1. These Criminal Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.10.2017 passed by LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-69) in Criminal Appeal No. 1530/2015 and Criminal Appeal No. 801/2015.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the court below without there being any jurisdiction and opposed to the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and has passed the impugned order which is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that once the award has been passed before the Lok Adalat, then the said order is final and bound on all parties to the dispute and the said Section creates a bar to exercise any of the powers to settle or set aside the said award passed before the Lok Adalat. Ignoring the said aspect the impugned order has been passed. He also relied upon the decision of State of Punjab and Another vs. Jalour Singh and Others, AIR 2008 SC 1209 and submitted that the jurisdiction of the court is excluded under Section 21, if an award has been passed before the Lok Adalat. He also submitted that Section 21 puts a seal and it cannot be adjudicated and set aside in the law. He further submitted that if at all the matter which has been settled before the Lok Adalat, it has to be challenged under the limited power and it can be challenged through the writ petition not in other proceedings. On these grounds, he prays to allow these revision petitions and set aside the impugned order.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 fairly submitted that the order of the trial court may be considered in accordance with law and an appropriate order may be passed in this behalf.

5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and I have also gone through the contents of the petition and documents which have been produced on this behalf.

6. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and 1st respondent are the husband and wife and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the children born from their wedlock. The 2nd respondent is the father of the 1st respondent, 3rd respondent is the wife of 2nd respondent and 4th respondent is the son of the 2nd respondent born to the 3rd respondent. In that light, petitioner-wife filed a petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 317/2011 alleging that the Respondent No. 1 has been deserted and failed to provide maintenance during the pendency of the said petition. The 1st respondent offered to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- for their maintenance and to settle the matter and accordingly a joint memo was prepared and when it is being presented before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-V, Bengaluru, the same has been accepted and settled before the Lok Adalat held on 30.09.2015 and in the said Lok Adalat the following order has been passed:

“Both the parties present. Both the Advocates present. Joint memo of compromise filed. The contents of the joint memo read over to the parties. The parties agreed to the same. The Compromise is accepted. In view of compromise the petition stands disposed off in terms of joint memo. Petitioners acknowledged the receipt of five lakhs in cash from the respondent No. 1. Joint memo shall be part and parcel of this award.”

7. It is the contention of the wife that the said joint memo which has been filed is without her knowledge and a fraud has been played with her and subsequently she came to know that she has been mislead by the respondent and as such an appeal was preferred before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru to set aside the said order. The said trial Court after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, accepted the arguments and allowed the appeal and consequently the or