LAWS(KAR)-2006-9-22

BALAKRISHNA Vs. MEMBER SECRETARY LOK ADALAT

Decided On September 05, 2006
BALAKRISHNA Appellant
V/S
MEMBER SECRETARY LOK ADALAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was respondent in Criminal Misc. No. 95/1996 before the J. M. F. C. , Jarnkhandi. The said petition was instituted under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code by the 2nd respondent claiming maintenance from the petitioner herein. The case was adjourned from time to time. Thereafter, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat. On 17-11-1999, before the Adalat, the 2nd respondent and her Counsel were present, the petitioner and his Counsel were absent. Hence, the Adalat passed an order directing the petitioner herein to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- from 1-1-1997 with interest at 6% p. a. , This order is called in question in this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner though the petitioner and his Counsel were not present, the conciliators have passed an order awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- from 1. 1. 1997 and three months time has been granted to pay the arrears of maintenance and the Adalat further directed the petitioner herein to pay interest at 6% p. a. if the arrears is not paid within three months from the date of the order. According to him, the order passed by the Adalat is contrary to law, in as much as no award can be passed by the Conciliator when the petitioner and his counsel were not present before the Adalat and the Conciliators are also not expected to pass judgment after hearing the respondent and her Counsel in the absence of petitioner and his Counsel. In addition to that, if a petition is filed under Sec. 125 of Cr. P. C. , Conciliators in Lok Adalat would not get any jurisdiction to direct the petitioner herein to pay interest at 6% p. a. According to him, the order has to be quashed forthwith.

(3.) I have perused the order passed by the Lok Adalat. In para-3 of the order, it is stated that though petitioner and his counsel were absent, considering the status of the parties and the probable income of the petitioner, award is passed by the Adalat.