Bakthula Nagajyothi, v. Maddela Sudhakar,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD W.P.No. 28645 OF 2017 DATED 28TH AUGUST, 2017 Between:

Bakthula Nagajyothi ...

Petitioner AND Maddela Sudhakar and another ...

Respondents Counsel for the petitioner :

Sri Chetluru Sreenivas Counsel for respondent No. 1 :

-- Counsel for respondent No. 2 :

Sri J.Anil Kumar THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING

CVNR, J. & GSP, J.

wp_28645_2017 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) The petitioner, who voluntarily entered into a settlement with respondent No. 1 for divorce by mutual consent and derived benefit from out of the same by receiving the amount agreed under the settlement from respondent No. 1, filed this Writ Petition more than nine years after the Lok Adalat Award, assailing the said award.

2.

The Award is questioned by the petitioner on three grounds, namely; 1) that even after the Lok Adalat Award, respondent No. 1 has lived with her till the year 2012; 2) that he suppressed the fact that he filed a civil miscellaneous appeal before this Court against order dismissing O.P.No. 139 of 2005 filed by him for grant of divorce on merits and 3) that the Award of Lok Adalat is without jurisdiction.

3.

As rightly submitted by Sri J.Anil Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 2, the petitioner kept quiet for more than nine years after the Lok Adalat has passed the Award and therefore, the Writ Petition suffers from laches. Except stating that respondent No. 1 has lived with her till the year 2012 and that he has suppressed the fact of his filing civil miscellaneous appeal against the order in O.P.No. 139 of 2005, no specific reasons have been assigned by the petitioner for not questioning the Lok Adalat Award all these years. Further, the alleged suppression of filing of civil miscellaneous appeal by respondent No. 1 against the order in O.P.No. 139 of 2005 dismissing the said O.P. filed for divorce does not constitute a ground for the petitioner to turn round and question the Lok Adalat Award. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- in pursuance of the Lok Adalat Award. Having derived this benefit, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the Award at this length

CVNR, J. & GSP, J.

wp_28645_2017 of time. As regards lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner did not explain as to how the Lok Adalat, which granted the divorce by mutual consent, lacked jurisdiction. 4.

For all the above mentioned reasons, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 5.

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No. 35616 of 2017 shall stand dismissed as infructuous.

________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.

__________________________ GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J.

Date: 28-08-2017.

JSK