Back
2005 Supreme(SC) 1831
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha, R.V. Raveendran, JJ.
Chanranjeet Singh - Appellant
Versus
Raveendra Kaur - Respondent
Criminal Appeals Nos. 501-02 of 2005
Decided On : 04-10-2005
Important Points
Subject
Interpretation of Statute - Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
Interpretation - Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Jurisdiction of Lok Adalat to pass a decree of divorce
Fact of the Case:
The appeal raised a question on the interpretation of Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, regarding the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat to pass a decree of divorce.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the interpretation of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, as it relates to the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat to pass a decree of divorce required consideration by a larger Bench.
Issues: Interpretation of Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, regarding the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat to pass a decree of divorce.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the matter required consideration by a larger Bench due to the importance of the question involved.
Final Decision: The matter was referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
For the Petitioner:Pramod Swarup, Ms Pareena Swarup and Amit Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent:S.K. Dhingra and Ms Shefali Dhingra, Advocates
ORDER :
1. One of the questions which arises for consideration in this appeal is the interpretation of Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, as regards the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat, to pass a decree of divorce.
2. Mr Pramod Swarup, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, relying on the decision of this Court in Asha Devi v. Chaturdas, (2008) 17 SCC 678 contends that as a decree for divorce cannot be passed on consent, such a decree could not have been passed in a proceeding held under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Mr S.K. Dhingra, learned counsel for the respondent, however, says that if the consent decree passed is not collusive, the same is not invalid in law. In view of the importance of the question involved, we are of the opinion that the matter requires consideration by a larger Bench. Let the matter be placed before the Hon?ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
3. Liberty to mention.
