Anjana v. Sulabha @ Girija

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 7TH MAGHA, 1944 OP (FC) NO. 501 OF 2021 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.03.2021 IN I.A.NO.1625 OF 2019 IN O.P.NO.994 OF 2019 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` ANJANA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.SADASIVAN NAIR, REISIDING AT ANJANAM, PUTHUKULANGARA, UZHA- MALAKKAL VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, UZHAMALAKKAL POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 543 ``` ``` BY ADVS. G.P.SHINOD GOVIND PADMANAABHAN AJIT G ANJARLEKAR ATUL MATHEWS ``` ``` RESPONDENT: ``` ``` SULABHA @ GIRIJA, AGED 50 YEARS W/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN PILLAI, GIRIJA BHAVAN, THRIK- KOVILVAITOM, BHARATHANNOOR, PANGODE VILLAGE, BHARATHANNOOR POST, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVAN- ANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 609 ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.HARIDAS BIJU HARIHARAN P.C.SHIJIN RISHIKESH HARIDAS ``` ``` THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` O.P.(FC)No.501 of 2021 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner is the respondent in O.P.No.994 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court, Nedumangadu, which is one filed by the respondent herein, who is the mother-in-law of the petitioner, seeking a decree declaring that the petitioner herein-daughterin-law is not entitled to get any assets of her deceased son, Visakh Kumar, and she is also not entitled to get any amount due to the legal heirs of the deceased son, who committed suicide on 19.03.2019, while serving as Jawan in the Indian Army. In the said original petition, the respondent herein has also sought for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner herein from receiving any amount from Indian Army. In that original petition, the respondent herein filed I.A.No.1625 of 2019, an application for temporary prohibitory injunction. After considering the rival contentions, the Family Court, by the order dated 08.03.2021, allowed that interlocutory application and the petitioner herein is restrained from receiving any monetary benefits from the Army authorities, till the disposal of the original petition. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this O.P.(FC)No.501 of 2021 3 Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to set aside Ext.P9 order dated 08.03.2021 of the Family Court, Nedumangad in I.A.No.1625 of 2019 in O.P.No.994 of 2019. 2. On 13.10.2021, when this original petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondent. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The issue that arises for consideration in this original petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P9 order dated 08.03.2021 in I.A.No.1625 of 2019 in O.P.No.994 of 2019, whereby the respondent herein is granted a temporary prohibitory injunction against the petitioner herein. 5. A reading of the impugned order dated 08.03.2021 of the Family Court would make it explicitly clear that, while granting temporary prohibitory injunction in I.A.No.1625 of 2019 in O.P.No.994 of 2019, the Family Court considered only whether a prima facie case has been made out by the respondent herein for granting such an interim injunction and whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent herein and whether O.P.(FC)No.501 of 2021 4 irreparable loss would be caused to the respondent herein, if the interim injunction sought for is not granted. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as borne out from the pleadings and documents on record, the Family Court arrived at a conclusion that the respondent herein is entitled to get a temporary prohibitory injunction, as sought for in I.A.No.1625 of 2019 in O.P.No.994 of 2019. 6. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. 7. In **Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar** **Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329]** the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to O.P.(FC)No.501 of 2021 5 ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. 8. In **Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi** **[(2010) 9 SCC 385]** , while considering the nature and scope of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well established principles of law. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. 9. In **K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan** O.P.(FC)No.501 of 2021 6 **Transport Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39]** the Apex Court held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 10. In **Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1) KHC 1]** a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law. 11. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred O.P.(FC)No.501 of 2021 7 to supra, the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a lower court or tribunal. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal has been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 12. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, it cannot be said that the impugned order dated 08.03.2021 in I.A.No.1625 of 2019 in O.P.No.994 of 2019 is one passed in grave dereliction of duty. It cannot also be said O.P.(FC)No.501 of 2021 8 that the reasoning of the Family Court in the said order is either perverse or patently illegal. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with Ext.P9 order dated 08.03.2021 of the Family Court, Nedumangadu in I.A.No.1625 of 2019 in O.P.No.994 of 2019. 13. In the result, this original petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 14. Since the original petition is of the year 2019, the Family Court, Nedumangadu is directed to dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, untrammeled by the findings in Ext.P9 order. The legal and factual contentions raised by both sides are left open to be raised before the Family Court at appropriate stage. **Sd/ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** **Sd/M.R. ANITHA JUDGE** **yd** O.P.(FC)No.501 of 2021 9 ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS:`** ``` Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF OP NO.994/2019 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD ``` ``` Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1625/2019 IN OP NO.994/2019 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BE- FORE THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD ``` - **`Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD IN I.A.NO.1625/2019 IN OP.NO.994/2019`** - **`Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16/9/2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AG(INS), ARMY GROUP INSURANCE FUND.`** - **`Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.9.2019 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR RECORD OFFICER, MADRAS REGIMENT`** - **`Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/12/2020 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR RECORD OFFICER, MADRAS REGIMENT`** - **`Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.334/2019 OF PANGODE POLICE STATION`** - **`Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 12/10/2020 PROVIDED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005`** - **`Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8/3/2021 OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD IN I.A.NO.1625/2019 IN OP NO.994/2019`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS: NIL ```