- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29239 WP No. 13377 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 13377 OF 2017 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. H.D. BHAGYA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O. T.K.DHARANESHA, 2. SRI. T.D.CHANDAN, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O. T.K.DHARANESHA AND SMT. H.D. BHAGYA, BOTH ARE R/AT C/O. H.S.DODDAIAH, 3RD CROSS, VALLABA BAI ROAD, HASSAN-573201, HASSAN DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R.S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SARASWATHI, CLAIMED AS W/O. LATE T.K. DHARANESHA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT. TAMALAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573 201. RI T K DHARANESHA AGED 58 YEARS, S/O LATE T.T.KARIGOWDA, R/AT IN FRONT OF CHIKKAMMA DODDAMMA TEMPLE, AND WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION DIRECTOR, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29239 WP No. 13377 of 2017 HASANAMBA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, P.B.NO.68, VIDYANAGAR, HASSAN-573202, HASSAN DISTRICT 2. SRI. VINAYA GANDHI S/O. LATE T.T. KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, GANDHI NO.170, VCN COMPLEX, 1ST MAIN, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND 2) THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS WRIT PETITIONS FROM THE COURT OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN IN CRL.MISC.NO.38/2014 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.38/2014 dated 22.12.2015 and 22.08.2016 by the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan wherein the order dated 22.12.2015 discloses that before Lok adalath held on 22.12.2015, the wife and husband have filed a joint memo. Considering the joint memo, an order is passed observing that the joint memo filed by the petitioner and respondent i.e., wife and husband is accepted. The marriage - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29239 WP No. 13377 of 2017 solemnized between them on 06.06.1993 is dissolved and the husband shall pay the agreed permanent alimony of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the wife on or before 30.04.2016, the wife is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as wife and husband for the sake of convenience. 3. It is the case that the wife had initially filed Crl.Misc.No.38/2014 stating that she had filed a maintenance petition against her husband that came to be allowed and the Trial Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month and the husband had failed to comply the order, therefore she filed the recovery petition to recover the balance maintenance awarded by the Court. During the pendency of the petition, on 22.12.2015 the learned counsel informed her that the case has been referred to Lok adalath and she has to compulsorily attend the same. At that time, she informed the counsel that she is suffering from typhoid therefore she is unable to attend the Lok adalath, but the counsel has insisted her to attend the Lok adalath and stated that it is compulsory. On that day, her son also went to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29239 WP No. 13377 of 2017 college and therefore, she attended the Lok adalath by travelling in the auto and even she is unable to speak on that day. It is stated that she is unable to understand the terms and conditions of the settlement and the instructions given by her counsel at that time. In the Lok adalath, the counsel has taken her sign on typed paper and she could not understood the terms and conditions explained to her in the Lok adalath. After signing the said paper she left the Lok adalath intimating her counsel that she is suffering from ill health and she is not able to sit or stand in the Lok adalath also. After sometime she consulted her counsel, he stated that she had settled the case before the Lok adalath by agreeing to receive Rs.10,00,000/- as a permanent alimony. Then she got surprised and perused all the documents received from her counsel. Then she came to know about compromise and payment of Rs.10,00,000/- as permanent alimony. Hence, she came up with the application to set aside the award. 4. The husband had filed his objections and in the objections it is contended that the Trial Court is not having the jurisdiction to set aside the compromise recorded by the Lok - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29239 WP No. 13377 of 2017 adalath and it is his case that as per the consent, the case has been sent to the Lok adalath for compromise on 22.12.2015, there the wife demanded permanent alimony of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and as the settlement is not fruitful in the earlier talks in the Lok adalath and as per the instructions of the wife, her counsel drafted a joint memo and the wife herself consented to receive permanent alimony from the husband. The wife is an educated lady and even on the date of the Lok adalath the son was also present before the Lok adalath. Then only a joint memo is filed. The Trial Court considering the objections raised by the husband had dismissed the same holding that the Trial Court is not having any authority to set aside the compromise took place before the Lok adalath. Then the wife had come before this Court. 5. The grounds that are urged before this Court are that the husband induced her by playing fraud, misrepresentation and coercion and got filed the joint memo before the Lok adalath and accordingly, an order was passed. The joint memo dated 22.12.2015 recorded by the Lok adalath of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan is not in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29239 WP No. 13377 of 2017 accordance with law having regard to the admitted facts on record that on 22.12.2015, Lok Adalath was not constituted and the Advocate Conciliator was not present and the only Judicial Conciliator, the learned Judge of the Trial Court accepted the alleged joint memo said to have been filed by the parties. The other ground that is raised before this Court is that the consent of the wife is not obtained and the same is done behind her back by undue influence giving false assurance that the civil suit O.S.No.257/2005 will be amicably settled and that the wife is not keeping good health, suffering from illness. Hence, the joint memo is not filed voluntarily with free mind, with full understanding of consequences of the same and she was forced to file the joint memo. It is stated that by playing fraud, mischief, misguiding and giving false assurances to the wife got signed the joint memo dated 22.12.2015, there is no legal compromise in accordance with law for acceptance by the Lok adalath. It is also stated that the Lok adalath in criminal proceedings has no jurisdiction to nullify the proceedings of divorce petition pending in MFA.No.8567/2015 (MC) arising out of M.C.No.230/2013. Another ground raised that is the husband had committed fraud, misrepresentation and inducement and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29239 WP No. 13377 of 2017 made false assurances to the wife behind the back of the son and got filed the joint memo on 22.12.2015, though the case was not referred to Lok adalath and not listed for hearing on 22.12.2015 that too forcibly inducing the wife when she was suffering from illness and not in good health and sound state of mind. These are all the grounds raised in support of the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the order passed by the Lok adalath that on proceeding sheet the signature of the Judicial Conciliator is there, but the Advocate Conciliator is not there which clearly shows that no Lok adalath is conducted on that day. He had relied on Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and submits that there should be a reference by the Court and in this case there is no such reference. Further, no matter shall be referred to Lok adalath except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. He had also relied on Section 19(5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and submits that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the joint memo. He had relied - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29239 WP No. 13377 of 2017 on the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Akkubai Vs. Venkatarao and others1at para No.11 it is held that, “11. I really wonder, whether the Learned Judge who has entertained this matter was aware of the elementary aspects of judicial functioning and the Lok Adalath. A common order-sheet cannot be maintained by the Court as well as the Lok Adalath. A Court cannot bé converted into a Lok Adalath. In the order-sheet maintained by the the Court, a portion of the proceedings is referable to the Court proceedings and another portion refers to the proceedings of th Lok Adalath. The Conciliator has no place inside the Court The very object of accepting this Lok Adalath as an alternative mode of resolution of dispute is that, all matters do not need adjudication, The matter which could be resolved by persuasion, negotiation and understanding should be taken out of adjudication process and should be resolved by means of Lok Adalath satisfactorily, so that the cases are disposed of expeditiously and the Courts will be saving the time of adjudicatory process, and they can utilize that time which is saved, in adjudicating the cases. If on the day the plaint is presented, the parties are also present before the Court, they are ready with 1 ILR 2014 KAR 2051 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29239 WP No. 13377 of 2017 the compromise petition and when they are filing an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, when they are admitting the terms of the compromise and execution of the terms and condition, then the Court before which it is presented, is the competent Court to record the compromise and dispose of the suit in terms of the compromise. The question of referring the said dispute to the Lok Adalath would not arise. If it is referred, it is a farce. If this is accepted and encouraged, both the judicial system and this alternative dispute resolution mechanism gets a bad name and would be subjected to redicule in the eyes of public. All persons who are indulging in this process would be doing great injustice and dis-service to the judicial system. They are not conscious of their action and its repercussions and the image of the Judiciary, which would create in the mind of the public. That is not the object with which neither Legal Services Authority Act of 1987 is passed by the Parliament providing for the institution of Lok Adalath nor Section 89 was introduced by the Parliament amending CPC. The essence of these provisions is neither understood by the Learned Judge nor by the Learned Counsels who are appearing for the parties.” 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that after filing of the writ petition, the husband died - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29239 WP No. 13377 of 2017 and the LRs are brought on record. LR is the younger brother of the husband. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings dated 29.08.2015 wherein the docket order shows that both the parties are present. Both parties are directed to attend the Lok adalath. The submission of the learned counsel that there was no reference is not correct and hence the submission relying on Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is no more available to the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner is taking inconsistent stands. It is argued that there is no Lok adalath conducted, only the judicial conciliator was there and on the other hand she accepts that she went to the Lok adalath, she signed the papers, but also saying that she is not able to understand what are the contents as she was not feeling well on that day. It is submitted that these kinds of contradictory submissions cannot be accepted. It is submitted that an award passed by the Lok adalath can only be questioned on the ground of fraud and with all the submissions that are made before this Court, the ground of fraud is not at all made out and on any other grounds the award cannot be interfered by this Court. The order passed in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29239 WP No. 13377 of 2017 the Lok adalath cannot be questioned before this Court and the Trial Court had rightly held that the Court cannot interfere and it is submitted that there are no grounds to interfere and set aside the order passed by the Lok adalath. 8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. This Court has spent lot of time and done lot of exercise considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court had passed several orders and called for reports from the concerned. Considering the submission that no Lok adalath has taken place and the signature of the Advocate Conciliator is not forthcoming, only the signature of the Judicial Conciliator is present. When the matter came up, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued on this point to show that a fraud is played and no reference is made, no lok adalath is conducted and just like that award came to be passed. This Court on 18.07.2024 recording all the contentions of the petitioner that no Lok adalth was held on 22.12.2015 and that the order is also not signed by the advocate conciliator, but is only signed by judicial conciliator and as he is attributing fraud, this Court - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29239 WP No. 13377 of 2017 had directed the Registrar Judicial to call for the records pertaining to the Lok adalath as well as the proceedings before the Court pertaining to the referred dates and the case and accordingly, directed the matter to be listed on 29.07.2024. Then again on 13.08.2024 another order was passed directing the Registrar Judicial to call for the necessary record to look into this aspect and place a report on what has happened and why this discrepancy has occurred in the certified copy placed before the Court wherein the original records reflects the signature of the advocate conciliator in the Lok Adalath original order. Then the report is placed before this Court by the Registrar Judicial stating that in the explanation submitted by the staff of the Court of the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan revealed that it is the mistake of the copyist, who has issued the certified copy of the order dated 22.12.2015 without ascertaining that both the Judicial Conciliator and Advocate Conciliator has signed the order. The bench clerk and the pending clerk have pleaded their ignorance as to when the signature of the Advocate Conciliator was obtained. The Registrar has verified the order passed in the Lok adalath dated 22.12.2015. The Judicial Conciliator has signed the order - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29239 WP No. 13377 of 2017 mentioning the date beneath the signature as 22.12.2015 whereas the signature of the Advocate Conciliator is present without date. One Smt. Roopashree, SDA, the pending clerk has submitted that when she received the file from the court hall, the signature of the Advocate conciliator was not present and the file was in movement and was sent to the copying section, District Court, Court hall. She was not aware as to when the signature was obtained. She has submitted that due to pressure of work she did not observe that the order dated 22.12.2015 was not signed by the Advocate Conciliator and issued the certified copy as it was received from the pending branch. She apologized for her mistake and undertakes that she will be more careful in future and will not repeat such mistake. Then this Court has also called for the original record. In the original record, this Court finds the order dated 29.08.2015, where the parties were directed to appear before the Lok adalath. Then the joint memo was filed dated 22.12.2015. The joint memo discloses that both the parties have agreed to settle the matter for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as full and final settlement towards permanent alimony and the husband has agreed to pay an amount of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29239 WP No. 13377 of 2017 Rs.10,00,000/- on or before 30.04.2016. It is stated that the husband had filed M.C.No.230/2013 before the Family Court at Hassan seeking divorce from the wife. The petition was allowed by the Family Court on 30.10.2015. Challenging that the wife had filed MFA.No.8567/2015 before the High Court of Karnataka and through the compromise petition she agrees to withdraw MFA.No.8567/2015. Then since petitioner No.2 is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the father, but he has the liberty to continue to claim his right through the civil suit filed by him against the father seeking the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the properties in O.S.No.257/2005 pending before the Principal Senior Judge and CJM, Hassan. The advocates and the parties have signed it. The signature of the wife is forthcoming on the joint memo and the signature is forthcoming on the order sheet before the Lok adalath. Then this Court had also perused the signature of the petitioner before this Court. A bare perusal of all these signatures reveals that the signatures are one and the same in joint memo, in the proceeding sheet, as well as before this Court in the writ petition. Basing on the joint memo award was passed. The party can question the award that is passed in the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29239 WP No. 13377 of 2017 Lok adalath on the ground of fraud as such, the petitioner has come up with the ground that it is signed by the Judicial Conciliator, but not by the Advocate Conciliator and no Lok adalath is conducted. All these stands that are taken by the petitioner/wife runs contrary to her own case, what she has stated in the miscellaneous petition, what she has stated before this Court. The arguments that are advanced before this Court have no connection with the case. If the stand is that the Lok adalath was not held on that day, then the question of the wife stating that she went to the Lok adalath, she signed on the papers and the contents of the same are not known to her and she is not feeling well on that day goes contrary to the first submission. The whole purpose appears to be that the wife wants to get over the said order that is passed, hence all these allegations are made. Learned counsel has submitted alternatively on the maintainability or the jurisdiction of the lok adalath in passing this order. The petitioner himself has gone before the Lok adalath and filed a joint memo and basing on the joint memo award is passed. Now, for the purpose of assailing the award, different grounds are raised and none of these grounds can be considered by this Court and if these - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29239 WP No. 13377 of 2017 kinds of petitions are entertained, there is no sanctity to any of the awards passed in the Lok adalath. In fact, this is a fit case where exemplary costs have to be imposed on the wife for misrepresenting the facts before the Court to suit her convenience. This matter is filed in the year 2017 and the same is pending till today. The Lok adalath award which is passed in the year 2015 is questioned without any basis, but however considering the fact that the age of the petitioner/wife is 54 years, this Court is not imposing the costs. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52