Civil Revision No.1031 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1031 of 2009 Date of Decision:26.02.2009 Neetu ....petitioner Versus Anil Kumar .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Ravi Malhotra,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-wife challenging the order dated 20.12.2008 passed by District Lok Adalat, Amritsar referring the dispute back to the regular Court(Additional District Judge, Amritsar). As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner was married with respondent on 25.01.1998 according to the Christian rites and ceremonies at Amritsar. Two children were born from the wedlock of the parties. The parties filed a petition under Section 10(A) of the Indian Divorce Act for dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent in the Court of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Amritsar. It has further been averred that statement of the petitioner was recorded on 09.02.2008 and 11.08.2008. Both the parties were convinced that the marriage was irretrievably broken and there could not be any reunion and reconciliation. The Additional District Judge, Amritsar, referred the case to the Lok Adalat for 20.12.2008 and on 20.12.2008 respondent Anil Kumar stated before the Lok Adalat that he does not agree to dissolve the marriage with mutual Civil Revision No.1031 of 2009 2 consent and want to contest the petition on merits. Thereafter, the Lok Adalat referred the matter back to the regular Court i.e.to the Court of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Amritsar for decision. Challenging the aforesaid impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that it is crystal clear that petition for dissolution of marriage was filed by both the parties with their mutual consent and there was no reunion between the parties and further the parties were convinced that the marriage was irretrievably broken and consent given by either party cannot be withdrawn. Lok Adalat had no other alternative except to pass the decree of divorce by mutual consent. Learned counsel has further prayed that the petition be accepted and the order of the Lok Adalat be quashed and marriage be dissolved by way of mutual consent. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. However, I find no merit in this petition. Admittedly the Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute on merits of the case. Since the respondent categorically stated before the Lok Adalat that he is not agreeing for dissolution of the marriage with mutual consent, the Lok Adalat had no alternative except to refer the matter back to the Court of competent jurisdiction for deciding the same in accordance with the law. The question whether respondent can withdraw his consent for mutual divorce or not, can only be decided by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, I find no error in the impugned order. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 26.02.2009 neenu