In legal proceedings of Avinash Madhav Dhotre v/s Khushi Avinash Dhotre, the principles of res judicata, settlement, and maintenance claims frequently intersect, creating complex challenges for courts. One such challenge arose in a case involving a father and daughter, where the daughter filed for maintenance after a settlement had been reached between her mother and father in a matrimonial dispute. The central issue in the case was whether the daughter could sue her father for maintenance despite the prior settlement and subsequent Lok Adalat award. This article explores the legal considerations at play, focusing on the principles of res judicata, the impact of settlements, and the interpretation of maintenance laws in light of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

The dispute in this case concerns a maintenance claim filed by the plaintiff, a daughter, against her father, the defendant. The daughter filed a suit for maintenance under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act in the Civil Judge Junior Division, Pandharpur, seeking permanent maintenance of Rs. 30,000 and interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000. The suit arose from the failure of the father to comply with a previous settlement in a matrimonial dispute between the parents.

Matrimonial Settlement: The daughter referenced a settlement entered between her mother and father in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 53 of 2009. A settlement pursis was filed in the divorce petition, which was subsequently referred to Lok Adalat, where the matter was disposed of in 2009.

Claim for Maintenance: The daughter alleged that, due to financial difficulties, she was entitled to maintenance, citing an increase in prices and the financial capabilities of her father.

The central issue in the case was whether the daughter's suit was barred by law under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, which permits the rejection of a plaint if the suit is barred by any law. Specifically, the defendant contended that the settlement, which had been formalized in the Lok Adalat, effectively resolved all issues regarding maintenance and that the daughter could not file a fresh suit unless the Lok Adalat award was set aside.

The trial court, however, rejected this contention. The court observed that a settlement in Lok Adalat does not constitute an adjudication and that a settlement of matrimonial disputes, such as maintenance, cannot be considered binding on the daughter, especially since she was not a direct party to the settlement. The award in the Lok Adalat was seen as an administrative act, not a judicial determination.

The legal arguments centered around the applicability of res judicata and the binding nature of the Lok Adalat award. While the defendant argued that the maintenance issue was settled and could not be reopened, the court found that the daughter had not made any grievance regarding the settlement made by her mother on her behalf. The court clarified that Order VII Rule 11 requires the rejection of a plaint only on the basis of the averments in the plaint itself, and not on external materials such as the Lok Adalat award unless the plaint specifically challenges the award's validity.

The court further observed that while the settlement in Lok Adalat was a public document, the daughter had not specifically pleaded her dissatisfaction with the settlement. As a result, the court held that it could not make determinations based on facts outside the scope of the plaint. The father could raise the issue of the settlement's validity in his written statement, where both parties could present evidence.

The defendant's counsel relied on several precedents to argue that a Lok Adalat award, once passed, should be treated as final and binding, unless set aside through proper legal channels. Two key judgments were cited:

Sau. Jyotsnamala Ulhas Tawade Vs. State of Maharashtra (2022): The court in this case refused to entertain a challenge to a Lok Adalat award, noting that a writ petition could only be filed if there was a clear illegality in the award.

Hemantha Kumar Vs. R. Mahadevaiah (2022): The Supreme Court similarly upheld the finality of a Lok Adalat award, even in the absence of perfect procedural adherence, emphasizing the parties' consent to the settlement.

While these judgments supported the defendant’s position, the court in the present case rejected the argument based on the principle that Order VII Rule 11 requires the court to base its decision solely on the contents of the plaint. The daughter had not specifically challenged the settlement, and therefore, the court could not reject the plaint on that ground alone.

The court upheld the trial court's decision to reject the defendant's application to dismiss the plaint. The key takeaway from this case is that a settlement or award passed in Lok Adalat, although binding on the parties to the extent of their agreement, does not automatically bar a fresh suit unless specific legal provisions are invoked, such as setting aside the award. Furthermore, the court emphasized the importance of adhering to the scope of the plaint and not making findings based on extraneous facts at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

This case reinforces the principle that statutory rights, such as a daughter's right to claim maintenance, cannot be waived by a third party (in this case, the mother), and that such claims must be adjudicated based on the merits of the case, not merely on prior settlements unless properly challenged.

Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC limits the rejection of a plaint to the contents of the plaint itself.

A settlement in Lok Adalat does not automatically bar future claims unless it is specifically challenged or set aside.

The statutory right of a daughter to claim maintenance cannot be waived by her mother without proper legal procedure, and such rights cannot be extinguished by an external settlement.