Patna High Court
DEEPAK KUMARversusMEENAKSHI GUPTA @ RINKU
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The execution case is maintainable and the petition seeking its quash is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners Deepak Kumar and Meenakshi Gupta were married in 1993 but later separated, leading to criminal, maintenance and divorce proceedings. The parties entered into a settlement before the Special Lok Adalat on 31 May 2003, wherein the petitioner agreed to pay one‑third of his salary and return the respondent’s ornaments. The petitioner breached the agreement by sending only Rs 716 in June 2003, prompting the respondent to file Execution Case No. 1 of 2003 in the Family Court, Khagaria. On 15 December 2009 the Family Court held the execution case maintainable. The petitioner now seeks to quash that order, arguing that the award is no longer enforceable after the divorce. The Patna High Court examined the statutory nature of a Lok Adalat award under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, noted the petitioner’s breach, and relied on Supreme Court precedents that mutual obligations must be performed before execution. It concluded that the execution case was properly maintainable and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the execution case filed under Order XXI Rule 11 of the CPC for enforcement of a Lok Adalat award is maintainable.
- Whether the award dated 31 May 2003 is executable despite the subsequent dissolution of the marriage.
- Whether the High Court can quash the Family Court’s order holding the execution case maintainable.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XXI Rule 11, Section 151
- Court Fees Act, 1870
- Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — s. 21(1), 21(2)
Subjects
- Lok Adalat award
- execution of award
- maintainability
- family court
- civil procedure code
- legal services authorities act
- breach of settlement
- divorce
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3257 of 2010
======================================================
DEEPAK KUMAR S/O Late Ragho Sahu R/O Mohalla- Belan Bazar, P.S.-
Kasim Bazar, Distt.- Munger, at present posted as Scientist-D, Sameer Centre,
Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communication and
Information Technology, Government of India, 2nd Cross Road, CIT Campus,
Taramani, Chennai-600113
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
MEENAKSHI GUPTA @ RINKU D/O Late Mohan Lal Gupta R/O Mohalla-
Lohapatti Road, Ward No. 6 Old, 7 New, Khagaria, P.S. and Distt.- Khagaria
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gyanand Roy, Advocate
: Ms. Akanksha Malviya, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-02-2026
Heard Mr. Gyanand Roy, learned counsel for the
petitioner duly assisted by Ms. Akanksha Malviya and Mr.
Brajendra Nath Pandey, learned counsel representing the sole
respondent.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
grant of following relief(s):
“(i) for quashing the order dated
15.12.2009 passed by the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Khagaria in Execution Case No.
01 of 2003 (Meenakshi Gupta @ Rinku vs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3257 of 2010 dt.12-02-2026
2/21
Deepak Kumar) by which it has been held that
the execution case filed by the respondent under
Order XXI, Rule 11 read with section 151 of the
Civil Procedure Code to execute the award
dated 31.05.2003 made by the Special Lok
Adalat, Khagaria is maintainable in the eye of
law and as such the parties may further proceed
in the matter in accordance with procedural
law.
(ii) for holding that the award dated
31.05.2003 made by the Special Lok Adalat,
Khagaria is not executable in the facts and
circumstances of the case and as such the
execution case filed by the respondent for
execution of the said award is not maintainable.
(iii) for grant of any such other relief
or reliefs for which the petitioner is legally
found entitled to in the facts and circumstances
of the case.”
3. The petitioner, Deepak Kumar and the
respondent, Meenakshi Gupta @ Rinku tied nuptial knots on
10.12.1993. The petitioner at that time was serving as the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3257 of 2010 dt.12-02-2026
3/21
Scientist in the Department of Information and Technology,
Government of India, Chennai. Though they continued their
marital journey together for more than five years, it is his case
that once the petitioner’s mother reached Chennai, the problem
arose and thereafter, the lady left for her parents’ home at
Khagaria, (Bihar). This followed Complaint Case No. 568(C)
of 1999 under section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and
¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Two other cases which came into existence
thereafter are/were the Divorce Suit No. 8 of 2002 and the
Maintenance Case No. 12 of 2000. Later, good sense
prevailed upon the parties and their joint petition/agreement
was stamped by the Lok Adalat, Khagaria which followed the
award dated 31.05.2003.
5. As per the award, the parties agreed to
close/withdraw all the three aforesaid cases in the following
terms and conditions:
“(i) they will be taking care of the
sentiments of each other as husband and wife
and shall not do anything which is not moral;
(ii) the petitioner shall be paying one-
third of his salary to the lady in her Bank
Patna High Court CWJC No.3257 of 2010 dt.12-02-2026
4/21
Account;
(iii) the ornaments of the lady shall be
returned by the petitioner;
(iv) in case, any of the party violates
the terms and conditions, one of them shall be
entitled to move before a competent Civil Court
for getting it executed.”
(Annexure-3 to the petition).
6. Close on the signing of the aforesaid agreement,
which followed the award, the lady feeling cheated by the
husband preferred Execution Case No. 1 of 2003 (Meenakshi
Gupta @ Rinku vs. Deepak Kumar) before the Family
Court, Khagaria alleging that the petitioner who is drawing
salary of Rs.20,000/- and was thus liable to pay one-third of the
salary following the agreement has sent only the Bank Draft of
only Rs.716/- for the month of June, 2003. It is to be noted that
the award is dated 31.05.2003 and the first draft that was
received by the lady was of Rs.716/-.
(Annexure-4 to the petition).
7. Notice was issued to the petitioner who filed his
response on 06.02.2004 and in between, he ensured that from
the month of July, 2003, the lady receives an amount ranging
Patna High Court CWJC No.3257 of 2010 dt.12-02-2026
5/21
between Rs.2,500/- to Rs.4,000/-.
(Annexure-5 to the petition).
8. The record thus shows that at the first instance, the
petitioner chose to violate the terms and conditions of the
agreement signed between the parties on 31.05.2003.
9. As the story unfolds, in the year 2006, the
respondent, Meenakshi Gupta preferred another Matrimonial
(Divorce) Suit No. 4 of 2006 (Meenakshi Gupta @ Rinku vs.
Deepak Kumar). The parties appeared and vide an order dated
15.12.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Khagaria, the said petition was allowed and the
marriage was dissolved. No financial liabilities/payment to the
lady has been discussed in the said order.
(Annexure-7 to the petition).
10. On the same day (15.12.2009), the concerned
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Khagaria took up
the Execution Case No.1 of 2003 and after observing that the
conditions/agreement signed between the parties have been
violated and in case of failure of the either of the party to fulfill
the terms and conditions of the award, they had liberty to
approach the competent Civil Court for the execution of the
award, the Court held the petition to be maintainable.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3257 of 2010 dt.12-02-2026
6/21
11. The concluding paragraph of the order dated
15.12.2009 read as under:
“In the result, It find no irregularity if the
decree-holder has filed the instant execution
case against the Judgment-debtor for
realisation of money in regard to the Award or
the Decree. To sum up, this execution case is
maintainable in the eyes of law and the parties
may further proceed in accordance with
procedural law.”
12. Aggrieved, the present writ petition. Pursuant to
the notice issued to the sole respondent, she put in her
appearance here.
13. Mr. Gyanand Roy, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that it was the lady who breached the
condition inasmuch as she never went to Chennai to reside as a
wife. He submits that the subsequent development is that
Divorce Suit filed by her has been allowed, they no longer
continue as the husband and wife and as such, the award is not
executable. In that background, the Family Court, Khagaria
erred in deciding that the petition is maintainable.
14. In support of his contention, learned counsel for
Patna High Court CWJC No.3257 of 2010 dt.12-02-2026
7/21
the petitioner has taken this Court to the judgment and order of
the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Chen Shen Ling vs.
Nand Kishore Jhajharia reported in 1972 SC 726 with
reference to paragraph no. 7 which read as follows:
“7. In our view the terms of the
decree required that the judgment-debtor
himself shall pay immediately after the signing
of the decree a sum of Rs. 41,254.12 and that
after every six months thereafter he was to go
on making payments of identical amounts until
the entire decretal amount was paid up, and
although the word 'instalment' has been used in
sub-clause (b) of Clause (2), it does not mean
that the initial payment of Rs.41.254.12 n.p was
not to be taken as an instalment for the
purposes of sub-clause (f) of the said clause.
Any other construction would, as pointed out by
the High Court, lead to the absurd conclusion
that if the judgment-debtor made a default in
making the initial payment, the decree could not
be executed for that amount even within three
months subject to the decree-holder's getting the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3257 of 2010 dt.12-02-2026
8/21
permission of the Reserve Bank as stated in the
compromise terms or that he could not take out
execution for the decretal amount in case there
was a default for making the payment for six
months. There is nothing to distinguish the
initial payment of Rs. 41,254 12 n.p from the
other like amounts to be paid subsequently. It is
clear from what we have stated that the decree
imposes mutual obligations on both the
appellant and respondent in such a way that the
performance by one is conditional on the
performance by the other and accordingly no
execution can be ordered unless the party
seeking execution not only offers to perform his
part but when objection was taken, satisfy the
executing court that he was in a position to do
so. This Court had in Jai Narain Ram Lundia
v. Kedar Nath Khetan 1956 SCR 62 = (AIR
1956 SC 359), observed at pages 68-69:-
“There may of course be decrees
where the obligations imposed on each side are
distinct and severable and in such a case each
Patna High Court CWJC No.3257 of 2010 dt.12-02-2026
9/21
party might well be left to its own execution. But
when the obligations are reciprocal and are
interlinked so that they cannot be separated,
any attempt to enforce performance unilaterally
would be to defeat the directions in the decree
and to go behind them which of course, an
executing Court cannot do..........The reason is,
as we have explained, that to hold otherwise
would be to permit an executing Court to go
behind the decree and vary its terms by splitting
up what was fashioned as an indivisible whole
into distinct and divisible parts having separate
and severable existence without any
interrelation be-tween them just as if they had
been separate decrees in separate and distinct
suits......... If the decree says that on payment
being made some definite and specific thing is
to be given to the other side, the executing
Court cannot alter that and allow something
else to be substituted for the thing ordered to be
given.”
15. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to
Patna High Court CWJC No.3257 of 2010 dt.12-02-2026
10/21
another case of Jai Narain Ram Lundia vs. Kedar Nath
Khetan & Ors. reported in 1956 SC 359 with reference to
paragraph no. 18 which read as follows:
“18. Much of the argument about this
revolved round the question whether the
equitable rules that obtain before decree in a
suit for specific performance continue at the
stage of execution. It is not necessary for us to
go into that here because the position in the
present case is much simpler.
When a decree imposes obligations on
both sides which are so conditioned that
performance by one is conditional on
performance by the other execution will not be
ordered unless the party seeking execution not
only offers to perform his side but, when
objection is raised, satisfies the executing Court
that he is in a position to do so. Any other rule
would have the effect of varying the conditions
of the decree: a thing that an executing Court
cannot do.
There may of course be decrees where
Patna High Court CWJC No.3257 of 2010 dt.12-02-2026
11/21
the obligations imposed on each side are
distinct and severable and in such a case each
party might well be left to its own execution. But
when the obligations are reciprocal and are
interlinked so that they cannot be separated,
any attempt to enforce performance unilaterally
would be to defeat the directions in the decree
and to go behind them which, of course, an
executing Court cannot do. The only question
therefore is whether the decree in the present
case is of this nature. We are clear that it is.”
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner conclude by
submitting that the order dated 15.12.2009 needs interference
and the petition be allowed.
17. Learned counsel representing the sole respondent
on the other hand submits that the entire facts clearly shows
that the parties came to an agreement on 31.05.2003 and
payment of one-third salary was one of the important term and
conditions. The petitioner breached the same in the following
month itself by sending a meager amount of Rs.716/-. Thus
contrary to the submissions put forward by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the lady violated the terms and
Patna High Court CWJC No.3257 of 2010 dt.12-02-2026
12/21
conditions, it was the petitioner himself who chose not to abide
by it in the very next month. He submits that the aforesaid
amount of Rs.716/- sent to the respondent was not only an
insult to the lady but also to the award stamped by the Lok
Adalat.
18. The submission is that even the ornament was not
returned and thus the lady was forced to file the Execution
Case No. 1 of 2003. As the petitioner attitude completely
changed thereafter, she was left with no option but to prefer the
Matrimonial (Divorce) Suit No. 4 of 2006 in which an order
was passed on 15.12.2009 granting them Divorce.
19. Learned counsel submits that the Family Court,
Khagaria having gone through the Award rightly held in its
order dated 15.12.2009 that the petition is maintainable. The
submission is that the petitioner will have the opportunity to
satisfy the Court that in the facts and circumstances/the
developments that took place thereafter, the award has become
non-enforceable. However, he cannot challenge the
maintainability of the petition. He concludes by submitting that
the petition is fit to be dismissed.
20. Having heard the parties and perusing the
records, this Court firstly would take note of the award that was
Patna High Court CWJC No.3257 of 2010 dt.12-02-2026
13/21
signed between the parties/couple. This Court reproduces the
agreement dated 31.03.2003 which is the part of the award and
read as follows:
,l- Mh- ts- ,e- [kxfM+;k
dEiysu ds”k ua0 569lh@99
feuk{kh xqIrk cuke fnid dqekj oxS0
1- MsV vkWQ yksd vnkyr& 31-05-2003
2- Iysl vkQ yksd vnkyr& O;ogkj U;k;ky; ifjlj] [kxfM+;kA
3- ds”k ua- ifjokn la0& 568lh@99
4- fiVh”kuj %& ehUkk{kh xqIrk ifr nhid dqekj
fjliksUMsUV%& nhid dqekj firk jk/kks lko
5- jsQjsUl esu okbZ %& vuqeaMy U;k;fd; naMkf/kdkjh] [kxfM+;kA
6- ds”k vkWQ nh ikVhZl bu ozhQ %& ngst ,oa izrkM+uk ds fy, okn
feuk{kh xqIrk }kjk yk;k x;kA
7- flaxuspj%& g0 vLi’V fiVh”kujA fjLiksUMsUV&g0&vLi’V
8- VeZ vkWQ vokMZ%& bl le>kSrs dh lHkh “krsZa le>kSrs ds nksuks
i{kdkj ;kuh nhid dqekj ,oa Jherh ehuk{kh xqIrk dks tkudkjh gksaxs
vkSj okn bl “krksZa esa ls fdlh Hkh ,d “krZ ds mYya?ku fdlh Hkh
i{kdkj }kjk fd;k tk;sxk rks bl le>kSrs dks ykxw djkus dk iw.kZ
vf/kdkj O;ogkj U;k;ky; [kxfM+;k ds {ks=kk/khu fLFkr l{ke U;k;ky;
dks gksxk vkSj i{kdkj dks ;g vf/kdkj izkIr gksxk fd og iwoZ ij iqu%
ckn gSfl;r dj ldsaxsA
le>kSrk dk iw.kZ “krZ layXu le>kSrk vkosnu esa oftZr gS le>kSrk i=
iapkax dk va”k gksxkA
Patna High Court CWJC No.3257 of 2010 dt.12-02-2026
14/21
¼1½ vLi’V
¼2½ vLi’V
¼3½ lquhy dqekj
g0&vLi’V
U;k;ky;] ,l- Mh- ts- ,e- [kxfM+;k
dEiysu ds”k ua0 569lh@99
feuk{kh xqIrk cuke fnid dqekj oxSjg
lh-Mh- ua- 4213
fo”ks’k yksd vnkyr ua-&2z
31-05-2003 eSa nhid dqekj iq= Lo0 jk/kks lko-
osyu cktkj] iks0 $Fkkuk$ftyk& eqaxsj orZeku foKku vf/kdkjh ,l-
bZ- lehj lsaVj Qksu bysDVªkseSxuksfVDl- ¶ySV uEcj&Hkh- Jh vikVZesUV uEcj&27
dkejkt ,esU;w dLV bLVªhV] vkfM;k j ih- vks- psUukbZ& 600020 rFkk Jhefr&
ehUkk{kh xqIrk iRuh& fnid dqekj iq=h Lo0 eksgu yky xqIrk eksgkiV~Vh f”kokyk
jksM] [kxfM+;k Jh egs”k dqekj flag] vf/koDrk] Jh jktsUnz >k] vf/koDrk Jh
dkSlsUnz dqekj flag] Jh pUnznso izlkn ;kno] yksd vfHk;kstu rFkk Jh vt;
dqekj JhokLro] ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh”k [kxfM+;k dh e/;oL;rk esa ftyk
tuin U;k;k/kh”k [kxfM+;k ds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr fookg foPNsn ckn
la0@8@2002 ,oa Hkj.k&iks’k.k ckn la[;k 12@2000 vUrxZr fgUn
Hkj.k&iks’k.k vf/kfu;e rFkk ifjokn okn la[;k 569lh@99 /kkjk 498, fooknksa
dk vkilh le>kSrsa ds vk/kkj ij [kwc lksap le>dkj fcuk fdlh ncko ds
LosPNkiwoZd fuEukafdr “krksZa ds vk/kkj ij lekIr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k%&
¼1½ bl le>kSrs ds i{kdkj Jh nhid dqekj rFkk Jherh ehuk{kh xqIrk
dk fookg 10 fnlEcj 1993 dks fgUnw jhfr&fjokt ds vuqlkj lEiUu
Patna High Court CWJC No.3257 of 2010 dt.12-02-2026
15/21
gqvk ;kfu rRi”pkr nksuksa gh i{kdkj ifr&iRuh ds :i esa yxHkx lk<sa
ikWp o’kksZa rd lq[kn oSokfgd thou O;rhr djrs jgsaA
ijUrq] HkkX; dh fu;fr ds dkj.k nksuksa i{kksa esa erHksn ,sls mHkjsa
tks eqdnesa ckth ds :i esa lkeus vk;s ijUrq vc nksuks gh i{k ;kuh
nhid dqekj ,oa Jhefr ehUkk{kh xqIrk bl le>kSrs ds ek/;e ls
cspSuc) gksrs gSa fd ge vkt ls ds ckn ls ,d nwljs ds lkFk lHkh
ekuoh; laosnukvksa ds lkFk O;ogkj djrs gq, ,d nwljsa dks lEekuiwoZd
lg;ksx ifr&iRuh ds :i esa jgrs jgsaxs vkSj ge nksuksa ifr iRuh dHkh
Hkh ,d&nwljs ds izfr vLokHkkfotd] ve;kZfnr ,oa vekuoh; O;ogkj
ugha djsaxsA
¼2½ eSa nhid dqekj rFkk Jhefr ehUkk{kh xqIrk bl ckr ij
lger gSa fd oSokfgd thou esa mRiUu erHksnksa ls vkilh lnHkko ,oa
fo”okl esa tks àkl vk;k gS mls vkilh fo”okl ,oa lnHkko dks iqu%
Lfkkfir djus ds fy, eSa nhid dqekj vius dks cpuc) djrk gwWa ,oa
lger gksrk gwWa fd eSa viuh iRuh Jhefr ehUkk{kh xqIrk dk Hkj.k&iks’k.k
ns[k&Hkky ,oa lqj{kk ,d ftEesnkj ifr ds :i esa fuHkkrk jgwaxk vkSj
vius lHkh dVkSfr;ksa ds ckn dqy izkIr osru dk 1@3 Hkkx Jhefr
ehuk{kh xqIrk ds uke ij [kksys x;s cSad [kkrsa esa rc rd tek djrk
jgwaxk tc rd fd nksuksa i{k e/; vkilh fo”okl ,oa lnHkko iqu%
Lfkkfir u gks tk;s vkSj bldh iqf’V Jhefr ehuk{kh xqIrk Lo;a u dj
nsaA
¼3½ eSa nhid dqekj rFkk Jhefr ehuk{kh xqIrk vkil esa bl
ckr ij lger gksrs gSa rFkk cpuc) gksrs gSa fd Jhefr ehuk{kh xqIrk
ds yxHkx 18 ¼vBkjg½ Hkj ds vkHkw’k.k ftldk ewY; yxHkx vLlh
Patna High Court CWJC No.3257 of 2010 dt.12-02-2026
16/21
gtkj :i;k gSA dks nhid dqekj Jhefr ehuk{kh xqIrk ds vf/kiR; esa
ns nsaxs vkSj og vkHkw’k.k Jhefr ehuk{kh xqIrk dks ck/;dkjh gksaxs
vkSj ;fn bu “krksZa esa ls fdlh Hkh ,d “krZ ds mYya?ku fdlh Hkh
i{kdkj }kjk fd;k tk;sxk rks bl le>kSrs dks ykxw djkus dk iw.kZ
vf/kdkj O;ogkj U;k;ky;] [kxfM+;k ds {ks=k/khu fLFkr l{ke U;k;ky;
dks gksxk vkSj i{kdkj dks ;g vf/kdkj gksxk fd og iwoZ ds ckn dkj.k
,oa u;s mRiUu okn dkj.kksa ds vk/kkj ij iqu% ckn lafLFkr dj ldsaxsA
i{kdkj
¼1½ g0& vLi’V Jh nhid dqekj
¼2½ g0&vLi’V Jhefr ehUkk{kh dqekjh
e/;LFk
¼1½ Jh vt; dqekj JhokLro] g0&vLi’V
ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh”k] [kxfM+;kA
¼2½ Jh fodk”k dqekj flag] g0&vLi’V
vf/koDrk
¼3½ Jh ekusosUnz dqekj] ¼vf/koDrk½ g0&vLi’V
¼4½ Jh jkts”k dqekj ¼HkkbZ½ g0&vLi’V
¼5½ Jh egs”k dqekj flag] g0&vLi’V
vf/koDrk
¼6½ Jh jktsUnz >k] g0&vLi’V
vf/koDrk
¼7½ Jh thrsUnz dqekj flag] g0&vLi’V
vf/koDrk
¼8½ Jh pUnznso izlkn ;kno] g0&vLi’V
Patna High Court CWJC No.3257 of 2010 dt.12-02-2026
17/21
yksd vfHk;kstd
g0&vLi’V
g0&vLi’V
g0&vLi’V
(emphasis added)
21. The content of the award clearly show that:
(i) they were to take care of the sentiments of
each other;
(ii) the petitioner was to pay one-third of his
salary amount to the lady;
(iii) the petitioner further agreed to return the
ornament to the lady.
22. The fourth condition further records that failure
to abide by the terms and conditions, either of the party shall be
knocking the doors of the competent Civil Court for the
enforcement of the award. This Court has further taken note of
the fact that the petitioner in the very next month breached the
agreement signed between the parties by sending a Bank Draft
of only Rs.716/- which followed the Execution Case No. 1 of
2003. Thus, the stand of the petitioner that the lady violated the
terms and condition has to be rejected outrightly.
23. In any case, this Court is not here to either ensure
Patna High Court CWJC No.3257 of 2010 dt.12-02-2026
18/21
execution of the award or to see to it that whether the same is
executable or not. The question before the Court is:
“whether in the aforesaid facts and
circumstances where one of the party chose not
to abide by the terms and condition violating the
same immediately after the award was stamped
by the Lok Adalat on 31.05.2003, the other
party was justified in filing the case before the
competent court and in that background,
whether the order dated 15.12.2009 by which
the competent Civil Court held that the case is
maintainable is justified or not.”
24. The Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987 (henceforth for short ‘the Act’) deals with award of
the Lok Adalat and read as follows:
“Award of Lok Adalat: (1) Every award of
the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of
a Civil Court or, as the case may be, an order of
any other Court and where a compromise or
settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat
in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of
the section 20, the Court-fee paid in such case
Patna High Court CWJC No.3257 of 2010 dt.12-02-2026
19/21
shall be refunded in the manner provided under
the Court-Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870).
(2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat
shall be final and binding on all the parties to
the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any Court
against the award.”
25. The wordings of ‘the Act’ is very clear, every
award by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the
parties to the dispute and no appeal shall be filed to any court
against the award.
26. In that background, when the petitioner violated
the terms and conditions on the very next month, the lady
rightly preferred petition before the competent Civil Court for
getting it enforced.
27. It is to be noted that the petitioner has nowhere
recorded as to whether he returned the ornaments of the
respondent to her which was also part of the award.
28. So far as the cases cited by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is concerned in the case of Chen Shen Ling
(supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that decree imposes
mutual obligations and no execution can be ordered unless the
party seeking execution not only performs his obligation but
Patna High Court CWJC No.3257 of 2010 dt.12-02-2026
20/21
when objection taken, satisfy the executing court that he was in
a point to do so.
29. The aforesaid case of the Hon’ble Apex Court is
not applicable in the present case where the Court is dealing on
the point as to whether the petition preferred by the sole
respondent before the Civil Court is maintainable or not. This
Court can only observe that the petitioner will have the
opportunity to satisfy the court concerned the circumstances
which led him not to abide by the terms and conditions of the
Award but cannot challenge its maintainability.
30. Again, so far as the case of Jai Narain Ram
Lundia (supra) is concerned, it also relates to the execution of
the award and thus is distinct from the present case where this
Court is dealing with the maintainability of the Execution Case
preferred by the sole respondent.
31. The aforesaid two orders of the Hon’ble Apex
Court clearly show that the execution orders were challenged
before the court concerned and in that background, Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that unless the parties perform their
respective roles, the agreement is not executable.
32. The present case relates to maintainability of the
petition preferred by the lady before the competent Civil Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.3257 of 2010 dt.12-02-2026
21/21
in the year 2003 as the respondent alleged that the terms and
conditions of the award was not adhered to by the petitioner.
This Court is of the opinion that the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Khagaria was perfectly justified in holding
that the Execution Case No. 1 of 2003 preferred by the lady
against the petitioner is maintainable. The petitioner will have
ample opportunity before the Family Court, Khagaria to satisfy
as to what led to the failure of the award dated 31.05.2003.
33. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly,
dismissed. The interim order dated 30.03.2010 stands vacated.
The Interlocutory Application, if any, also stands consigned.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 16.02.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…