THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Civil Extraordinary Jurisdiction)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 30 of 2023
Harish Chandra Rai, Aged about 52 years,
Son of late Aita Man Rai,
Resident of Wok, Omchu GPU
P.O. Wok, P.S. Jorethang,
District Namchi, Sikkim
Pin Code- 737121
Presently officiating as
Assistant Director, Block Administrative Office,
BAC, Chongrang - Tashiding P.S.
Gyalshing District, West Sikkim
Pin Code - 737111 ..... Petitioner
versus
Radha Devi Subba, aged about 46 years
Wife of Shri Harish Chandra Rai,
Resident of Rinchenpong,
P.O. Rinchenpong
P.S. Kaluk, Soreng District, West Sikkim
Pin Code - 737111
..... Respondent
Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Mr. Prasun Adhikari, Advocate with Mr. Raj Kumar Chettri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER (oral)
30th August, 2023
Mr. Prasun Adhikari, learned counsel for the
petitioner, by way of this writ petition, seeks to challenge the
Award dated 6.12.2014 passed by the Taluk Lok Adalat, West at 2 WP(C) No. 30 of 2023 Harish Chandra Rai vs. Radha Devi Subba
Gyalshing, which was passed after the parties thereto entered
upon a compromise.
(2) The compromise was to the effect that the petitioner
was required to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the respondent, his
wife, as monthly maintenance w.e.f. January 2015. It was to be
deducted from the salary of the opposite party, i.e., the
petitioner, by the concerned office. Clause 2 of the compromise
entered between them provided for enhancement of the sum of
Rs.5000/- by 15% every year to be made applicable from the
month of January every year. The petitioner was also to take care
of the school expenditure of their minor child till completion of
her studies. Other expenses were to be borne by both the parties.
On the minor child reaching the age of majority, the parties were
to make necessary documents and initiate registration
proceedings of the land of the petitioner in her name. The Award
is dated 6.12.2014.
(3) Mr. Prasun Adhikari vehemently submits that clause
2 of the Award which mandates that the sum of Rs.5000/-
payable as maintenance to the respondent shall be enhanced by
15% every year, is against the petitioner's right to life and
therefore, it must be necessarily interfered with by way of this
writ petition. It is also submitted that there was no written
compromise deed executed. It is alleged that the Award was
passed hastily on the repeated insistence of the respondent to 3 WP(C) No. 30 of 2023 Harish Chandra Rai vs. Radha Devi Subba
sign the same. It is also argued that the petitioner never engaged
any legal counsel for any assistance. The learned counsel also
submitted that the petitioner had been suffering from mental
agony and tension during the proceeding and therefore, he was
constrained to sign the Award without appropriately
understanding the adverse implication it would have. He had
made several attempts to come to an amicable and a suitable
resolution regarding the enhancement of the monthly
maintenance but the respondent did not show any concern to
resolve it. Therefore, the petitioner approached the District Legal
Services Authority, South Sikkim and filed a case on 10.8.2022
which was withdrawn on 8.9.2022. It is submitted that the
petitioner has been suffering due to him agreeing to the 15%
enhancement of monthly maintenance. It is also stated that the
respondent has initiated Family Court Criminal (Execution) Case
against the petitioner under section 128 Cr.P.C. read with
section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 in which the
respondent has claimed a sum of Rs.1,50,748/- as due amount
of monthly maintenance from January 2019 to February 2023. It
is also stated that 25.8.2023 was fixed as the date for payment.
Further, it is stated that Civil Execution Case No.1 of 2018 was
also preferred by the respondent. The petitioner also pleads
extreme hardship.
4
WP(C) No. 30 of 2023 Harish Chandra Rai vs. Radha Devi Subba
(4) The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Bhargavi Constructions & Anr. Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy & ors.1
was cited to impress upon this Court that this is a case which
needs to be interfered with.
(5) A perusal of the judgment makes it clear that
although it is open for the writ court to examine a challenge to
the award of the Lok Adalat under Article 226 or/and 227 of the
Constitution of India, it is only on very limited grounds that such
challenge needs to be entertained.
(6) The Award has been passed admittedly after a
compromise between the petitioner and the respondent who were
husband and wife, for maintenance of the wife and minor child.
It was entered in the year 2014. There is, therefore, gross delay
and laches. Besides, maintenance of wife and child cannot be a
threat to petitioner's right to life. It cannot be a ground as
suggested by the Supreme Court to entertain a writ petition of
this nature. It is also clear that the other grounds taken by the
petitioner are all afterthoughts as those issues would be known
to the petitioner at the time of the settlement. Admittedly, at the
relevant time or immediately after the passing of the Award the
petitioner did not challenge the Award on those grounds made
out now. Permitting the petitioner to reopen the Award at this
1 (2018) 13 SCC 480 5 WP(C) No. 30 of 2023 Harish Chandra Rai vs. Radha Devi Subba
stage would defeat the purpose for which the Lok Adalat has
passed the Award after a compromise between the parties under
the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
(7) Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed and
disposed of as also the Interlocutory Application.
( Bhaskar Raj Pradhan )
Judge
Approved for reporting : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
bp
