INTRODUCTION
In Sushma Devi v. State of U.P (2026), the Allahabad High Court ruled definitively that Lok Adalats have no jurisdiction to grant decrees of divorce and confirmed that an exclusive jurisdiction belongs to Family Courts for all matters relating to marriage. The High Court held that although alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms are important as a means of achieving amicable resolution, they do not have the authority to replace the functions of the regular courts established by statute under legislation; therefore, this ruling acts as a key protection against avoiding procedural requirements under family law when dissolving a marriage and will ensure that the dissolution of a marriage will comply with all of the legal protections and required cooling off periods per the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
BACKGROUND
A couple, wanting to divorce mutually, skipped the usual Family Court process and filed for a divorce at a Lok Adalat so that they could be divorced more quickly. As a result of the compromise deed filed by the couple, the award dissolving the parties’ marriage was issued by the Lok Adalat very quickly. The validity of the award was later challenged in front of the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner argued that the Lok Adalat had exceeded its jurisdiction under the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987. It was contended that the Family Court must apply its Judicial mind to the dissolution of marriages, which must also include the requirement of the six-month cooling-off period after filing under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. This requirement was completely disregarded by the Lok Adalat in its haste to dispose of the case based solely upon the compromise.
KEY POINTS
- The High Court found that the purpose of a Lok Adalat is to reach compromises and resolutions. It was never intended for parties in dispute to have their rights adjudicated and orders issued by a Lok Adalat that may materially and adversely affect a person’s legal status (granting divorce). This was designed to assist in reaching an agreement between parties to maintain their legal relationship.
- The Court held that by virtue of the provisions contained in the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Family Courts were the only Courts that could hear, determine and order issues involving marital relationships, including issues involving dissolution of marriage.
- The High Court observed that granting a divorce under Sec.13B requires a mandatory cooling period to allow for reconciliation. Therefore, the Lok Adalat does not have the jurisdiction to dispense with the waiting period simply because the parties to the dispute have agreed to the terms of their divorce.
- The Judge clarified that the fictional nature of an award issued by a Lok Adalat as that of a decree made by a Civil Court applies only to matters in which the Lok Adalat has inherent subject matter jurisdiction. Jurisdiction to grant a divorce is inherently outside the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat.
- The HC clarified that if parties reach a settlement regarding issues involving alimony, child custody or mutual separation before a Lok Adalat, the Family Court judge must still conduct an independent review of the terms and conditions outlined in the settlement agreement before making a formal and binding decree of divorce based upon the parties’ agreement.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
According to the ruling, courts at the lower levels as well as District Legal Services Authority (DSLA) will be more careful to ensure that no cases are being referred for arbitration without having strict screening; therefore, if the nature of the case is a matrimonial case regarding the dissolutions of marriages, Lok Adalat will not have jurisdiction to such cases (Divorce, etc.), the Lok Adalat will only hear the matter for negotiations of terms, such as support (or maintenance), distribution of assets, or custody, while the final order must still go back to the Family Court to receive a proper judicial ruling on the matter. The bar professionals welcome the ruling as this adds clarity to a system that has suffered from frequent misuse by hopeful couples and a time-strapped system being utilised as a “fast track” to divorce; this happened due to the lack of any certainty about the legitimacy of the final order that has left the parties with possible subsequent legal issues surrounding the validity of their divorce.
CONCLUSION
The Allahabad High Court’s ruling represents an appropriate corrective action that preserves the dignity of family law processes against excess or inappropriate actions by the government. The Court’s delineation of the boundary between facilitating an agreement between the parties to a marriage and issuing a court-ordered decree has ensured that the efficiency and ease of access to Lok Adalats is not allowed to interfere with the legal accuracy required for adjudicating upon matrimonial disputes. While the ruling may cause a minor delay in the formal procedures that couples need to follow when they seek to exit a marriage quickly, it provides them with the assurance that their divorce will be legally valid and secure against any circumstances that may result in future disputes concerning the proper jurisdiction for consideration of legal proceedings.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: VINEET SEERVI
