ARUN KUMAR MIRI Vs. BHARTI MIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of misrepresentation, the petitioner had entered into a compromise with the respondent and both the parties entered into an agreement for the divorce outside the Court of law. They have also agreed on the point that no any amount be given to the respondent. He submits that this Court may invoke the authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by setting aside the order passed by the Lok Adalat in which the petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 1500i - per month to the respondent. Further the Court may please to issue another writ against the respondent that she is not entitled to get maintenance from the petitioner under Sub -section (4) of Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') as she refused to live with her husband without sufficient cause.

(2.) For the purposes of appreciation of the arguments advanced in this behalf by learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the record.

(3.) As per certified copy filed by the petitioner of the Misc. Cr. Case No. 529/2010 under Sec. 125 of the Code wherein before the Mega Lok Adalat as both the parties have entered into a compromise, award was passed by the Lok Adalat As per Sec. 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987(for short the Act 1987), every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be decree of a Civil Court The provisions of Sec. 21 of the Act 1987 are as under