Kerala High Court
Sajitha vs Baldbose on 14 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 23TH ASHADHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 31892 OF 2013
PETITIONERS:
1 SAJITHA, AGED 27 YEARS
D/O.JANASELVAM, SAJI KUMAR BHAVAN,
KOOTHALI VELLARADA VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2 ANU, AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.BALD BOSE MINOR
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SAJITHA, AGED 27 YEARS,
-DO- -DO-
BY ADV SRI.M.R.SARIN
RESPONDENTS:
1 BALDBOSE, AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.PAUL DURAI,SALISE NEST
KUZHIKALAMMEKKEVEEDU,NILAMMAMOODU P.O,
KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 504
2 LOK ADALAT
NEDUMANGAD TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE-695541
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
BY ADV SRI.G.SUDHEER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.07.2023, THE COURT ON 14.07.2023 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WPC No.31892 of 2013
2
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
......................................................
WP(C)No.31892 of 2013
.................................................................
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2023
JUDGMENT
The writ petition challenges Ext.P2 award passed by the Lok Adalat,
Nedumangad, in Lok Adalth Case No.262 of 2012.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as
follows:
The first petitioner and the first respondent are husband and wife, and their
marriage was solemnised on 29.1.2009. It is alleged that the first petitioner
had 41 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.50000/- as dowry and household
articles worth Rs.75,000/- obtained from her parents as per the demand made
by the first respondent. A male child was also born in the wedlock. On
20.9.2010, the first petitioner and her minor son were constrained to go to
her parental house due to the first respondent's severe physical attack and
aggressive nature. The first respondent filed a petition for divorce and
maintenance in the Family Court, Nedumangad, as OP No.262 of 2012. The
case was posted before the Lok Adalat, wherein the matter was settled, as
per Ext.P2 award. The petitioner alleges that the terms and conditions in
WPC No.31892 of 2013
Ext.P2 were not properly communicated to her by her counsel, and it was
only after receiving a copy of the award that she realised that she was
summoned before the Lok Adalat without knowing that she had objection in
lifting the attachment over the respondent's property. Likewise, the first
petitioner also filed a petition for maintenance from the first respondent, and
she had claimed 41 sovereigns of gold ornaments in the original petition, but
she received 26 ½ sovereigns of gold ornaments. On coming to know about
the above, she also requested the Tahsildar, Nedimangad not to lift the
attachment for the first respondent's property. The award is challenged,
stating that the same is fabricated and that member of the Lok Adalat also
did not apply their mind properly. The name of the church wherein the child
shall be produced and handed over to the father is not mentioned. It is stated
that the temporary Lok Adalat while trying for a compromise of settlement,
should be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair and fair play, and
the same was not done in the instant case.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
counsel appearing for the first respondent.
4. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I hold that
there is no infirmity in Ext.P2 award passed for the reasons to follow. There
is no allegation of fraud committed or alleged in the petition. The ground
that she was not aware of the contents of the compromise and that she was
not communicated about the same by her counsel cannot be accepted. At any
WPC No.31892 of 2013
rate, the same cannot be a ground to challenge the award of the Lok Adalat.
It is also pointed out by the parties though there is a stipulation that no
maintenance would be claimed, subsequently, the petitioner approached the
family court for maintenance. This shows that Lok Adalat has not prevented
the right of the first petitioner to claim maintenance, and all that could be
understood from the relevant term is that, at that point in time, no
maintenance was being claimed. It is also to be seen that the petitioner had
received the benefit of the first condition regarding the return of gold
ornaments, and therefore, she is not aggrieved by all the terms but only
against the selective ones. The petitioner cannot be allowed to approbate and
reprobate at the same time. It is trite that the award of the Lak Adalath can
be challenged only on very limited grounds, as held by the Courts, including
the Apex Court reported in K.Srinivasappa v. M.Mallamma [AIR 2022 SC
238], which held as follows:
"29. While we recognise that a Writ Petition would be maintainable
against an award of the Lok Adalat, especially when such writ
petition has been filed alleging fraud in the manner of obtaining the
award of compromise, a writ court cannot, in a casual manner, de
hors any reasoning, set aside the order of the Lok Adalat. The award
16 of a Lok Adalat cannot be reversed or set aside without setting
aside the facts recorded in such award as being fraudulent arrived
at.
"34. In Pushpa Devi Bhagat (dead) through LR. Sadhna Rai vs.
Rajinder Singh and Ors. - [(2006) 5 SCC 566], this Court held that
since no appeal would lie against a compromise decree, the only
WPC No.31892 of 2013
option available to a party seeking to avoid such a decree would be
to challenge the consent decree before the Court that passed the
same and to prove that the agreement forming the basis 22 for the
decree was invalid. It is therefore imperative that a party seeking to
avoid the terms of a consent decree has to establish, before the
Court that passed the same, that the agreement on which the
consent decree is based, is invalid or illegal.
xxxxx
35. It is a settled position of law that where an allegation of fraud is
made against a party to an agreement, the said allegation would
have to be proved strictly, in order to avoid the agreement on the
ground that fraud was practiced on a party in order to induce such
party to enter into the agreement. Similarly, the terms of a
compromise decree, cannot be avoided, unless the allegation of
fraud has been proved. In the absence of any conclusive proof as to
fraud on the part of the objectors, the High Court could not have set
aside the compromise decree in the instant case. "
There is nothing in the instant case to set aside the facts recorded in
the award as fraudulent. It is to be noted that there is not even a plea in that
regard.
For the above reasons, I find no merit in the writ petition, which is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE
dlk/6.7.2023
WPC No.31892 of 2013
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31892/2013
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF OP NO 262/2012 PENDING BEFORE
FAMILY COURT,NEDUMANGAD
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF AWARD LOK ADALT CASE NO 262/12 OF
LOK ADALAT NEDUMANGAD
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE GIVEN BY PETITIONER
BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR ON 8-11-2013
