Back
2022 Supreme(Bom) 776
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.
Satish S/o Baburao Yadav – Petitioner
Vs.
Manisha Satish Yadav and Another – Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 355 of 2022
Decided On : 06-09-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shaikh Ashraf Patel.
For the Respondent: Amol T. Jagtap.
Strict proof of fraud is required to avoid a compromise decree, and timely challenge to the order of Lok Adalat is crucial.
Headnote:
Fraud - Domestic Violence - Protection of Woman From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - [D.V. Act] - [Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India] - The court discussed the provisions of the D.V. Act and the limited grounds for challenging the order of Lok Adalat under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized the need for strict proof of fraud to avoid a compromise decree and highlighted the importance of timely challenge to the order of Lok Adalat.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Panel of Lok Adalat in a case under the Protection of Woman From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) on the grounds of fraud. The compromise between the parties was reduced into writing and accepted by the Lok Adalat. The petitioner, a teacher, alleged that the compromise was the result of fraud and sought to quash the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no merit in the petitioner's claim of fraud and lack of bona fide, as the compromise was voluntarily and lawfully accepted by the parties and their advocates. It noted that the petitioner's delay in challenging the order after more than three years indicated a lack of bona fide.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the compromise under the D.V. Act, the grounds for challenging the order of Lok Adalat, and the petitioner's claim of fraud.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for strict proof of fraud to avoid a compromise decree and highlighted the importance of timely challenge to the order of Lok Adalat. It also clarified the limited grounds for challenging the order under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The Criminal Writ Petition was dismissed, and the Rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of both the sides at admission stage.
2. This writ petition takes an exception to the order passed by the Panel of Lok Adalat in P.W.D.V.A. (Cri.M.A.) No. 62/2018 dated 08.12.2018.
3. It is necessary to have a aerial survey on few facts which are important to decide the fate of this petition:
(a) Respondent No. 1 herein/Manisha has filed an application against the present petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Ausa under the provisions of the Protection of Woman From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the D.V. Act" for the sake of convenience). Respondent No. 2/Arya (daughter) was also party to the said proceedings. In the said proceedings, respondent No. 1 herein/Manisha claimed that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and respondent No. 2/Arya is born out of wedlock with petitioner. The said proceedings under D.V. Act was amicably settled between the parties on 08.12.2018. Accordingly, the terms of compromise were reduced into writing (Exh. B page 18). The matter was placed before the Panel of Lok Adalat on 08.12.2018. The Head of the Panel recorded the compromise since found to be voluntary and lawful. In view of the compromise arrived between the parties, the proceedings of P.W.D.V.A. (Criminal M.A. No. 62/2018) came to be disposed of vide order dated 08.12.2018.
(b) The said compromise was challenged by one Kamini (another wife of petitioner) by filing civil suit before the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Ausa and sought temporary injunction to restrain the Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad, Tuljapur from paying maintenance to present respondent No. 1/Manisha as per compromise terms dated 08.12.2018. That application for temporary injunction came to be rejected at the hands of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ausa. There is no record as to further development between the parties after rejection of temporary injunction application by the Civil Judge, Ausa.
(c) The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Head of the Penal of Lok Adalat dated 08.12.2018, has filed this writ petition.
4. Heard Mr Sk. Asref Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Amol Jagtap, learned counsel for the respondents.
5. Mr Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the order of Lok Adalat only can be challenged by way of writ petition, and there is no other legal remedy in view of bar under section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. He submitted that the fraud has been played on the panel of Lok Adalat and terms of settlement are the result of fraud. As such, it is necessary to quash and set aside the order passed by the Panel of Lok Adalat in the D.V. Act proceedings and have a fresh decision on its own merits.
6. Mr Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed his reliance in case of Bhargavi Constructions and Anr. Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Others, reported in (2018) 13 SCC 480 and Indra Sarma Vs. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755.
7. By taking help of above said citations, Mr Patel, forcefully submitted that the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 is seriously disputed. Respondent No. 1 is not legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 is born out of illicit relations between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Respondents are not entitled to get any maintenance and a fraud has been played upon the panel of Lok Adalat while accepting the terms of the compromise. He, therefore, urged to allow this petition and quash the order passed by the Head of Panel of Lok Adalat dated 08.12.2018.
8. Per contra, Mr Amol Jagtap, learned counsel for the respondents strenuously argued that the order passed by the Panel of Lok Adalat can be challenged by invoking writ jurisdiction only under limited grounds like fraud. He submitted that simply making allegations of fraud are not sufficient. There must be some proof of
