Lack of Awareness Or Communication Not A Valid Ground To Challenge Lok Adalat Award: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently held that being unaware of the contents of a Lok Adalat award or not being communicated of the same is not a valid ground to challenge the award. Holding so, Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. dismissed a petition challenging the award issued by the Lok Adalat in a divorce and maintenance case."The ground that she was not aware of the contents of the compromise and that...
The Kerala High Court recently held that being unaware of the contents of a Lok Adalat award or not being communicated of the same is not a valid ground to challenge the award.
Holding so, Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. dismissed a petition challenging the award issued by the Lok Adalat in a divorce and maintenance case.
"The ground that she was not aware of the contents of the compromise and that she was not communicated about the same by her counsel cannot be accepted. At any rate, the same cannot be a ground to challenge the award of the Lok Adalat."
The petitioner-wife had approached the Court challenging an award issued by the Lok Adalat which settled the divorce and maintenance case filed by the respondent-husband.
Advocate M.R Sarin appearing for the petitioner alleged that she was not adequately informed about the terms and conditions of the award by her counsel and that it was only after receiving a copy of the award that she realised that she had been summoned before the Adalat and that her objections were not considered. The petitioner also claimed that the award was fabricated and that the Lok Adalat did not apply the principles of justice, equity and fairness.
Advocate G. Sudheer appeared for the respondent in the matter.
The Court, after hearing the arguments from both sides, held that there was no basis to challenge the award. Justice Nias rejected the petitioner's claim of being unaware of the contents of the compromise and not being properly communicated by her counsel.
The Court further noted that the petitioner had approached the Family Court for maintenance despite the stipulation in the award that no maintenance would be claimed, indicating that the Lok Adalat did not restrict her right to claim maintenance. It also emphasised that the petitioner had already received the benefit of some conditions of the award and cannot selectively challenge only certain terms.
"...she is not aggrieved by all the terms but only against the selective ones. The petitioner cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time."
Placing reliance on K. Srinivasappa v M. Mallamma, which held that a Lok Adalat award without proving fraud and establishing conclusive evidence of fraud in the agreement or compromise decree. The court clarified that a challenge to an award of the Lok Adalat can only be made on limited grounds, such as fraud.
Since there was no conclusive evidence of fraud or any plea to set aside the facts recorded in the award as fraudulent, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments.
Case Title: Sajitha & Anr v. Baldbose & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 335
Click Here To Read/Download The Order