[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Priti Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 December, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:37718
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C. M. P. No. 900 of 2025
-----
Priti Kumari, aged about 34 years, D/o Munna Prasad, Wife of Deepak
Kumar Ranjan, Resident of Electric Power House, Guradih (Gudsadih),
P.O.-Saraikela, P.S. Saraikela, Dist. Saraikela-Kharsawan, Jharkhand at
present residing at-Noamundi Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Noamundi, Dist.-West
Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Deepak Kumar Ranjan, aged about 37 years, Son of Krishna Prasad
Gupta, R/o Electric Power House, Guradih (Gudsadih), Saraikela, P.S.-
Saraikela, P.O.-Dist ... .... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Petitioner : M/s Mahesh Kr. Verma & Avilash Kr., Advocates
For the Opp. parties : M/s RCP Sah, Ruby Yadav
& CGA Bardhan, Advocates
-----
Oral Order
05 / Dated : 15.12.2025
1. The instant civil misc. petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to stay the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa in Original Maintenance Case
No. 71/2024 and also to stay the operation of the award passed in
Original Suit No. 105/2024 on 20.11.2024.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that under a mistake
of fact, the petitioner signed the settlement made in the Lok Adalat
under the impression that the said settlement was for restoring the
marital relationship, however, in effect the settlement ended in a divorce
between the parties which was not the intention of the petitioner.
Petitioner is willing to reunite and restore marital relationship.
3. From perusal of the award passed in Original Maintenance Case No.
71/2024 (Annexure-2), the parties agreed before the National Lok
Adalat to settle the dispute under the following terms:
"The disputes between the Parties having been referred for
determination before the Pre-sitting of National Lok Adalat and the
parties have compromised/settled the case/matter under the
following terms and conditions:
(i) Both parties have amicably resolved their disputes.
2025:JHHC:37718
(ii) Both parties have decided to part their ways permanently.
(iii) It was resolved that O.P./husband shall return house hold
articles like LED TV, AC, Washing Machine, Bed, Freeze,
Dining Table, Almirah, Trolley Bag, Mixture Grinder, Steel
Drum Set (available) and Kansha Set (available) to petitioner
within one month. The father of petitioner shall go to
Seraikella to take the items mentioned above on 12.05.2025.
(iv) It was also resolved that O.P. shall return silver items
which were given at the time of Tilak on the date of judgment
in divorce case. It was also resolved that O.P./husband shall
return one Chain with Locket and One Gold Bracelet on the
date of judgment of Divorce. The petitioner shall return
Diamond Ring on the date of judgment of divorce. The entire
items shall be given in open court.
(v) It was resolved that the father of O.P./husband shall return
Rs. 5,00,000/- + 1,04,000/- Total- 6,04,000/- to the father of
his wife through UPI Mode within one month.
(vi) It was resolved that both parties shall file a suit for divorce
u/s. 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act on the basis of mutual
consent in between 14.07.2025 to 19.07.2025.
(vii) It was resolved that both parties shall not claim movable
and immovable property from each other after obtaining
divorce from each other."
4. In terms of the settlement, both, Original Maintenance Case No. 71 of
2024 and Original Suit No. 105 of 2024 were disposed of. In the present
civil miscellaneous petition, both the orders passed in Lok Adalat are
under challenge.
5. The ground taken to set aside the order is not sustainable for the reason
that the plea that she was unaware of the content of the settlement is not
available to her as she is literate and educated person, and cannot plead
that she was unaware of the content of the document. Such plea cannot
be taken in view of the principle of caveat subscriptor.
6. Under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, an
Award of the Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a civil court and it
is final and binding on all parties. No appeal lies against such an award.
Such a settlement represents consensus ad idem at the time it was
signed. A party cannot resile unless the consent is obtained by fraud,
coercion, undue influence, or a fundamental mistake that vitiates free
consent under Sections 13-18 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. These
grounds cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. A mere change of mind,
regret, family pressure, or second thoughts does not amount to mistake
2025:JHHC:37718
of fact. It has been held in State of Punjab & Anr. v. Jalour Singh &
Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 660:
"12. It is true that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in
terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which is
duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok
Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the
settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil
court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party
wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can
be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or
Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited
grounds."
Under the circumstance, instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition
stands dismissed.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Abha
Uploaded
17.12.2025
