IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 7255 of 2009(O) -------------------------------- EP/08 IN MP.2286/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT,ALUVA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------- DR.P.K. VIJAYACHANDRAN, 18 SKYLINE QUEENS PARK, ELAMAKARA, COCHIN -26. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM JOHN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. DR. KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 45 YEARS, 67 SKYLINE MEADOWS CIVIL STATION PO., RESPONDENTS , CALICUT 673 020. 2. STAT OF KERALA, BY GOVT. PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO.7255/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF AWARD PASSED BY THE LOK DALATH IN M.P.2286/2007 DATED NIL. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED MUNSIFF DATED 27/11/2008 IS UN-NUMBERED EP/08 IN M.P.2286.2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7255 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner preferred a complaint against the respondents before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Aluva under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, “the Act”). That complaint was referred to the Lok Adalath to explore possibility of a settlement between the parties. The dispute was settled between the parties as evidenced by Ext.P1, award which states terms and conditions of the settlement. Alleging that Ext.P1, award has not been complied by the respondents, petitioner filed execution petition before learned Munsiff, Aluva with intend to execute Ext.P1, award. Learned Munsiff took the view that Ext.P1, award cannot be considered as if a decree of the civil court enforceable in that court since the award was passed in M.P.No.2286 of 2007 of a criminal court. Learned Munsiff took the view that the award states that parties, in case of non-compliance of conditions could seek recourse to the provisions of the Act itself. Observing so, the execution petition was returned to the petitioner for presentation before the proper forum. Ext.P2, order dated 27.11.2008 is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the view taken by the learned Munsiff is not correct and placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Govindan Kutty Menon K.N. v. C.D.Shaji (2011 (4) KHC 722). WP(C) No.7255/2009 2 3. Learned counsel for respondents contend that at any rate, there is a direction in Ext.P1, award that in case of non-compliance of conditions parties can take recourse to the provisions of the Act and hence remedy of petitioner is to approach the learned Magistrate to enforce the terms and conditions of the award. 4. The argument advanced by learned counsel for respondents, I am unable to accept, for, the mere fact that in Ext.P1, award parties have agreed that in case of non-compliance they or any of them could approach the learned Magistrate does not disable the learned Munsiff from executing the award if otherwise the said court has power to do so. The agreement entered into between the parties to take recourse to the provisions of the Act in the criminal court cannot by itself confer jurisdiction on the criminal court if it otherwise does not have jurisdiction nor can it take away the jurisdiction of the civil court if it does have. 5. On the question whether the award passed in the Lok Adalath on a petition forwarded from the criminal court could be treated as a decree enforceable in a civil court is concerned, the Supreme Court has said that it is possible. Govindan Kutty Menon K.N. v. C.D.Shaji (supra) was a case where a criminal proceeding initiated before the learned Magistrate was sent to the Lok Adalath for consideration and that was followed by a settlement and award was passed by the Lok Adalath. The civil court took the view that the WP(C) No.7255/2009 3 proceedings were initiated before the criminal court and forwarded to the Lok Adalath from that court and hence it cannot be treated as a decree enforceable under Sec.21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”). That view was upheld by this Court which was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a reading of Sec.21 of the Act there is no reason to give such an interpretation and held that every award of the Lok Adalath shall be deemed to be a decree of the civil court enforceable before the civil court. In the light of that decision, finding entered by the learned Munsiff is liable to be set aside and I do so. Resultantly this Petition is allowed. Ext.P2, order is set aside and the un- numbered E.P. of 1008 in M.P.No.2286 of 2007 is remitted to the court of learned Munsiff, Aluva. Learned Munsiff shall take the execution petition on file and proceed with it as provided under law if it is otherwise in order. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks