Madras High Court
Palaniyappan vs Revathi on 7 April, 2025
Bench: J. Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A.(MD)No.738 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A.(MD)No.738 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.5080 of 2025
Palaniyappan ...Appellant
-Vs-
1.Revathi
2.Mega Lok Adalat Committee,
Thuraiyur, Tiruchirapalli District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to set
aside the order of this Court made in W.P.(MD)No.4976 of 2018 dated
08.112024.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Balakrishnan
For R1 : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.SRIMATHY, J.)
This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 08.11.2024 passed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 05:06:35 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.4976 of 2018.
2. The writ petition was filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to quash the impugned award passed by the first respondent i.e. Mega
Lok Adalat Committee, Thuraiyur 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 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.
3. The appellant is the husband and the writ petitioner is the wife, their
marriage was solemnized on 25.06.1997. After living for 13 years, the husband
got ex-parte divorce from the wife on 07.09.2010. Even though the wife alleges
that she is aware of such ex-parte divorce, she has not taken any steps to set aside
the same, therefore the same attained finality. In the meanwhile, the wife had
filed M.C.No.3 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thuraiyur
and the case was referred to Mega Lok Adalat Committee, Thuraiyur. The wife
admits that even though she sought Rs.10,000/- as monthly maintenance in the
M.C. petition, due to the advice of elders and advocate she agreed for Rs.2000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 05:06:35 pm )
as monthly maintenance before the Lok Adalat and an award dated 09.12.2007.
The only contention of the wife is that it was agreed to pay the maintenance from
the date of petition and not from the date of the award but, the award was passed
as if it was agreed to pay from the date of the award. The husband failed to pay
maintenance from 2012 onwards, hence the maintenance petition was filed in the
2013. Now if it is reduced, the wife would face difficulties for her existence.
Hence, the present writ petition was filed claiming to pay Rs.2,000/- from the
date of the petition.
4. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back to
the Learned Judicial Magistrate for fresh consideration. The Writ Court further
held that the writ petitioner is entitled for interim maintenance to the tune of
Rs.10,000/- per month. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ appeal is filed
by the husband.
5. It is the case of the husband that the wife had agreed for monthly
maintenance for Rs.2,000/- at Lok Adalat, based on the same award was passed
in the Lok Adalat to that effect. But it is the case of the wife that she agreed for
Rs.2,000/- before Lok Adalat, but the same is payable from the date of the
petition and not from the date of the award. The learned counsel appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 05:06:35 pm )
wife reiterating the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition and has vehemently opposed this writ appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed on record.
7. It is settled proposition that the award passed by the Lok Adalat has
become final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie
to any Court against the award passed in the Lok Adalat, unless there is
allegation that the award is passed fraudulently. In the present case, there is no
allegation of fraud. As held supra the wife agreed for Rs.2,000/-. Even her
prayer in the writ petition is to direct the husband to pay the said Rs.2,000/-. The
only dispute between them is whether it is payable from the date of the award or
from the date of the petition. At the most the issue can be defined that there was
no consensus between the parties. Definitely the same cannot be stated as fraud.
Therefore, the order passed by the Writ Court is erroneous and the same is liable
to be set aside.
8. Generally, the cases are referred to Mediation and Lok Adalat to
settle the cases. If such settled cases are allowed to be contested again, then there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 05:06:35 pm )
will not be any end to the litigation. Hence, on this ground also the writ petition
cannot be entertained.
9. At this juncture, the counsel appearing for the wife submitted that
even though the award was passed in the year 2017, the husband has not chosen
to pay a single paise to the wife till date. Further submitted that the wife is
entitled to the increased maintenance for the subsequent years. This Court is of
the considered opinion that the increased maintenance for subsequent years is a
separate cause of action and the wife is at liberty to approach the court as per law.
10. Admittedly, the award for a sum of Rs.2,000/- was passed in Lok
Adalat on 09.12.2017. This Court during earlier hearing of this case, has directed
the husband to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the wife towards arrears of
maintenance. The learned counsel appearing for the wife submitted a calculation
memo that the arrears of maintenance come only to Rs.2,94,000/- which is
calculated as follows:
"2013 – 11 months: Rs.0,22,000/-
From 2014 to 2024 – 11 years: Rs.2,64,000/-
For 2025 from Jan to April
4 months: Rs.00,8,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 05:06:35 pm )
Total: Rs.2,94,000/-
Hence, the direction issued by this Court to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs ought to be
is modified. It is seen that the M.C. petition was filed on 29.01.2013, therefore
this Court is including January 2013 and directing the husband to pay for the
month of January 2013 also which comes to Rs.2,96,000/-. Further the husband
failed to pay the maintenance inspite of the award passed in the year 2017.
Therefore, the husband is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost to the wife.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the husband is liable to pay
Rs.3,01,000/- including costs. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous petition in
C.M.P.(MD)No.6099 of 2025 is ordered.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the husband submitted that the
husband had so far deposited a sum of Rs.2,90,000/-, of which Rs.20,000/- was
paid through the Trial Court and Rs.2,70,000/- was deposited in the account of
the wife. Therefore, the balance of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand only)
shall be paid within a period four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of
the order. The husband shall pay the monthly maintenance from May, 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 05:06:35 pm )
onwards without fail.
12. In light of the above directions and observations, this writ appeal is
allowed as stated supra. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition in
C.M.P.(MD)No. 5080 of 2025 is closed and C.M.P.(MD)No.6099 of 2025 is
ordered.
(J.N.B.,J.) (S.S.Y.,J.)
07.04.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ta
To
Mega Lok Adalat Committee,
Thuraiyur, Tiruchirapalli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 05:06:35 pm )
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
S.SRIMATHY.J
ta
07.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 05:06:35 pm )
