Divorce - Lok Adalat/Samjhauta Sadan does not possess jurisdiction to decide a divorce petition.

K.S.Garewal, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by Poonam to challenge the grant of divorce vide award dated July 19, 2004 pronounced by Shri V.K. Kaushal, Presiding Judge and Ms. Shalinder Kaur, Member, Lok Adalat/Samjhauta Sadan, Panchkula.

2. Poonams husband Had Singh had originally filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking divorce. This petition was filed on October 13, 2003 through Ms. Shalander Kaur and Amit Singla, Advocates, Power of attorney has also been signed by Ms. Shalander Kaur, Advocate.

3. The record of the case was requisitioned and has been examined by us. The record reveals that on November 14, 2003, that respondent-wife put in appearance through Ms. Taranpreet Kaur, Advocate, before learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, who directed the case to be placed before Shri V.K. Kaushal, Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat/Samjhauta Sadan, Panchkula on November 24, 2003 for reconciliation. On December 8, 2003, the Presiding Judge recorded the statements of the parties and adjourned the case for filing of a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. Apparently, no petition under Section 13-B of the Act was filed.

4. What is on record is an application for converting the petition from the one filed under Section 13 of the Act to a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Act for grant of divorce by mutual consent but the amended petition never came to be filed under Section 13-B of the Act. Therefore, the award has been passed on a petition under Section 13 of the Act which cannot be done.

5. It is also important to note that the application for amendment of the petition has the name of Ms. Shalander Kaur, Advocate, on page 2, though she did not sign it. The application was presented through Shri Amit Singla, Advocate.

6. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved by mutual consent through vide order dated July 19, 2004.

7. This order/award is per se illegal because the Lok Adalat Samjhauta Sadan does not possess jurisdiction to decide a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act. In the present case, the award has been passed on a divorce petition under Section 13 and not on a petition under Section 13-A of the Act. The Lok Adalat certainly has jurisdiction to help the parties to come to terms, record their statements as regards their decision to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent and do all other necessary acts in this direction, but after recording the settlement, the cases has to necessarily go back to the District Judge to pass the final decree in the matter.

8. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The award dated July 19, 2004 passed by Shri V.K. Kaushal, Presiding Judge, Lok Adalat/Samjhauta Sadan is hereby quashed.

9. However, since the original petition under Section 13 of the Act was never legally amended and no amended petition was filed, the petition shall go back to the learned District Judge for further proceedings in accordance with law.