Lok Adalat cannot grant divorce by mutual consent per Regulation 17(7) of NALSA Regulations, 2009; such awards void ab initio and liable to be quashed along with consequential execution orders.

Judgment :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i. Set aside the award dated 09.09.2023 passed by the Ld. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Solan, H.P., in Case No. 35/2019, as being illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Lok Adalat Regulations, 2009;

ii. Set aside the order dated 30.05.2025 passed in Execution Petition No. 57/2025 by the Ld. Family Court, Solan, H.P., along with all consequential proceedings, including the order of property attachment”

2. The petitioner has assailed Award dated 09.09.2023, passed by the Chairman, Lok Adalat, Solan, District Solan, which reads as under:-

“Case taken up before National Lok Adalat today.

The respondent Shamtan Dolma vide her separate statement recorded on 09-08-2023, placed on record has stated that she has compromised the matter with respondent before the Mediator on 07-08-2023 vide compromise deed Ex. P1, according to which compromise decree be passed.

On the other hand, respondent Sonam vide his separate statement placed on record dated 09-08-2023, has stated that he has compromised the matter with the petitioner vide compromise deed Ex. P1 and he has no objection, if compromise decree is passed as per Ex. P1.

In view of the statements of the parties and Compromise deed Ex. P1, the present petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act is decided being compromised. Compromise Deed Ex. P1 and statements of the parties shall form part of the order. Misc. applications, if any stands disposed off being infructuous. Be tagged with main case file File after its due completion be consigned to the record room.”

3. The petitioner has also assailed order dated 30.05.2025, passed by the learned Executing Court, in an application filed by the respondent herein, for the execution of order dated 09.09.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Award passed by the learned Lok Adalat is per se void ab initio for the reason that the learned Lok Adalat has exercised power not conferred upon it. She referred to the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations, 2009, in general and Regulation 17 (7) in particular and submitted that the Lok Adalat, in terms of this Regulation, shall not grant any bail or a divorce by mutual consent. Learned counsel argued that despite this specific Regulation which bars a Lok Adalat from granting any bail or divorce by mutual consent, the impugned Award was passed by the learned Lok Adalat, which, therefore, is non-est and is liable to be quashed and set aside. She further submitted that order dated 30.05.2025, passed by learned Executing Court, being based on an Award which is non-est and void ab initio, is also not sustainable. Accordingly, she prayed that in light of the same, the petition be allowed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, though has tried to justify the Award on the ground that the same was result of mutuality shown by the parties before the learned Lok Adalat, however, he could not dispute that the Regulation in issue bars the grant of divorce, be it by mutual consent, as far as the Lok Adalat is concerned.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the Award dated 09.09.2023, passed by the learned Lok Adalat, in terms whereof, mutual divorce was granted, in favour of the parties, is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is hit by Regulation 17(7) of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations, 2009. When Regulation 17(7) proh