K. Surendra Mohan, J.

The issues that arise for consideration are common in both these cases. The parties are also the same. Therefore, these cases are considered and disposed of together. The petitioner in both these cases is the husband while the respondent in the O.P.(F.C) is the wife. She is also the first respondent in W.P.(C) No.22984 of 2016. The issue relates to custody of a minor girl child, who is aged about six years now. The parties are referred to in the manner in which they are arrayed in the O.P.(F.C).

2. As already noticed above, the parties are husband and wife. However, they have separated, pursuant to marital discord. They have a female child born out of the wedlock, by name Advika Anil. The petitioner was at that time employed in the Gulf. Initially when the marital discord arose, the respondent had filed a petition before the Taluk Legal Services Committee, Kannur, which was numbered as TLSC KNR 12 of 2012. A settlement was arrived at between the parties. The parties agreed to reside together and the petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1250/- per month as maintenance to his daughter with effect from 1.5.2012. After six months, the parties agreed to reside in a rented house. A copy of the award is Ext.P1. However, the said arrangements did not work and the respondent-wife filed another petition before the Taluk Legal Services Committee, which is evidenced herein by Ext.P2. It was numbered as P.L.C 68 of 2014. It is alleged therein that, the earlier settlement had not worked due to violations on the part of the petitioner. In Ext.P2, an award was passed by the Lok Adalat at Kannur, which is evidenced herein by Ext.P3.

3. In Ext.P3, both parties agreed to obtain divorce by filing a joint petition before the Family Court, Kannur within one month. It is not in dispute that such a petition was filed and that a decree of divorce has since been passed.

4. With respect to the child, it has been agreed in Ext.P3 as follows:

(i) That the wife would hand over the child on 29.6.2014 to the husband to take the child to his house at Calicut in order to facilitate his mother to see the child.

(ii) That the wife shall accompany the child and the husband on that day.

(iii) That the wife shall take back the child after permitting the child to spend three hours in the house of the husband.

(iv) That the wife agreed to permit the husband to visit the child by handing over the child on every second Saturday at 10 a.m. from court complex, Kannur.

(v) The husband shall return the child at 1 p.m. on the same day.

(vi) The husband agreed to ensure the physical and mental health of the child during his custody.

The award Ext.P3 is dated 14.6.2014.

5. While so, the husband filed O.P.No.629 of 2015 under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act for appointing himself as the guardian of the minor child and seeking her permanent custody. The Original Petition was contested by the wife, who filed a counter statement evidenced herein by Ext.P6. The husband also filed I.A. No.745 of 2015 for an order prohibiting the wife from taking the child to Bangalore. The wife then filed I.A. No. 852 of 2015 contending that the Original Petition as well as the petition were not maintainable and seeking a dismissal of the said proceedings on the said ground. The husband filed I.A.No.746 of 2015 seeking interim custody of the child.

6. The Family Court, Kannur considered the interlocutory applications, and by Exts. P7, P8 and P9 orders all the applications were dismissed. As per Ext. PIO judgment, O.P.No.629 of 2015 has also been dismissed. According to the Family Court, the said proceedings were not maintainable in view of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), that clothes an award of a Lok Adalat with finality. The said proceedings are under challenge in this Original Petition.

7. In W.P.(C) No.22984 of 2016, the petitioner-husband has challenged the award of the Lok Adalat, which is