Chhattisgarh High Court: Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J., while addressing a petition made an observation with regard to matrimonial disputes that,
“…in a matrimonial dispute, the cause of action can arise again and again, even if the dispute is settled and compromised before the court and the case has been withdrawn.”
Present matter pertained to the quashing of an order passed by the Family Court, Bilaspur in a Civil Suit.
Petitioners’ counsel submits that respondent had filed a civil suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and during the pendency, it was placed before the National Lok Adalat and as the respondent did not want to press on the said proceedings, it was disposed of.
Respondent in the present matter has filed a repeat application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Petitioner challenged the maintainability of the civil suit under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 23 Rule 4 of CPC on the ground that the previous application filed by the respondent had been disposed of by award.
Order 23 Rule 4 of CPC specifically provides about the abandonment of a suit under sub-rule 1 without permission of Court.
Further, it has been submitted that Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 provides that any award passed in the Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award, hence in view fo the said the repeat application filed by the respondent stands unsustainable.
Respondent’s Counsel submitted that since the petitioner did not honour the ut of court compromise, respondent was compelled to file an application under Section 9 of the HMA, 1955.
Bench on perusal of the submissions and facts stated that under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, an award of Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court which includes the order on compromise or settlement between the parties before the Lok Adalat.
Court stated that Lok Adalat has no authority to exercise the power under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC. The Lok Adalat on taking cognizance in any matter referred to it from a court, can act only in accordance with Section 20 sub-section 4, 5 & 6 of the Act, 1955 and there is no mention that the Lok Adalat can allow the withdrawal of the civil suit.
Hence the Lok Adalat’s order having lo legality is not an order at all.
“the case of the respondent against the petitioner was terminated on the basis of the statement made by the respondent side, that some agreement has taken place between the parties out of the court.”
Court added that, in a matrimonial dispute, the cause of action can arise again and again, even if the dispute is settled and compromised before the court and the case has been withdrawn.
Therefore,
When a dispute crops up again at any subsequent stage on account of differences between the parties to the matrimony, that would be a separate cause of action, on which the party aggrieved, has an entitlement to maintain legal proceeding under the provision of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
In view of the above, the petition was dismissed. [Harsha Dewani v. Ashutosh Gupta, 2020 SCC OnLine Chh 149, decided on 10-08-2020]
