IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2182 of 2000 Between: Moovva Sudhakar Rao, @ Sudershan Rao S/o. Anjaiah R/o Palvancha, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Lok Adalat, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 Smt. Moovva Mani Kumari W/o. Sudhakar Rao R/o. Penamulur Post & Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of CERTIORARI calling for the records relating to O.P.No. 92/98 and Lok Adalat Case No. 129/98 on the file of Family Court, Vijayawada and quash the same as illegal, Arbitrary Capracious and consequently to direct the 1st Respondent desist from executing order passed in O.P.No. 92/98 dated 22.8.1998 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KANAKAMEDALA RAVINDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.BOKKA SATYANARAYANA & KAMLA SEELAM B. The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2182 of 2000 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is the husband of the second respondent, questions award dated 22.08.1998 in O.P.No.92 of 1998 passed by the Lok Adalath, Vijayawada. The second respondent filed O.P.No.92 of 1998 against the petitioner under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court, Vijayawada, for restitution of conjugal rights, alleging that she was driven out of the house in 1979. The petitioner opposed the O.P. stating that though they were living separately from 1979 onwards and there was no conjugal relationship between them, after lapse of nearly twenty years the second respondent filed the O.P. with bad intention. While things stood thus, the matter came up before Lok Adalath on 22.08.1998, both the petitioner and the second respondent were called before the Lok Adalath and accordingly the award was passed on the same day disposing of the O.P. by reconciliation. It is the case of the petitioner that he is not well-educated and well-versed with the procedure of Lok Adalath and that the Lok Adalath has not given him sufficient opportunity to get the legal advise and passed the award without considering the real facts and disputes in a proper perspective and without assigning any reasons. It is further stated that after passing of the award, the second respondent, stayed with the petitioner only for a few days, left the house without any reasonable cause and filed E.P.No.11 of 1999 in the said O.P. before the Family Court, Vijayawada, seeking a direction for payment of compensation of Rs.3,000/- every month alleging that the petitioner failed to comply with the award of the Lok Adalath. The Family Court ordered attachment of Rs.1,000/- from the salary of the petitioner from 13.01.1999 and issued a show cause notice as to why the attachment shall not be made absolute. Stating that the second respondent is at fault, that she herself left the petitioner without any reasonable cause and therefore, it is not possible for restitution of conjugal rights, the petitioner seeks to set aside award dated 22.08.1998 passed by the Lok Adalath. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is well settled that unless and until it is alleged and proved that the award of the Lok Adalath was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence, the award cannot be set aside. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to appreciate any of the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V. ESWARAIAH , J 17th July, 2009 ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J GHN