2026:HHC:35765 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.  : 706 of 2024 Decided on    :   21.08.2026 Ajay Pal Singh …Petitioner Versus Mala Guleria …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1   Yes For the petitioner        :  Mr. Kunal Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent     : Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner­Ajay   Pal   Singh   has   filed   the   present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the award dated 11.05.2024, passed by the Bench of National Lok Adalat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Lok Adalat’), in case Criminal Appeal No.6­D/X/2024. 2. By way of award dated 11.05.2024, the Lok Adalat has modified the order dated 28.12.2023, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in D.V. Act RBT 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:35765 Case No. 166­IV/23/21, titled as Mala Guleria versus Ajay Pal Singh. 3. Parties to the  lis  are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner,  in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 4. Petitioner­Mala   Guleria   has   filed   a   complaint under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DV Act’), against her husband, Ajay Pal Singh. In the said petition, after giving an opportunity of being heard, to the respondent­ husband,   the   same   has   been   decided   by   the   learned   trial Court,   vide   order   dated   28.12.2023,   by   directing   the respondent­husband   to   pay   maintenance   allowance   @ Rs.30,000/­, per month to petitioner from the date of filing of the complaint. 5. Against the said order, appeal, under Section 29 of the Act, was filed before the learned Additional District Judge­ II, Kangra at Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’). 3 2026:HHC:35765 6. During the pendency of the appeal, on 24.04.2024, the matter was settled in pre­Lok Adalat sitting and on that day, statements of both the parties were recorded and the case was ordered to be listed before the Lok Adalat. 7. On   the   basis   of   the   statements   made   by   the parties,   the   matter   was   settled   by   the   Lok   Adalat,   by modifying the order dated 28.12.2023, passed by the learned trial Court and the amount of maintenance has been modified/ reduced to Rs.20,000/­ per month. 8. The   said   award   has   been   assailed   by   the respondent­husband before this Court, by filing the present petition, mainly, on the ground that the Lok Adalat has erred in   law,   in   not   recording   the   statements   of   parties   on 11.05.2024 and passed the award, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. The award has also been assailed on the ground that   it   has   been   passed   by   the   Lok   Adalat,   whereas, statements   have   been   recorded,   during   the   regular proceedings, by the learned Appellate Court. A plea has also been taken that the respondent­husband was ready to pay 4 2026:HHC:35765 Rs.20,000/­ per month from the month of April, 2024, only and no other terms, except Rs.20,000/­, were agreed between the parties. 10. According to the petitioner, the Lok Adalat has not passed   the   award   in   the   presence   of   the   parties   and   Lok Adalat ought to have apprised the parties about their rights and consequences. 11. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Kunal Thakur, Advocate, appearing for the respondent­husband, has prayed that the award passed by the Lok Adalat, may kindly be set aside and the appeal be restored to the files of the learned Appellate Court. 12. Per   contra,   Mr. Nand   Lal   Thakur,   Advocate, appearing   for   the   petitioner­wife   has   supported   the   award passed by the Lok Adalat, on the ground, that the respondent has voluntarily made a statement before the Court and with the consent of the parties, the matter was, thereafter, settled in the Lok Adalat. 5 2026:HHC:35765 13. The award of Lok Adalat is being challenged by way   of   the   present   petition,   under   Article   227   of   the Constitution of India. 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Civil Appeal No. of 2025  (Arising   out   of   SLP©  No.27806   of   2023)  titled   as Dilip Mehta versus Rakesh Gupta & Others, has held that the   award   of   Lok   Adalat   can   be   assailed   on   the   limited grounds. Relevant paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment, are reproduced as under:­ “9. This Court has, in a series of decisions, explained the consequence this statutory finality. In State Punjab v. Jalour Singh (Supra), it was held that where an award of is made by a Lok Adalat   in   terms   of   a   settlement   between   the parties, it is final and binding and executable as a decree, and that no appeal lies against it. It was further held that any challenge to such an award must be brought before the High Court in proceedings   under   Articles   226   or   227   of   the Constitution   of   India   and   only   on   limited grounds such as lack of consent, jurisdictional error   or   fraud. In   Bhargavi   Constructions   v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy (Supra), this Court applied the same principle to a civil suit which sought to impeach a Lok Adalat award and held that a civil suit to set aside such an award is not maintainable and that the only proper remedy is a writ petition before the High Court. 10. The   principle   that   emerges   is   that   the statutory   finality   attached   to   a   Lok   Adalat 6 2026:HHC:35765 award leaves no room for an appellate or plenary civil   remedy   against   the   award   treated   as   a decree. The award may be executed as a decree, but its validity cannot be reopened through an ordinary civil suit or by treating some other civil proceeding as a vehicle for setting it aside. The only  recognised   avenue   of   challenge   is   the constitutional   jurisdiction   of   the   High   Court, which is supervisory and exceptional in nature.” (self emphasis supplied) 15. Being   guided   by   the   above   decision,   now,   this Court would proceed further to determine the fact whether the respondent­husband   is   able   to   make   out   a   case   for interference, on the basis of the parameters settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. Operative   portion   of   the   order,   passed   by   the learned trial Court, on 28.12.2023, is reproduced, as under:­ “19. In view of my findings  on points No.1 and 2 above, the present petition is allowed and respondent   is   hereby   restrained   from committing any act of domestic violence against the   aggrieved. He   is   also   directed   to   pay maintenance   allowance   @   Rs.30,000/­   per month to petitioner from the date of filing of the complaint. A copy of this order be supplied to the applicant free of costs and also be sent to the concerned SHO for information and necessary action. Case   file,   after   due   completion,   be consigned to the record room.” 7 2026:HHC:35765 17. The   above   order   reveals   that   the   respondent­ husband   was   directed   to   pay   a   sum   of   Rs.30,000/­   to   the petitioner, from the date of filing of the complaint and not from the date of order. 18. As per the record, on 24.04.2024, both the parties were present, before the learned Appellate Court, along with their counsel. On that day, statement of petitioner­wife has been   recorded,   in   which,   she   has   stated   that   she   has   no objection, if the order dated 28.12.2023 is modified to the tune of amount of Rs.20,000/­ per month. She has deposed so, in unequivocal   terms. She   has   duly   been   identified   by   her counsel. 19. Similarly,   respondent­husband   Ajay   Paul,   has made the following statement : “ Stated   that   I   have   settled   the   dispute amicably in pre­Lok Adalat Sitting and I have no   objection   if   the   order   dated   28.12.2023   is modified to the tune of amount of Rs.20,000/­ per month. I also agreed to pay the outstanding amount in three half yearly installments from which, I agreed to pay first three installments on or before Lok Adalat scheduled to be held on 11.05.2024   and   will   pay   the   amount   of Rs.20,000/­   per   month   in   the   account   of respondent Smt. Mala Devi.” 8 2026:HHC:35765 20. Respondent   has   also   been   identified   by   his counsel. Thereafter, the matter was ordered to be listed before Lok Adalat and on the basis of the statements, so recorded, on 24.04.2024,   the   award   was   passed   by   the   Lok   Adalat   on 11.05.2024. 21. In   such   situation,   when,   during   intervening period,   from   the   date   of   making   the   statement,   i.e.,   on 20.04.2024, till passing of the award dated 11.05.2024, the respondent­husband has made no efforts to highlight the fact that   he   has   made   the   statement,   under   some misrepresentation  or the  same has  been  recorded with his consent. 22. On 24.04.2024, the respondent­husband has made a statement, not only to the effect, that he has no objection, if the order dated 28.12.2023 is modified by reducing the amount of   maintenance   from   Rs.30,000/­   to   Rs.20,000/­,   but,   also agreed   to   pay   the   outstanding   amount   of   maintenance,   in three half yearly installments; out of which, he has agreed to pay   the   first   installment   on   or   before   the   Lok   Adalat, 9 2026:HHC:35765 scheduled to be held on 11.05.2024 and also agreed to pay Rs.20,000/­   per   month,   in   the   account   of   respondent   Mala Devi. With the eyes wide open, he has made the statement and also given undertaking, on the basis of the which, the Lok Adalat has passed the award. 23. As per the award of Lok Adalat, the order passed by   the   learned   trial   Court   has   partially   been   modified   by reducing   the   amount   of   maintenance   from   Rs.30,000/­   to Rs.20,000/­ per month. 24. Merely, because the statements were not recorded by the Lok Adalat and the matter has been decided by the Lok Adalat,   does   not   clothe   this   Court   with  the   jurisdiction  to interfere with the award, that too, at the instance of a person, who   has   made   detailed   statement,   before   the   learned Appellate   Court,   by   giving   solemn   undertaking   to   pay   the amount in three installments. 25. The situation would have been otherwise, had the wife   accepted   the   modified   maintenance,   from   the   date   of award of Lok Adalat. Even, in the statement of respondent­ 10 2026:HHC:35765 husband, there is nothing that the maintenance be awarded to his wife, from the date of award of Lok Adalat. 26. Both the parties have not uttered even a single word, to tinker with the order of learned trial Court to pay the maintenance from the date of application. 27. Both   the   parties   are  ad  idem  on   reducing   the amount   of   maintenance   from   Rs.30000   to   Rs.20000/­   per month  and  both  were silent  to tinker  with the  date, from which, the same has been ordered to be paid by the learned trial Court. 28. Respondent­husband has not assailed the award, on the ground, that he has not made the statement before the Court, nor, it is his case that he did not agree to pay the reduced amount in installments. 29. Considering the scope of interference under Article 227   of   the   Constitution   of   India   and   the   facts   and circumstances   of   the   present   case,   as   narrated   above,   the respondent­husband has failed to make out a case satisfying the requisite ingredients to challenge the award passed by the Lok Adalat. 11 2026:HHC:35765 30. Consequently,  the  present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Record be sent back. ( Virender Singh ) August 21, 2026( ps ) Judge