The Allahabad High Court has unequivocally stated that a Lok Adalat or District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) does not possess the legal authority to issue a decree of divorce, as such powers are exclusively vested in competent civil courts and family courts under the law.
Court's Strong Criticism of DLSA Unnao
In a stern opinion, the Court lambasted the proceedings of the District Legal Services Authority, Unnao in resolving a matrimonial dispute, noting that the powers of Lok Adalats cannot be equated with those of regular courts. The Bench emphasized that although Lok Adalats play a vital role in settling disputes and reducing litigation, their functioning must strictly adhere to the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and its Rules.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary upheld this view while deciding a writ petition filed by Sushma Devi against a settlement dated June 12, 2018, and subsequent orders passed by the DLSA, Unnao.
Background of the Dispute
The controversy arose from a pre-litigation proceeding initiated by the husband before the DLSA, Unnao in June 2018. Records show that the DLSA issued a notice on June 1, 2018, and fixed the matter for June 12, 2018. On that date, the matter was referred to mediation, and a settlement was recorded between the parties.
The wife claimed that the husband fraudulently obtained her signatures on documents and used the mediation process to draft a settlement purporting to dissolve the marriage. Based on this settlement, the DLSA disposed of the matter. Subsequently, the husband used the settlement to claim that the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent and that the parties had been living separately since then.
The wife denied these claims, asserting that no valid divorce had occurred. She stated that even after the mediation, the parties continued living together as husband and wife, and a daughter, Gunjan, was born on November 22, 2019—more than a year after the alleged divorce settlement.
Disputes escalated when the husband began using the settlement and DLSA orders to claim he was entitled to remarry. This prompted the wife to file a review application with the DLSA. The review was rejected on June 30, 2025, but the DLSA clarified that it had not declared the marriage null and void. Aggrieved, the wife approached the High Court.
Mediator Clarifies No Divorce Was Granted
During proceedings, the High Court summoned Mohd. Rashid, the mediator in the case and Registrar of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, to explain the circumstances of the settlement. Rashid filed a personal affidavit stating he never passed any order of divorce. He clarified that his role was solely as a mediator with no adjudicatory powers, and mediation merely facilitates discussions and records settlements, which cannot be construed as a decree of divorce.
The affidavit stated: "At the pre-litigation stage, a Mediator is not empowered to grant, ratify, or pass any order of divorce, his role being confined solely to facilitating discussions and recording the terms of settlement, if any."
Legal Framework Examination
The High Court then extensively examined the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009. The Bench observed that Lok Adalats are intended to provide accessible, affordable, and speedy justice, but their role remains limited to assisting parties in arriving at a settlement.
Referring to Regulation 9 of the 2009 Regulations, the Court emphasized that Lok Adalats have power only to facilitate compromise and settlement, not to issue adjudicatory directions or orders. The Court further referred to Regulation 10(2), which specifically prohibits referring divorce matters to Lok Adalats.
The Bench expressed surprise, stating: "This Court fails to comprehend that when a divorce matter itself cannot be referred to Lok Adalat, how a decree of divorce could have been expected to be granted by any Lok Adalat in a pre-litigation matter." The Court also noted that Regulation 17(7) expressly prohibits granting divorce by mutual consent through Lok Adalats.
According to the Bench, once the statutory framework prohibits Lok Adalats from granting divorce, any understanding that the settlement amounted to dissolution of marriage was legally unsustainable.
Settlement Clause Permitting Remarriage Found Illegal
A particularly disturbing aspect was a clause in the settlement stating that both parties would be free to remarry. The Court found this clause completely contrary to law, observing: "This court is unable to understand as to how and in what manner the said settlement could had been signed and would had passed the eye-test of the members of the Lok Adalat in the first place."
The Court noted that the parties had approached the DLSA in a pre-litigation proceeding and had not obtained a decree of divorce from any competent court. Therefore, any clause permitting remarriage was "absolutely illegal and forbidden by law." The Bench further observed that if such a condition was to be included, it should have stated that it would become operative only after a valid decree of divorce was passed by a competent court.
The Court found that the settlement failed even the most basic test of legality, reasonableness, and clarity. The High Court was equally critical of how the DLSA handled the matter, noting that the Secretary of a DLSA, being a senior judicial officer, should be fully conversant with the law. The Court observed that notice, referral to mediation, and settlement proceedings were completed with unusual haste and without adequate scrutiny.
The Court emphasized that Lok Adalats function as facilitators, not adjudicators, and regulations require them to ensure settlement terms are lawful, reasonable, and voluntarily accepted. The Bench remarked that the circumstances illustrated why regulations prohibit a mechanical approach in settlement proceedings, and Regulation 17(6) specifically requires Lok Adalats to ensure they are not used by unscrupulous parties to commit fraud or manipulate legal rights.
Lok Adalats Cannot Usurp Jurisdiction of Family Courts
The Court strongly disapproved of the DLSA proceedings being later projected as a valid divorce. The Bench observed that the husband's claim that the settlement amounted to a decree of divorce was entirely without legal foundation. Invoking the principle ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of law excuses no one), the Court held that such a plea could not be accepted.
The Court made one of its strongest observations: "We are of the view that the manner in which the present issue has been dealt by the Lok Adalat/ DLSA not only has usurped the power of the Family Court to grant a decree of divorce but the cryptic order passed by them, has, as a matter of fact given rise to multiplicity of proceedings, affecting the status and rights of several people."
The Bench observed that while Lok Adalats perform an important role in reducing judicial backlog and promoting consensual dispute resolution, the statutory scheme cannot be diluted in the name of speedy disposal. The Court stated: "It is expected that these Lok Adalats/ DLSA, who are harbingers of early disposal should exercise their powers strictly within the four corners of law as provided under the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed therein and should not wander into the realms, which is exclusively reserved for regular courts/tribunals."
The Court also cautioned against the "tearing hurry" displayed in sensitive matrimonial disputes, emphasizing that such matters require a balanced, careful, and empathetic approach as they concern legal rights as well as personal lives and emotional well-being.
Conclusion and Directions
Holding that neither the mediator nor the DLSA had any jurisdiction to grant a decree of divorce, the Allahabad High Court clarified that no formal divorce had ever taken place between the parties. The Court rejected the husband's claim that the 2018 settlement amounted to dissolution of marriage, stating such an understanding had no basis in law. The Bench left it open to the petitioner-wife to take recourse to appropriate legal proceedings against the respondent-husband and directed circulation of the judgment to all Lok Adalats and District Legal Services Authorities across Uttar Pradesh for future compliance and guidance.
Case Details: WRIT - C No. - 12174 of 2025, Smt. Sushma Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Law Lko. And 2 Others. Date of Decision: April 30, 2026. Counsel for Petitioner(s): Ashutosh Misra, Ziya Ahmad. Counsel for Respondent(s): C.S.C., O.P. Tiwari, Shishir Jain, Vijay Dixit.
