S.S. Satheesachandran, J.

1. Ext.P5 award passed in Lok Adalat organised by the Idukki District Legal Services Authority, is challenged in the above petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Two proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 2005 {for short ‘PWDV Act’}, pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha were referred to the Lok Adalat, and on such reference Ext.P5 award was passed. One of the aforesaid proceedings was at the instance of the 1st petitioner-mother-as against her son and daughter-in-law imputing domestic violence and seeking various reliefs under the PWDV Act. Other proceeding was at the instance of the daughter-in-law, 2nd respondent, against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law (2nd petitioner). When the above two petitions came up for recording evidence learned Chief Judicial Magistrate referred them to the Lok Adalat with the consent of parties. Ext.P5 award was passed by the Lok Adalat, which reads thus:

“Both Sides present. Parties agreed to settle the matter on the following grounds:

Petitioners agreed to cause to transfer 12.3/4 cents of property and the house in it in favour of the Gijo George and Mary Varghese with the right of the Mary Varghese to reside and take usufructs in it till her death. After the death of the Mary Varghese this entire property will devolve upon Gigo Varghese. Gigo Varghese undertakes to clear the outstanding loan on the property. The document will be executed on or before 10.11.2011. After the execution of the deed the cases will be withdrawn by the respective parties. Mary Varghese is having the right to reside with any of their children. Mary Varghese is permitted to cut and remove the two teak wood trees in it. Call 12.11.2011.”

Dated this, the 8th day of October, 2011.”

3. Though direction to ‘call on 12.11.2011’ was made, there was cessation of proceedings before the Lok Adalat with the passing of the aforesaid award. Pursuant to such award, admittedly, petition filed by the mother, 1st petitioner, numbered as M.C.No.129 of 2010 was closed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, but the other at the instance of the 2nd respondent daughter-in-law numbered as M.C.No.132 of 2010 is still retained. That is so retained, according to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent (son), since there was non-compliance of the undertaking given in Ext.P5 award over the execution of registered document has not been complied with.

4. Domestic violence imputed by the rival parties against one another in the two proceedings has close nexus with disputes over 12.3/4 cents of property comprising a building. A settlement deed over such property had been, admittedly, executed in favour of another sister of the 1st respondent, and after availing a loan in her name from a bank, a building had been put up in that property. 1st respondent, son, has a case that there was a pre-existing agreement to give the property to him and the transfer in favour of one of his sisters was only to obtain a loan from the bank in her name to put up the building. 1st respondent, his wife, and the first petitioner (mother), all of them, are in occupation of that building. I find, for disposal of this original petition, wherein the challenge is against Ext.P5 award, rival claims set up by the parties over the property and the building, nor the case advanced by them against one another imputing domestic violence need not be examined, nor even referred to with the particulars thereof. Limited question emerging for consideration is whether any interference over Ext.P5 award passed by the Lok Adalat is called for.

5. Admittedly, after the passing of Ext.P5 award proceedings under the PWDV Act initiated by the mother against the son and daughter-in-law, numbered as M.C.No.129 of 2010,has been terminated. But the other proceeding numbered as M.C.No.132 of 2012 at the instance of daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law