Awards from Lok Adalat are conclusive and non-reviewable under civil law, reinforcing the intent to minimize further litigation.

JUDGMENT

Harilal, J The petitioner herein is the wife of the respondent. This original petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P1 compromise award passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 . According to the averments in this original petition, the respondent filed O.P.No.477 of 2015 before the Family Court, Kottarakkara for restitution of conjugal rights and the petitioner along with her children filed M.C.No.89/2015 before the same court for getting maintenance allowance from the respondent herein. The above numbered two cases were referred to the Lok Adalat along with a complaint filed by the respondent, and on 12.12.2015, the entire matters in dispute were settled on certain conditions by Ext.P1 compromise award.

2. According to the petitioner, from the initial stage, after the settlement, itself the respondent failed to comply with the conditions to maintain and visit the petitioner and the children properly. As per the agreement, the respondent visited the petitioner and the children at the residence of the petitioner only two times and on both times he quarreled with the petitioner. The respondent also neglected to maintain the petitioner and the children. It is clear from such an attitude of the respondent that he has no interest to live with the petitioner. The respondent has filed E.P.No.37/2016 in O.P.No.477/2015 before the Family court for execution of Ext.P1 award. The petitioner further contended that Ext.P1 award is vague and not an executable one. According to her, the conditions were imposed, without considering her grievance or alternate remedy, in case of non compliance from the part of the respondent. All the conditions are intended to support the respondent's demands. She agreed to the conditions, expecting a peaceful family life with him. But, from the initial stage itself, the respondent failed to maintain the petitioner or their children. Thus, it is not possible to execute the decree and thereby the decree itself has become a nullity.

3. On the other hand, the respondent filed a counter affidavit, along with Ext.R1(a) to R1(k), denying the allegations in the original petition. According to him, the original petition itself is not maintainable as an appeal against an award passed by the Lok Adalat is barred by Section 21 (2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 r/w Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, the original petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. Further it is contended that the respondent filed E.P.No.37/2016 to execute Ext.P1 award, when the petitioner failed to obey the decree directing restitution of conjugal rights. But, no objection was filed challenging the maintainability of the award. Subsequently, he has filed E.A.No.30/2018 in the said E.P for attaching the property of the petitioner, invoking the provisions under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC, for the disobedience to Ext.P1 award. On that occasion only the petitioner filed this original petition before this Court, challenging the legality and enforceability of Ext.P1 award. Therefore, the inordinate delay in challenging the award is fatal and that apart, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the award.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments in support of the ground raised in the memorandum of original petition. The learned counsel for the respondent advanced arguments in support of the contentions raised in the counter affidavit and citedThomas v. Thomas Job [ 2005 KHC 1168 ] and Govindan Kutty Menon K.N. v. C.D.Shaji [ 2011 (4) KHC 722 ] to fortify his arguments against the maintainability of the original petition.

6. Admittedly, Ext.P1 is a compromise award passed under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act. As per the said award, both parties have settled the entire dispute involved