Lok Adalat Cannot Grant Divorce, DLSA Settlement Not Valid Dissolution of Marriage: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently held that a Lok Adalat cannot grant a divorce decree and that a settlement recorded before the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) does not dissolve a marriage in law.

A division bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, while disposing of a writ petition filed by Sushma Devi, observed that no valid divorce ever took place between her and her husband despite a settlement recorded before the DLSA, Unnao being relied upon by the husband to claim dissolution of marriage and justify a subsequent remarriage.

Court clarified that a Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to grant a decree of divorce and can only facilitate settlements between parties.

The bench observed that "till date there had been no formal divorce decree" between the petitioner-wife and respondent-husband. Court further granted liberty to the woman to pursue remedies available under law against the husband.

Before the high court, the woman challenged a settlement report dated June 12, 2018 and a subsequent order of the DLSA, Unnao.

According to the husband, the settlement amounted to a mutual-consent divorce, following which the parties separated and he remarried. The wife, however, contended that her signatures had been obtained fraudulently and that the settlement had no legal force as a divorce decree.

Did the DLSA or Lok Adalat ever grant a valid divorce?

During the proceedings, court sought an explanation from Mohd. Rashid, who was functioning as a mediator in the matter in 2018 and is presently serving as Registrar of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh.

In an affidavit filed before the court, Rashid categorically stated that he had neither granted nor ratified any divorce. He clarified that he had merely acted as a mediator and recorded the proceedings, and that a mediator has no adjudicatory powers to dissolve a marriage.

After examining the mediation records and the affidavit, the bench concluded that no divorce had taken place between the parties. Court also noted that attempts at mediation before the High Court's Mediation and Conciliation Centre failed to result in any settlement.

Fault with the Lok Adalat proceedings

The bench also undertook a detailed examination of the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 and the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009. Referring to Regulation 10(2), court noted that matters relating to divorce are specifically excluded from being referred to Lok Adalats.

Court emphasised that Lok Adalats are empowered only to assist parties in arriving at settlements and have no authority to issue directions or adjudicate disputes. Their role is facilitative rather than judicial.

The bench expressed concern that the settlement agreement contained a clause stating that both parties would be free to remarry. Such a term, court held, was legally impermissible because the parties had not obtained a divorce from a competent court. According to the bench, any understanding permitting remarriage could only arise after a lawful decree of divorce.

Court further criticised the cryptic orders passed in July 2018, observing that they appeared to have been issued mechanically and without proper application of mind. It remarked that the husband's claim that the settlement amounted to a divorce was "without any basis or force of law".

While underscoring the important role played by Lok Adalats in reducing judicial backlog and facilitating affordable justice, court warned that such forums cannot exercise powers reserved for regular courts. It observed that the manner in which the matter was handled had effectively usurped the jurisdiction of the family court and created multiple legal disputes affecting the status and rights of several individuals.

Disposing of the petition, court categorically declared that no formal divorce decree exists between the parties. It also directed that a copy of the judgment be placed before the Registrar General for circulation among all Lok Adalats and DLSAs across Uttar Pradesh to ensure future compliance with the legal framework governing such bodies.

Case Title: Smt. Sushma Devi v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Department of Law, Lucknow and 2 Others

Bench: Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary

Judgment Date: April 30, 2026