Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Satish Baburao Yadav, challenged an order dated 08.12.2018 passed by the Panel of Lok Adalat in P.W.D.V.A. (Cri.M.A.) No. 62/2018, which disposed of proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) based on a compromise between the parties. The respondent No.1, Manisha, claimed to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and respondent No.2, Arya, their daughter. The compromise was recorded as voluntary and lawful by the Lok Adalat. Subsequently, another woman named Kamini, claiming to be another wife of the petitioner, filed a civil suit to restrain the Chief Officer from paying maintenance as per the compromise, but her temporary injunction application was rejected. The petitioner then filed this writ petition alleging fraud in the compromise. The court heard arguments from both sides. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Lok Adalat order could only be challenged by writ petition due to the bar under Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, and that fraud had been played on the Lok Adalat. The court examined the facts and found that the petitioner had not specifically pleaded or proved any fraud. The compromise was voluntarily entered into and recorded by the Lok Adalat. The court held that vague allegations of fraud without particulars are insufficient to set aside the compromise. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Lok Adalat order.
Headnote
A) Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 - Section 21(2) - Bar of Appeal - Lok Adalat order is final and cannot be appealed against; only remedy is by way of writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. (Para 5) B) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Compromise - Validity - A compromise recorded by Lok Adalat in DV Act proceedings, if found voluntary and lawful, is binding and cannot be set aside unless fraud is specifically pleaded and proved. (Paras 3, 6) C) Fraud - Pleading and Proof - Allegations of fraud must be supported by specific facts and evidence; vague allegations without particulars are insufficient to vitiate a compromise. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the Lok Adalat disposing of proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 based on a compromise can be challenged on the ground of fraud, and whether the petitioner has made out a case for quashing the said order.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order passed by the Panel of Lok Adalat dated 08.12.2018 is upheld.
Law Points
- Lok Adalat order can be challenged only by writ petition under Article 226/227
- Section 21(2) of Legal Services Authority Act
- 1987 bars appeal
- Fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved
- Compromise in DV Act proceedings is valid if voluntary and lawful
