singh has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the award dated 11.05.2024, passed by the Bench of National Lok Adalat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Lok Adalat’), in case Criminal Appeal No.6D/X/2024.
By way of award dated 11.05.2024, the Lok Adalat has modified the order dated 28.12.2023, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in D.V. Act RBT Case No. 166IV/23/21, titled as Mala Guleria versus Ajay Pal Singh.
Parties to the lis are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court.
PetitionerMala Guleria has filed a complaint under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DV Act’), against her husband, Ajay Pal Singh. In the said petition, after giving an opportunity of being heard, to the respondent husband, the same has been decided by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 28.12.2023, by directing the respondenthusband to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs.30,000/, per month to petitioner from the date of filing of the complaint.
Against the said order, appeal, under Section 29 of the Act, was filed before the learned Additional District Judge II, Kangra at Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’).
During the pendency of the appeal, on 24.04.2024, the matter was settled in preLok Adalat sitting and on that day, statements of both the parties were recorded and the case was ordered to be listed before the Lok Adalat.
On the basis of the statements made by the parties, the matter was settled by the Lok Adalat, by modifying the order dated 28.12.2023, passed by the learned trial Court and the amount of maintenance has been modified/ reduced to Rs.20,000/ per month.
The said award has been assailed by the respondenthusband before this Court, by filing the present petition, mainly, on the ground that the Lok Adalat has erred in law, in not recording the statements of parties on 11.05.2024 and passed the award, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
The award has also been assailed on the ground that it has been passed by the Lok Adalat, whereas, statements have been recorded, during the regular proceedings, by the learned Appellate Court. A plea has also been taken that the respondenthusband was ready to pay Rs.20,000/ per month from the month of April, 2024, only and no other terms, except Rs.20,000/, were agreed between the parties.
According to the petitioner, the Lok Adalat has not passed the award in the presence of the parties and Lok Adalat ought to have apprised the parties about their rights and consequences.
On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Kunal Thakur, Advocate, appearing for the respondenthusband, has prayed that the award passed by the Lok Adalat, may kindly be set aside and the appeal be restored to the files of the learned Appellate Court.
Per contra, Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Advocate, appearing for the petitionerwife has supported the award passed by the Lok Adalat, on the ground, that the respondent has voluntarily made a statement before the Court and with the consent of the parties, the matter was, thereafter, settled in the Lok Adalat.
The award of Lok Adalat is being challenged by way of the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP© No.27806 of 2023) titled as Dilip Mehta versus Rakesh Gupta & Others, has held that the award of Lok Adalat can be assailed on the limited grounds. Relevant paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment, are reproduced as under:
“9.This Court has, in a series of decisions, explained the consequence this statutory finality. In State Punjab v. Jalour Singh (Supra), it was held that where an award of is made by a Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement between the parties, it is final and binding and executable as a decree, and that no appeal lies against it. It was further held that any challenge to such an award must be brought before the High Court in proceedings under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India and only on limited grounds such as lack of consent, jurisdictional error or fraud. In Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy (Supra), this Court applied the same principle to a civil suit which sought to impeach a Lok Adalat award and held that a civil suit to set aside such an award is not maintainable and that the only proper remedy is a writ petition before the High Court.
10.The principle that emerges is that the statutory finality attached to a Lok Adalat award leaves no room for an appellate or plenary civil remedy against the award treated as a decree. The award may be executed as a decree, but its validity cannot be reopened through an ordinary civil suit or by treating some other civil proceeding as a vehicle for setting it aside. The only recognised avenue of challenge is the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, which is supervisory and exceptional in nature.”
(self emphasis supplied)
Being guided by the above decision, now, this Court would proceed further to determine the fact whether the respondenthusband is able to make out a case for interference, on the basis of the parameters settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Operative portion of the order, passed by the learned trial Court, on 28.12.2023, is reproduced, as under:
“19.In view of my findings on points No.1 and 2 above, the present petition is allowed and respondent is hereby restrained from committing any act of domestic violence against the aggrieved. He is also directed to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs.30,000/ per month to petitioner from the date of filing of the complaint. A copy of this order be supplied to the applicant free of costs and also be sent to the concerned SHO for information and necessary action. Case file, after due completion, be consigned to the record room.”
The above order reveals that the respondent husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/ to the petitioner, from the date of filing of the complaint and not from the date of order.
As per the record, on 24.04.2024, both the parties were present, before the learned Appellate Court, along with their counsel. On that day, statement of petitionerwife has been recorded, in which, she has stated that she has no objection, if the order dated 28.12.2023 is modified to the tune of amount of Rs.20,000/ per month. She has deposed so, in unequivocal terms. She has duly been identified by her counsel.
Similarly, respondenthusband Ajay Paul, has made the following statement :
“ Stated that I have settled the dispute amicably in preLok Adalat Sitting and I have no objection if the order dated 28.12.2023 is modified to the tune of amount of Rs.20,000/ per month. I also agreed to pay the outstanding amount in three half yearly installments from which, I agreed to pay first three installments on or before Lok Adalat scheduled to be held on 11.05.2024 and will pay the amount of Rs.20,000/ per month in the account of respondent Smt. Mala Devi.”
Respondent has also been identified by his counsel. Thereafter, the matter was ordered to be listed before Lok Adalat and on the basis of the statements, so recorded, on 24.04.2024, the award was passed by the Lok Adalat on 11.05.2024.
In such situation, when, during intervening period, from the date of making the statement, i.e., on 20.04.2024, till passing of the award dated 11.05.2024, the respondenthusband has made no efforts to highlight the fact that he has made the statement, under some misrepresentation or the same has been recorded with his consent.
On 24.04.2024, the respondenthusband has made a statement, not only to the effect, that he has no objection, if the order dated 28.12.2023 is modified by reducing the amount of maintenance from Rs.30,000/ to Rs.20,000/, but, also agreed to pay the outstanding amount of maintenance, in three half yearly installments; out of which, he has agreed to pay the first installment on or before the Lok Adalat, scheduled to be held on 11.05.2024 and also agreed to pay Rs.20,000/ per month, in the account of respondent Mala Devi. With the eyes wide open, he has made the statement and also given undertaking, on the basis of the which, the Lok Adalat has passed the award.
As per the award of Lok Adalat, the order passed by the learned trial Court has partially been modified by reducing the amount of maintenance from Rs.30,000/ to Rs.20,000/ per month.
Merely, because the statements were not recorded by the Lok Adalat and the matter has been decided by the Lok Adalat, does not clothe this Court with the jurisdiction to interfere with the award, that too, at the instance of a person, who has made detailed statement, before the learned Appellate Court, by giving solemn undertaking to pay the amount in three installments.
The situation would have been otherwise, had the wife accepted the modified maintenance, from the date of award of Lok Adalat. Even, in the statement of respondent husband, there is nothing that the maintenance be awarded to his wife, from the date of award of Lok Adalat.
Both the parties have not uttered even a single word, to tinker with the order of learned trial Court to pay the maintenance from the date of application.
Both the parties are ad idem on reducing the amount of maintenance from Rs.30000 to Rs.20000/ per month and both were silent to tinker with the date, from which, the same has been ordered to be paid by the learned trial Court.
Respondenthusband has not assailed the award, on the ground, that he has not made the statement before the Court, nor, it is his case that he did not agree to pay the reduced amount in installments.
Considering the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the facts and circumstances of the present case, as narrated above, the respondenthusband has failed to make out a case satisfying the requisite ingredients to challenge the award passed by the Lok Adalat.
Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Record be sent back.