Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging a settlement and orders passed by the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Unnao in a pre-litigation matrimonial dispute, a Division Bench of Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, JJ., held that neither the Lok Adalat nor the DLSA had the authority to grant a decree of divorce and categorically declared that no formal divorce decree existed between the parties and observed that Lok Adalats are meant to facilitate settlements and cannot assume the jurisdiction vested exclusively in Family Courts. The Bench strongly criticised the DLSA for acting in a mechanical manner, failing to scrutinise illegal terms that permitted the parties to remarry, and improperly usurping the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court.
The Court observed that,
“The Lok Adalat/DLSA has usurped the power of a competent court and acted in a manner, which it was not authorised under the prevailing law.”
Background
The controversy in the present case, ensued from a pre-litigation suit preferred by Respondent 3 (husband) before the DLSA, Unnao. DLSA issued a notice on 1 June 2018, and on 12 June 2018, the matter was referred to mediation between the parties, wherein a settlement term for divorce was prepared and subsequently disposed of by the DLSA vide order dated 14 July 2018 in terms of the settlement. It was alleged by the petitioner that her signatures were fraudulently obtained on settlement documents and the husband subsequently relied on the settlement to claim that a mutual divorce had taken place and to justify his second marriage.
The wife contended the settlement/order of the DLSA, to be a farce as both the parties had been living together as husband and wife ever since, and a girl-child had also been born out of the wedlock on 22 November 2019. On the husband’s unscrupulous justification for his second marriage on basis of the settlement order, the wife approached DLSA by preferring a review application. Dismissing the application of the petitioner with order dated 30 June 2025, DLSA, clarified that nowhere in the order passed by the authority has it been held that the marriage between the parties has been declared as a nullity. The petitioner then approached the High Court seeking to interdict the dismissal of the review settlement/order of the DLSA.
Analysis and decision
Upon a perusal of the mediation order and the mediator’s affidavit, the Court observed that, no divorce had taken place between the parties. Although the dispute was referred to the High Court Mediation Centre to amicably resolve the matrimonial controversy, no settlement could be reached. The Court, expressed serious concern over the manner in which the DLSA, Unnao had handled the matter, noting that despite being headed by a Senior Judicial Officer, wellversed in law and procedure, the handling of the case revealed several shortcomings.
The Court noted that the DLSA, constituted under Section 9, Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (Act), is primarily tasked with providing free legal aid and facilitating amicable dispute resolution through Lok Adalats. The Court observed that by an amendment in year 2022 of the Act, concept of “pre-litigation and settlement” were introduced by inserting Sections 22-A to 22-E to the said Act. The Court noted that the Lok Adalat’s deal with both court-referred matters and pre-litigation disputes, wherein for the first category, it is the duty of the referral court to examine as to whether the matter could be referred for settlement by the Lok Adalat or not. The present case, being a pre-litigation matter with no court reference, the Lok Adalat and the District Legal Services Authority were under a higher obligation to ensure proper administration of justice. The Court noted that Lok Adalat’s, though flexible in procedure, must adhere to statutory provisions and cannot act casually, being governed by the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009 (Regulations).
The Court noted that no matter relating to “divorce” can be referred to a Lok Adalat as specifically given in proviso to Regulation 10(2). Therefore, when a divorce dispute itself cannot be referred to a Lok Adalat, the question of a Lok Adalat granting a decree of divorce in a pre-litigation proceeding does not arise. The Court observed that even where a matter is referred to a Lok Adalat, its role is to act as a facilitator and not as an adjudicator. The Court noted that Regulation 17 prescribes that, a Lok Adalat award is merely an administrative recording of a mutually agreed settlement, and the Lok Adalat must ensure that the terms are lawful, voluntary, and fully understood by the parties.
The Court found that the settlement contained some of the terms like “each party are free to re-marry”, which is absolutely illegal and forbidden by law.
“This court is unable to understand as to how and in what manner the said settlement could had been signed and would had passed the eye-test of the members of the Lok Adalat in the first place, especially when it is quite understandable from the facts that parties had approached the Lok Adalat and/or Authority under a pre-litigation suit and had not been divorced as per law as on that date.”
The Court noted that settlement terms are not enforceable unless and until a lawful divorce is granted by a competent court and found that the agreement failed to even pass the basic test of being reasonable and understandable. The Court observed that the Regulations prescribe a detailed procedure to prevent misuse of the Lok Adalat mechanism. Had the prescribed safeguards been followed, the present controversy could have been avoided. It was emphasised by the Court that under Regulation 17(6), Lok Adalat members should sign only those settlements arrived at before them and to avoid settlement reached by the parties outside the Lok Adalat with assistance of third parties, so as to prevent fraud, forgery, or misuse of the process by unscrupulous parties.
The Court noted the “icing on the cake” in the present matter is the cryptic orders dated 12-7-2018 and 14-7-2018 passed by the DLSA. The Court found the orders to have been passedin a mechanical manner and without any application of mind. The Court noted that since Regulation 17(7) expressly prohibits Lok Adalats from granting divorce by mutual consent, the husband’s claim that the settlement amounted to a divorce had no legal basis, and that the said claim has to be taken with a pinch of salt as ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of law excuses no one).
The Court criticised the undue haste with which the proceedings were conducted as the events of notice to the opposite party, reference to mediation and settlement agreement on the same date. The Court emphasised that, particularly in matrimonial disputes, Lok Adalats must act reasonably, sensitively, and strictly in accordance with the Legal Services Authorities Act and its Regulations, without compromising legal safeguards in the name of speedy disposal. The Court opined that,
“In all matrimonial cases, no party wins as it is a defeat only, be it the status of the individual parties or the marriage institution, the Lok Adalat’s ought to be empathetically sensitive to the issues brought before it.”
The Court further opined that the Lok Adalat/DLSA had effectively encroached upon the Family Court’s exclusive jurisdiction to grant divorce. It observed that the cryptic orders had led to unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings affecting the rights and status of several persons, and emphasised that Lok Adalats being the harbingers of early disposal, must exercise their powers strictly within the limits prescribed by the Act and the Regulations, without venturing into domains reserved for regular courts and tribunals.
Dismissing the writ petition the Court held that no formal divorce decree had ever been passed between the petitioner and respondent-husband and granted the petitioner liberty to pursue remedies available under law against the husband. The Court further directed that a copy of the judgment to be circulated to all Lok Adalat’s and DLSA in Uttar Pradesh for compliance and future guidance.
[Sushma Devi v. State of U.P., WRIT C. No. 12174 of 2025, decided on 30-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Ashutosh Misra, Ziya Ahmad
For the respondent: C.S.C., O.P. Tiwari, Shishir Jain, Vijay Dixit
Buy Constitution of India HERE
