1. Petition to reject divorce OP as barred by res judicata due to prior Lok Adalat divorce decree. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(AP) 1268
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
Vaduguri Venkata Upendra Rao, s/o. late Venkateswarlu – Petitioner
Versus
Vaduguri Dhanalakshmi @ Bokkasam Dhanalakshmi w/o V.V. Upendra Rao - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.1439 of 2025
Decided On : 19-02-2026
Important Points
A Lok Adalat award passed prior to 2009 regulatory amendments remains a valid, binding decree of divorce. Consequently, any subsequent petition seeking the same relief is barred by the principle of res judicata, and administrative authorities must recognize such awards.
Subject
Civil Law - Family Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 23 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Legal Services Authorities Act - Lok Adalat Award - Validity of an award in matrimonial proceedings - A Lok Adalat award, once passed on the basis of a compromise, has the force of a decree and is fully enforceable not only between the parties but also against all concerned administrative authorities (Paras 14, 16) - Application of retrospective effect - An amendment to Lok Adalat Regulations made in 2009, curtailing the jurisdiction to pass awards in matrimonial original petitions, cannot be applied retrospectively to invalidate an award validly passed in 2005 (Para 15).
(B) Doctrine of Res Judicata - Where a marriage has been dissolved by a valid Lok Adalat award, a subsequent petition seeking the same relief of dissolution of marriage is not maintainable in law as the principle of res judicata squarely applies (Paras 14, 16).
(C) Judicial Mind - A trial court cannot merely adopt the opinion or rejection order of an administrative authority without independently applying its judicial mind in accordance with the law (Paras 6, 15).
Facts of the case:
Marriage between the parties was dissolved via a Lok Adalat award in 2005 following a compromise in a matrimonial original petition and a related criminal case, involving a full and final settlement payment. Subsequently, the wife applied for a family pension as a divorcee daughter, but the administrative authority rejected the claim, asserting that the Lok Adalat award was invalid and advising her to obtain a decree from a competent civil or family court. Based on this rejection, the wife filed a fresh original petition for divorce. The husband filed an application to reject this new petition on the grounds of res judicata. The trial court dismissed the husband's application, agreeing with the administrative authority that the original Lok Adalat award was invalid.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Lok Adalat award passed in 2005 is valid and binding. The trial court erred in relying on the administrative authority's opinion instead of applying the law independently. Since the 2009 amendment to the regulations does not apply retrospectively, the 2005 award remains a valid decree of divorce. Therefore, the subsequent original petition is barred by the principle of res judicata.
Issues: Whether a Lok Adalat award passed in 2005 for the dissolution of marriage remains valid despite subsequent regulatory changes and whether such a valid award precludes the filing of a second petition for the same relief.
Ratio Decidendi: A Lok Adalat award based on compromise constitutes a decree that is binding on the parties and administrative authorities. Regulatory amendments curtailing such jurisdiction cannot retrospectively invalidate prior awards. Once a marriage is dissolved by such an award, a second petition for the same relief is barred by res judicata.
Result: The civil revision petition is allowed; the order of the trial court is set aside.
(B) Doctrine of Res Judicata - Where a marriage has been dissolved by a valid Lok Adalat award, a subsequent petition seeking the same relief of dissolution of marriage is not maintainable in law as the principle of res judicata squarely applies (Paras 14, 16).
(C) Judicial Mind - A trial court cannot merely adopt the opinion or rejection order of an administrative authority without independently applying its judicial mind in accordance with the law (Paras 6, 15).
Facts of the case:
Marriage between the parties was dissolved via a Lok Adalat award in 2005 following a compromise in a matrimonial original petition and a related criminal case, involving a full and final settlement payment. Subsequently, the wife applied for a family pension as a divorcee daughter, but the administrative authority rejected the claim, asserting that the Lok Adalat award was invalid and advising her to obtain a decree from a competent civil or family court. Based on this rejection, the wife filed a fresh original petition for divorce. The husband filed an application to reject this new petition on the grounds of res judicata. The trial court dismissed the husband's application, agreeing with the administrative authority that the original Lok Adalat award was invalid.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Lok Adalat award passed in 2005 is valid and binding. The trial court erred in relying on the administrative authority's opinion instead of applying the law independently. Since the 2009 amendment to the regulations does not apply retrospectively, the 2005 award remains a valid decree of divorce. Therefore, the subsequent original petition is barred by the principle of res judicata.
Issues: Whether a Lok Adalat award passed in 2005 for the dissolution of marriage remains valid despite subsequent regulatory changes and whether such a valid award precludes the filing of a second petition for the same relief.
Ratio Decidendi: A Lok Adalat award based on compromise constitutes a decree that is binding on the parties and administrative authorities. Regulatory amendments curtailing such jurisdiction cannot retrospectively invalidate prior awards. Once a marriage is dissolved by such an award, a second petition for the same relief is barred by res judicata.
Result: The civil revision petition is allowed; the order of the trial court is set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nalluri Madhava Rao
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nalluri Madhava Rao
Table of Contents
2. Husband: prior divorce decree bars fresh OP. Wife: Lok Adalat decree invalid for pension purposes. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Lok Adalat award has force of decree; 2009 amendment not retrospective; principle of res judicata applies. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 )
4. A Lok Adalat award passed on compromise has the force of a decree and is binding between parties. (Para 14 )
5. Civil revision allowed; I.A. dismissal set aside; H.M.O.P. barred by res judicata; petitioner may use award for pension. (Para 17 , 18 )
6. Whether a Lok Adalat award dissolving marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act has the force of a decree?
Yes, a Lok Adalat award passed on the basis of a compromise has the force of a decree and is fully enforceable between the parties. (Para 14 )
7. Whether a 2009 amendment to Lok Adalat Regulations applies retrospectively to invalidate a 2005 award?
No, the 2009 amendment cannot be applied retrospectively to invalidate an award validly passed in 2005. (Para 15 )
8. Whether the principle of res judicata bars a fresh divorce petition after a prior Lok Adalat divorce decree?
Yes, once a valid award/decree has been passed, a subsequent petition seeking the same relief is not maintainable as it is barred by res judicata. (Para 14 , 16 )
9. Whether a Lok Adalat divorce award is binding on third-party authorities like the Railways?
Yes, a Lok Adalat award is binding and enforceable not only between parties but also against all concerned authorities, including the Railways. (Para 16 )
ORDER :
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
1. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala in I.A.No.1192 of 2023 in H.M.O.P No.120 of 2022 dated 07.04.2025.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, I.A.No.1192 of 2025 was filed before the Court below under Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C, praying for rejection of H.M.O.P No.120 of 2022 as not maintainable, in view of the operation of principle of res judicata.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband is that, earlier, he got filed O.P.No.43 of 2004 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Prior to that, the respondent got registered a report against the petitioner and his mother before the III Town Police Station, Tenali. Subsequently, C.C.No.462 of 2004 and HMOP No.43 of 2004 were ended in compromise with the presence of elders and finally by way of settlement before the Lok Adalat, Tenali. The respondent also agreed and received an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- by way of cheque towards full and final settlement in lieu of maintenance of the respondent. Once the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was dissolved on 31.12.2005 by way of “Decree of divorce” through Lok Adalat Award, thereafter there was no relationship of wife and husband in existence between both parties herein. The respondent also claimed the family pension from the Railway Authorities as a divorcee daughter and also as a legal heir of her deceased father, who worked in Railway Department, based on the Lok Adalat Award, as such, this O.P is not maintainable and same is liable to be rejected under Principle of Doctrine of Res Judicata.
4. Before the Trial Court, learned counsel for the respondent/wife contended that the earlier decree of divorce granted in H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2004 dated 31.12.2005 is passed by Lok Adalat Court. Based on the said decree, respondent made a representation dated 23.04.2022 to the South Central Railway, Vijayawada for sanction of secondary family pension on the status of divorcee daughter. The Railway Authorities took objection that the award of Lok Adalat or Decree is not valid and advised to obtain decree of divorce from the jurisdiction of Family Court of Civil Courts, since Lok Adalat Decree is not valid.
5. Upon considering submissions of both the counsel, the Trial Court dismissed I.A.No.1192 of 2023 on 07.04.2025 on the ground that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was dissolved by way of decree of divorce by way of Lok Adalat Award in H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2004, however, since the new cause of action arose, particularly when the respondent applied for family pension on the status of divorcee woman the representation made by her on 27.04.2022, and the Railway Authorities took objection that the Lok Adalat Award is not valid and the respondent/wife has to obtain decree of divorce from Family Court or Civil Court. Further, it was also observed that the said Award was linked up with a criminal case, thereby, such Award is not valid in the eye of law and finally dismissed the I.A., as it is devoid of merits. Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.1192 of 2023 in H.M.O.P No.120 of 2022 dated 07.04.2025, the present civil revision petition is filed.
6. During hearing, Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Court below erroneously relied upon the rejection order passed by the railway authorities, wherein it was held that the award passed by the Lok Adalat in H.M.O.P. No.43 of 2004 was not valid, and further directed the petitioner to obtain a decree of divorce from the Family Court or the competent civil court for the purpose of entitlement to pension as a divorcee daughter of her father. Such an approach clearly demonstrates that the Court below merely adopted the opinion of the railway authorities, instead of independently applying its judicial mind in ac
