Wife And Husband Reach Compromise Before Karnataka HC Lok Adalat, Ending Writ Over Trial Court’s Rejection of Earlier Compromise Petition

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the Principal Civil Judge, Badami, sitting at Guledgudda’s order dated 4 March 2026 on a compromise petition in O.S. No. 211/2024. She sought to have that order set aside and the compromise petition reconsidered in accordance with law

After referral to the Lok Adalat, both parties appeared and filed a signed memorandum of compromise, which their counsel also countersigned. The parties confirmed that they understood its terms and had signed voluntarily, without undue influence or coercion

The writ petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, under which the petitioner sought the stated relief against the trial court’s order

The parties’ memorandum was identified as a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure

The Lok Adalat recorded that it was satisfied the parties had entered into the compromise voluntarily and disposed of the writ petition in its terms

The Lok Adalat did not adjudicate the merits of the challenge to the trial court’s order. Instead, it recorded the parties’ representations that they had read and understood the compromise and signed it freely, accepted the compromise, and disposed of the writ petition accordingly

The order does not provide separate reasoning on the legality of the impugned order or the petitioner’s requested remand

the Registry was directed to draw the decree accordingly