The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court was considering a Petition challenging the award passed by the Lok Adalat as also order passed in the Execution Petition.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a Lok Adalat Award becomes unenforceable once a fresh case is initiated under the Domestic Violence Act and applicable provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code on the same claim.
The Court was considering a petition challenging both the Lok Adalat Award and the order passed in the related Execution Petition.
The single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, “…Once respondent No.1 has taken resort to filing of fresh petitions under the provisions of DV Act and Cr. P.C. against the petitioner and even obtained orders of interim maintenance in her favour, she cannot seek recovery of maintenance on the basis of compromise arrived at by the parties before the Lok Adalat in similar proceedings initiated in the first round of litigation….”
Facts of the Case
Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2, the wife and minor daughter of the Petitioner, filed petitions under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., along with police complaints against the Petitioner arising from matrimonial conflicts. During the pendency of these proceedings, the parties reached a compromise before the Lok Adalat, which led to the passing of an award. According to the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 initially resumed matrimonial ties with him after the compromise but left with her minor daughter in March 2022 and filed a fresh lawsuit. She also submitted an application for the execution of the Lok Adalat award.
The Petitioner challenged the impugned order, contending that because the Respondents had already filed petitions under Section 12 of the DV Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the compromise and award had lost their validity. He further argued that the Executing Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition for the award once the Respondents alleged a breach of the compromise terms.
Reasoning By Court
The Court observed that the primary issue was whether the award could still be enforced once a fresh round of litigation was initiated. It therefore concluded that the subsequent litigation rendered the Lok Adalat award ineffective.
“If respondent No.1 was interested in getting the award of the Lok Adalat executed as against the petitioner, then she should not have initiated a fresh round of litigation against the petitioner by filing petitions under Section 12 of the DV Act and Section 125 of the Cr. P. C.,” the Court observed.
“If at all the petitioner had resiled from the terms of the compromise dated 17.04.2021, the option available with the respondents was either to get the award of the Lok Adalat executed or to seek revival of the earlier petitions filed by them under Section 12 of the DV Act and Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. The respondents are not only seeking execution of the award passed by the Lok Adalat on the basis of the compromise arrived at by the parties in the earlier petitions but they have also resorted to fresh round of litigation against the petitioner by filing petitions under Section 12 of the DV Act and Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. Both these proceedings i.e. execution of the award passed by the Lok Adalat on the basis of the compromise, which, admittedly, has been observed in breach by the parties, as also the fresh petitions filed under Section 12 of the DV Act and Section 125 of the Cr. P. C cannot be continued by the respondents,” the Court further observed.
