MARY VARGHESE Vs. GIJO GEORGE VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext. P5 award passed in Lok Adalat organised by the ldukki District Legal Services Authority, is challenged in the above petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Two proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 {for short 'PWDV Act'}, pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha were referred to the Lok Adalat, and on such reference Ext. P5 award was passed. One of the aforesaid proceedings was at the instance of the 1st petitioner-mother-as against her son and daughter-in-law imputing domestic violence and seeking various reliefs under the PWDV Act. Other proceeding was at the instance of the daughter-in-law, 2nd respondent, against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law (2nd petitioner). When the above two petitions came up for recording evidence learned Chief Judicial Magistrate referred them to the Lok Adalat with the consent of parties. Ext. P5 award was passed by the Lok Adalat, which reads thus:

(2.) Though direction to 'call on 12.11.2011' was made, there was cessation of proceedings before the Lok Adalat with the passing of the aforesaid award. Pursuant to such award, admittedly, petition filed by the mother, 1st petitioner, numbered as M.C. No. 129 of 2010 was closed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, but the other at the instance of the 2nd respondent daughter-in-law numbered as M.C. No. 132 of 2010 is still retained. That is so retained, according to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent (son), since there was non-compliance of the undertaking given in, Ext. P5 award over the execution of registered document has not been complied with.

(3.) Domestic violence imputed by the rival parties against one another in the two building. A settlement deed over such property had been, admittedly, executed in favour of another sister of the 1st respondent, and after availing a loan in her name from a bank, a building had been put up in that property. 1st respondent, son, has a case that there was a pre-existing agreement to give the property to him and the transfer in favour of one of his sisters was only to obtain a loan from the bank in her name to put up the building. 1st respondent, his wife, and the first petitioner (mother), all of them, are in occupation of that building. I find, for disposal of this original petition, wherein the challenge is against Ext. P5 award, rival claims set up by the parties over the property and the building, nor the case advanced by them against one another imputing domestic violence need not be examined, nor even referred to with the particulars thereof. Limited question emerging for consideration is whether any interference over Ext. P5 award passed by the Lok Adalat is called for.