Introduction:
In a significant ruling reinforcing the jurisdictional boundaries between alternative dispute resolution forums and regular courts, the Allahabad High Court in Sushma Devi v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Department of Law, Lucknow and Others, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 303, held that a Lok Adalat or a District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) has no legal authority to grant a decree of divorce. The Court clarified that the power to dissolve a marriage is vested exclusively in competent civil and family courts and cannot be exercised by mediation centres, Lok Adalats, or legal services authorities functioning under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary while adjudicating a writ petition filed by Sushma Devi. The petitioner challenged a July 2018 order passed by the District Legal Services Authority, Unnao, which had disposed of a pre-litigation matrimonial dispute on the basis of a mediation settlement. The controversy arose when the husband subsequently treated the settlement as a valid decree of divorce and relied upon it to justify his second marriage.
The case exposed a serious misunderstanding regarding the powers of Lok Adalats and DLSAs in matrimonial matters. While these institutions are established to facilitate amicable settlements and reduce the burden on courts, they do not possess adjudicatory powers comparable to those exercised by family courts. The matter assumed greater significance because the settlement agreement contained language suggesting that both parties were free to remarry, thereby creating an impression that the marital relationship had legally come to an end.
The petitioner contended that the settlement was procured through fraud and misrepresentation and that no lawful divorce had ever been granted. According to her, despite the settlement proceedings, the parties continued to live together as husband and wife, and a daughter was born from their relationship in November 2019, nearly a year after the alleged divorce. These circumstances raised substantial questions regarding the legality of the DLSA proceedings and the legal effect of the mediation settlement.
The case thus presented the High Court with an opportunity to clarify the statutory limits of Lok Adalat jurisdiction and to reiterate the fundamental principle that marriage can only be dissolved through procedures recognized by law and supervised by competent courts.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner-wife argued that the proceedings before the District Legal Services Authority were fundamentally flawed and incapable of resulting in a valid divorce. She submitted that her husband had initiated a pre-litigation proceeding before the DLSA, Unnao, and during the mediation process had obtained her signatures on documents under circumstances that were neither transparent nor voluntary. According to the petitioner, the settlement agreement was subsequently used to create the false impression that the marriage had been legally dissolved.
The petitioner emphasized that neither the mediator nor the DLSA possessed the statutory authority to grant a decree of divorce. She contended that under the applicable personal laws and the Family Courts Act, the dissolution of marriage requires judicial scrutiny, compliance with prescribed legal procedures, and the issuance of a formal decree by a competent court. Since none of these requirements had been fulfilled, the settlement could not have the effect of terminating the marital relationship.
A significant aspect of the petitioner’s case was her assertion that the parties continued to cohabit even after the alleged settlement. To substantiate this claim, she pointed out that a child was born from the wedlock in November 2019. This fact, according to her, conclusively demonstrated that the parties themselves did not treat the settlement as a lawful divorce. The petitioner argued that the husband’s subsequent reliance on the settlement to justify his remarriage was legally untenable and caused serious prejudice to her rights and status as a legally wedded wife.
The petitioner further challenged the dismissal of her review application by the DLSA in June 2026. She argued that the Authority had failed to appreciate the legal infirmities in the original order and had continued to perpetuate an erroneous understanding of its own powers.
On the other hand, the respondent-husband sought to justify his reliance on the settlement agreement. He contended that the mediation proceedings culminated in a mutually agreed settlement and that the order passed by the DLSA effectively recognized the parties’ intention to separate. The husband argued that the settlement contained terms indicating that both parties were free to remarry and that he had acted upon those terms in good faith.
The State authorities and the DLSA defended the procedural aspects of the matter by pointing out that the dispute had been referred to mediation and disposed of in accordance with a settlement reached between the parties. It was suggested that the Authority had merely recorded the agreement arrived at through mediation and had not independently adjudicated upon the rights of the parties.
However, during the proceedings before the High Court, it became evident that neither the mediator nor the DLSA had any adjudicatory jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage. The respondents were unable to point to any statutory provision authorizing a Lok Adalat or DLSA to grant a divorce decree. The central issue therefore became whether the settlement could legally be interpreted as dissolving the marriage and whether the Authority had acted beyond the scope of its powers.
Court’s Judgment:
The Allahabad High Court delivered a detailed and strongly worded judgment emphasizing the limited jurisdiction of Lok Adalats and District Legal Services Authorities. The Court expressed serious concern over the manner in which the DLSA had handled the matter and criticized the cryptic nature of the orders passed during the proceedings.
At the outset, the Court clarified that no decree of divorce had ever been granted in the case. It observed that the mediator himself lacked adjudicatory authority and could not legally dissolve a marriage. Consequently, any assumption that the mediation settlement or the DLSA order amounted to a decree of divorce was entirely misconceived.
The Court examined the statutory framework governing Lok Adalats under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, as well as the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009. It noted that the purpose of Lok Adalats is to facilitate amicable settlement of disputes through negotiation, conciliation, and compromise. Their role is fundamentally different from that of regular courts. While they may record settlements voluntarily arrived at by parties, they do not possess the power to adjudicate disputes or grant substantive reliefs that require judicial determination.
The Division Bench placed particular emphasis on Regulation 10(2) of the NALSA Regulations. The proviso to this regulation expressly excludes matters relating to divorce from being referred to Lok Adalats. The Court observed that if a divorce matter itself cannot be referred to a Lok Adalat, it is inconceivable that such a forum could grant a divorce decree. The very structure of the regulations demonstrates a legislative intention to reserve matrimonial dissolution proceedings for competent courts.
The Court also referred to Regulation 17(7), which specifically prohibits the grant of divorce by mutual consent through Lok Adalat proceedings. According to the Bench, this provision leaves no room for ambiguity regarding the limits of Lok Adalat jurisdiction. The regulations clearly establish that marriage can only be dissolved through legally recognized judicial procedures and not through settlements recorded in alternative dispute resolution forums.
The Court expressed particular dismay over the language used in the settlement agreement, especially the clause stating that both parties were free to remarry. The Bench described such a stipulation as wholly illegal and contrary to settled principles of matrimonial law. It observed that a settlement agreement cannot confer rights that are inconsistent with statutory requirements. The inclusion of such a clause created confusion and fostered an erroneous belief that the marriage had been legally dissolved.
The judges remarked that the settlement failed even the basic test of reasonableness and legal validity. If the parties intended to pursue divorce proceedings, any agreement concerning future remarriage should have been expressly made subject to the grant of a lawful divorce decree by a competent court. By omitting such a qualification, the settlement created legal uncertainty and gave rise to avoidable litigation.
The Court also expressed concern regarding the conduct of the DLSA. It noted that the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority is generally a senior judicial officer expected to possess a thorough understanding of the law and judicial procedure. Given this background, the Court found it difficult to comprehend how such a settlement could have been approved without recognizing its obvious legal defects.
The Bench warned against an overzealous approach to dispute resolution that sacrifices legality in the pursuit of speedy disposal. While acknowledging the valuable role played by Lok Adalats in ensuring affordable and accessible justice, the Court emphasized that efficiency cannot come at the cost of jurisdictional discipline. Institutions created for alternative dispute resolution must operate strictly within the framework prescribed by law.
The judgment underscored a broader constitutional principle that statutory authorities are creatures of statute and can exercise only those powers expressly conferred upon them. Any attempt to assume powers vested exclusively in courts amounts to jurisdictional overreach and threatens the integrity of the justice delivery system.
Consequently, the High Court categorically held that there had never been any valid divorce between the petitioner and the respondent-husband. The Court rejected the husband’s contention that the settlement or DLSA orders could be treated as a decree of divorce and held that such a position had no foundation in law.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with a clarification that the marriage between the parties had not been legally dissolved. The Court further granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue any remedies available to her under law against the respondent-husband. Recognizing the wider implications of the case, the Court also directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to all Lok Adalats and District Legal Services Authorities across Uttar Pradesh to ensure future compliance and to prevent recurrence of similar errors.
The decision serves as an important reminder that while alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are indispensable to modern justice systems, their powers remain confined to the limits prescribed by law. Matrimonial disputes involving the dissolution of marriage continue to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of competent courts, and no settlement, mediation report, or Lok Adalat order can substitute a legally valid decree of divorce.