Divorce Related Matters Cannot Be Referred To Lok Adalat: Allahabad High Court

The High Court was considering a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution wherein the writ petitioner sought the quashing of the impugned order passed by the Court of District Legal Service Authority (second respondent).

The Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held, “Coming back to the issue engaging the attention of this Court, we can say that, in the first place that any matter relating to “divorce” cannot be referred to a Lok Adalat as specifically provided in the proviso to Regulation 10(2). This Court fails to comprehend that when a divorce matter itself cannot be referred to Lok Adalat, how a decree of divorce could have been expected to be granted by any Lok Adalat in a prelitigation matter.”

“We are of the view that the manner in which the present issue has been dealt by the Lok Adalat/ DLSA not only has usurped the power of the Family Court to grant a decree of divorce but the cryptic order passed by them, has, as a matter of fact given rise to multiplicity of proceedings, affecting the status and rights of several people, which according to this Court was neither envisaged nor intended by the provisions of the Act. It is expected that these Lok Adalats/ DLSA, who are harbingers of early disposal should exercise their powers strictly within the four corners of law as provided under the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed therein and should not wander into the realms, which is exclusively reserved for regular courts/tribunals”, it added.

Advocate Ashutosh Misra represented the Petitioner, while Chief Standing Counsel represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The controversy emanated from a pre-litigation suit preferred by the respondent husband before the District Legal Services Authority, Unnao. The matter was referred to mediation between the parties. It was alleged that the respondent husband fraudulently obtained the signatures of the petitioner (wife) and prepared a settlement term for divorce before the Authority. The matter came to be disposed of by the Authority in terms of the settlement.

The respondent husband started justifying his second marriage based on the said settlement/order of the Authority, prompting the petitioner (wife) to approach the DLSA by preferring a review application. The Authority dismissed the application but clarified that it had not held that the marriage between the parties was declared as a nullity. It was this dismissal of the review order and the settlement order of the Authority that had been sought to be interdicted in the Writ Petition filed before the High Court.

Reasoning

Considering that no settlement was reached between the parties, the Bench held that the entire controversy between the parties remained unresolved, and issues were left open. “Although, this court does not intend to resolve the controversy in the present writ petition and parties are obviously at liberty to raise them/these in appropriate proceedings, but we feel rather disturbed as to the manner in which the District Legal Services Authority, Unnao has conducted itself in this present matter”, it added.

Finding several shortcomings in the manner in which the matter was handled by the Authority, the Bench stated that the secretary of the District Legal Services Authority belongs to a cadre of Senior Judicial Officer, who is expected to be well versed with the law and judicial process.

The Bench also failed to comprehend how a decree of divorce could have been expected to be granted by any Lok Adalat in a prelitigation matter when a divorce matter itself could not be referred to the Lok Adalat. “The Lok Adalats/ DLSA have a very significant role to play in dispensing Justice and are expected of a larger role to play in cost-effective and expeditious disposal of matters, however in the name of expedition and disposal, the Rules and the Regulations of the Legal Service Authority Act cannot be diluted and/or tweaked in any manner, if we want to build a robust alternative forum for redressal of grievances through the mechanism of Lok Adalat/DLSA”, it added.

The Bench thus disposed of the petition by declaring that there was no formal divorce decree between the petitioner and the respondent. “The petitioner shall also be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law against respondent No.3, as legally advised”, it ordered while also directing, “A copy of this order may be placed before the Registrar General of this Court with a direction to circulate this order with the Lok Adalats/DLSA of the State of U.P. for its necessary compliance and future reference.”

Cause Title: A v. State Of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:31501-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Ashutosh Misra, Ziya Ahmad

Respondent: Chief Standing Counsel, Advocates O.P. Tiwari, Shishir Jain, Vijay Dixit

Click here to read/download Order