Madras High Court
Revathi vs / on 8 November, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.(MD)No.4976 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.(MD)No.4976 of 2018
and W.M.P(MD)No.12532 of 2018
Revathi ... Petitioner
/Vs./
1.Mega Lok Adalat Committee,
Thuraiyur,
Tiruchirappalli District
2.Palaniyappan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records
pertaining to the impugned award dated 09.12.2017 passed by Mega Lok
Adalat Committee, Thuraiyur the first respondent herein in the case in
M.C.No.3 of 2013, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thuraiyur
and consequently direct the first respondent to 'modify' the award dated
09.12.2017 only to the effect that the agreed maintenance amount of
Rs.2000/- per month should be paid to the petitioner by the respondent
from the date of the petition i.e on 31.01.2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Vishnu Varthanan
For R2 : Mr.N.Shankar Ganesh
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.4976 of 2018
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned award dated 09.12.2017
passed by Mega Lok Adalat Committee, Thuraiyur. in M.C.No.3 of 2013,
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thuraiyur and for
consequential direction to the first respondent to 'modify' the award dated
09.12.2017 only to the effect that the agreed maintenance amount of
Rs.2000/- per month should be paid to the petitioner by the second
respondent from the date of the petition i.e on 31.01.2013.
2. The petitioner is the wife of the second respondent. They got
married on 25.06.1997. Thereafter, they had misunderstanding and got
separated. The petitioner could not able to maintain herself and filed a
petition for maintenance in M.C.No.3 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate, Thuraiyur, Trichy District. During the pendency of the
maintenance case, it was referred before the Lok Adalat and the
petitioner and the second respondent entered into an amicable settlement
that the petitioner is ready and willing to receive a sum of Rs.2000/- per
month as monthly maintenance payable by the second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
However, the Lok Adalat passed the award that the maintenance amount
shall be paid by the second respondent from the date of the award instead
of the date of petition of the maintenance case. The maintenance case
was filed in the year 2013 and the award was passed on 09.12.2017.
Further, the second respondent did not comply the said order and till
today no single paise has been paid to the petitioner. Therefore, the
petitioner filed a petition before the trial court in M.C.No.3 of 2013 to
correct the order as from the date of petition instead of from the date of
the award. However, it was returned on 12.01.2018 on the ground that no
amendment can be done after passing the award with the consent of both
the parties. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition
challenging the award passed by the Lok Adalat in M.C.No.3 of 2013 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, Trichy District.
3. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit
that though the second respondent is ready and willing to pay monthly
maintenance, the petitioner has failed to come forward to collect the
amount. Further, his counsel advised that the amount can be paid only in
the execution petition. He would also submit that this Writ Petition itself
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is not maintainable and the award of the Lok Adalat can be challenged
only under the circumstances that the award was obtained by fraud.
Therefore, the writ court cannot in a casual manner de hors any
reasoning set aside the award passed by the Lok Adalat. In support of his
contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in 2022 SCC Online SC 636 (K.Srinivasappa and others Vs.
M.Mallamma and others), wherein it is held ad follows:
''34. 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 awrd of compromise, a writ Court
cannot, in a casual manner, de hors any reasoning, set aside
the order of the Lok-Adalat. The award of a Lok Adalat
cannot be reversed or set aside without setting aside the facts
recorded in such award as being fraudulent arrived at''.
4. As stated supra, only correction to be carried out in the award is
that whether the maintenance shall be paid by the second respondent
from the date of petition or from the date of award. However, the trial
court returned the petition on the ground that it has no power to amend
the award after compromise and after signed by the parties. The Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhargavi Constructions vs
Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy reported in 2017(5) CTC 775 held that
the parties would be at liberty to challenge the legality and correctness of
the award passed by the Lok Adalat by filing the writ petition under
Article 226 or/and 227 of the Constitution in the High Court in
accordance with law.
5. Therefore, the writ petition is very much maintainable
challenging the award passed by the Lok Adalat. Further, admittedly, the
second respondent even till today has not paid any single paise to the
petitioner as agreed before the Lok Adalat. Therefore, the judgment
relied upon by the second respondent is not applicable to the present case
since there is circumstance as stated supra to interfere in the award
passed by the Lok Adlat.
6. In view of the above, the award passed by the first respondent is
liable to be quashed and the same is quashed. The case in M.C.No.3 of
2013 is remanded back to the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court,
Thuraiyur, Trichy District for fresh disposal after full pledged trial. In the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
meanwhile, the petitioner is entitled to interim maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- per month. The second respondent shall pay a sum of
Rs.10,000/- as interim maintenance to the petitioner directly till the
disposal of M.C.No.3 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
Court, Thuraiyur, Trichy District. The learned Judicial Magistrate,
Thuraiyur, Trichy District is directed to dispose of M.C.No.3 of 2013
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
7. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
08.11.2024
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
CM
TO:
1.Mega Lok Adalat Committee,
Thuraiyur,
Tiruchirappalli District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
CM
Order made in
and W.M.P(MD)No.12532 of 2018
Dated:
08.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
