RAJINDER KUMAR SHARMA Vs. JYOTI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the writ petition, which has been allowed by the judgment and order under appeal, the petitioner2 respondent sought a writ of certiorari quashing the reference made to Lok Adalat and also the order passed by Lok Adalat. It was contended that the reference to Lok adalat was impermissible. The said contention has been accepted. It was also contended that Lok Adalat could not pass the order on the date the same was passed, as on that date, Lok Adalat had no authority to deal with the matter. The said contention too has been accepted.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition are that the appellant filed a petition seeking dissolution of his marriage with the petitioner-respondent by decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, which are available grounds in terms of Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Marriage Act, 1980. The petitionerrespondent not only contested the petition but also filed an application seeking dismissal thereof, since she returned to her matrimonial home and started residing with the appellant. Upon dismissal of her application, the petitioner-respondent also filed a revision application. Soon after dismissal thereof, the appellant and the petitioner respondent, on January 21, 2004, filed a petition for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce on mutual consent as may be had under Section 15 of the act. In the said petition, amongst others, they stated that they are government employees and have not cohabited since April 20, 2002. In the application, it was also stated that the appellant will pay a sum of Rs. 4. 00 lacs in cash or by way demand draft to the petitioner-respondent in lieu of full and final maintenance. It was also stated that the petitioner-respondent shall have one-third share in the house of which the appellant was the owner. The petition contained the plan of the house and demarcated one-third portion thereof which would come to the share of the petitioner-respondent.

(3.) ON January 21, 2004 itself, the appellant and the petitioner-respondent deposed before court stating that they have of their own volition, after understanding the true purport of the petition for divorce on mutual consent, have filed the same. After such deposition was recorded, both of them and their counsel requested the Court to put up the case before Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, the court by an order dated 21st January, 2004 directed the case to be put up before Lok Adalat on January 27, 2004. On January 27, 2004, the appellant as well as the petitioner-respondent deposed before Lok Adalat and, while doing so, not only stated that they want divorce on the terms and conditions contained in the said petition for divorce on mutual consent, but also a decree to that effect be passed by Lok Adalat. Thereupon, before Lok Adalat, the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 1. 00 lac in cash and another sum of Rs. 3. 00 lacs by Demand Draft to the petitioner-respondent on January 27, 2004. Thereafter, lok Adalat on January 27, 2004 passed the order dissolving the marriage of the appellant and the petitionerrespondent after recording that the appellant and the petitioner-respondent were told in Lok Adalat to reconsider the petition for mutual divorce and were advised to live together but they declined to do so.