ORDER The petitioner was respondent in Criminal Misc. No. 95 of 1996 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamkhandi. The said petition was instituted under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, by the 2nd respondent claiming maintenance from the petitioner herein. The case was adjourned from time to time. Thereafter, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat. On 17-11-1999, before the Adalat, the 2nd respondent and her Counsel were present, the petitioner and his Counsel were absent. Hence, the Adalat passed an order directing the petitioner herein to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- from 1-1-1997 with interest at 6% p.a. This order is called in question in this writ petition. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner and his Counsel were not present, the conciliators have passed an order awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- from 1-1-1997 and three months time has been granted to pay the arrears of maintenance and the Adalat further directed the petitioner herein to pay interest at 6% p.a. if the arrears is not paid within three months from the date of the order. According to him, the order passed by the Adalat is contrary to law, inasmuch as no award can be passed by the Conciliator, when the petitioner and his Counsel were not present before the Adalat and the Conciliators are also not expected to pass judgment after hearing the respondent and her Counsel in the absence of petitioner and his Counsel. In addition to that, if a petition is filed under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C., Conciliators in Lok Adalat would not get any jurisdiction to direct the petitioner herein to pay interest at 6% p.a. According to him, the order has to be quashed forthwith. 3. I have perused the order passed by the Lok Adalat. In para 3 of the order, it is stated that though petitioner and his Counsel were absent, considering the status of the parties and the probable income of the petitioner, award is passed by the Adalat. 4. In Lok Adalat matter can be settled by consent of both the parties and an award cannot be passed by the Adalat considering the case of the parties on merits based on their pleadings or evidence available on record. 4. In Lok Adalat matter can be settled by consent of both the parties and an award cannot be passed by the Adalat considering the case of the parties on merits based on their pleadings or evidence available on record. Adalat is not a Court to write judgment. The purpose of referring the matter to Adalat is to negotiate the matter with the parties and to settle the case amicab1y by consent of both the parties. If anyone of the parties are not present before the Adalat, Conciliators in the Adalat cannot dispose of the matter. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that Adalat has committed a serious error in passing an award in the absence of the petitioner and his Counsel relying upon the case papers. Therefore, the same is required to be set aside. 5. In the result, this petition is allowed. Rule is issued and made absolute. The order passed by the Lok Adalat in Cri. Misc. No. 95 of 1996, dated 17-11-1999 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamkhandi, directing the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamkhandi to dispose of the petition filed by respondent 2 within three months from the date of receipt of this order.