An appellate court cannot adjudicate an appeal on its merits when a valid, subsisting settlement award governs the dispute and mandates the withdrawal of the proceedings. Such an award retains its binding force until formally set aside through appropriate legal processes.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and final order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 8567 of 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “MFA”), whereby the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by respondent no. 1 and set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2015 passed by the Principal District Judge, Family Court at Hassan (hereinafter referred to as the “Family Court”) in M.C. No. 230 of 2013. By the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2015, the Family Court had allowed the petition filed by late T.K. Dharanesh under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “1955 Act”) and had dissolved the marriage between late T.K. Dharanesh and respondent no. 1.

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:

3.1. The marriage between late T.K. Dharanesh and respondent no. 1 was solemnized on 06.06.1993. Thereafter, disputes arose between the parties and they started living separately. Respondent no. 2 claims to be the son born from the wedlock of late T.K. Dharanesh and respondent no. 1. The said claim has been disputed by late T.K. Dharanesh and the said dispute appears to have also formed part of other proceedings between the parties.

3.2. Late T.K. Dharanesh instituted M.C. No. 230 of 2013 before the Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the 1955 Act. By judgment and decree dated 30.10.2015, the Family Court allowed the petition and dissolved the marriage between late T.K. Dharanesh and respondent no. 1. The Family Court also directed payment of Rs. 5 lakhs towards permanent alimony to respondent no. 1.

3.3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2015, respondent no. 1 preferred MFA No. 8567 of 2015 before the High Court. During the pendency of the MFA, proceedings in Crl. Misc. No. 38 of 2014, which had been instituted by respondent no. 1 for maintenance, were referred to the Lok Adalat.

3.4. On 22.12.2015, late T.K. Dharanesh and respondent no. 1 filed a joint memo before the Lok Adalat. On the basis of the said joint memo, an award was passed by the Lok Adalat on the same date. The compromise recorded payment of Rs. 10 lakhs by late T.K. Dharanesh to respondent no. 1 towards full and final settlement and permanent alimony. The compromise also recorded that respondent no. 1 would withdraw the pending cases filed by her, including MFA No. 8567 of 2015.

3.5. Respondent no. 1 thereafter disputed the compromise and sought reopening of the Lok Adalat award. By order dated 22.08.2016, the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan held that the court had no jurisdiction to recall or set aside the compromise recorded before the Lok Adalat. Respondent no. 1 thereafter challenged the Lok Adalat award before the High Court in writ proceedings.

3.6. Late T.K. Dharanesh died on 20.02.2018. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 moved an application in the pending MFA for bringing respondent no. 2 on record as the legal representative of late T.K. Dharanesh. The High Court allowed the said application and proceeded to decide the MFA. By judgment dated 16.04.2021, the High Court allowed MFA No. 8567 of 2015 and set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2015 passed by the Family Court.

3.7. The present appellants, claiming to be the legal representatives of late T.K. Dharanesh on the basis of a Will dated 16.03.2016, filed Review Petition N