IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** # **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 4TH KARTHIKA,** **1944** **O.P(FC) NO.602 OF 2022** **ARISING FROM THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2022 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2022 IN O.P.NO.533 OF 2022 OF THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA** **PETITIONER:** **JAYALAL AGED 53 YEARS S/O.P.K.GOPI, RESIDING AT VILLA NO.19, GREENDALE VILLAS, MANAKKAKADAVU, KUMARAPURAM P O, WEST MORAKKALA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA , PIN - 683565** **BY ADVS. VAISAKHI V. BABU KARUKAPADATH M.A.VAHEEDA BABU P.U.VINOD KUMAR ARYA RAGHUNATH T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ AJWIN P LALSON KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU P.LAKSHMI AYSHA E.M.** **RESPONDENT:** **INDU JAYALAL AGED 51 YEARS W/O.JAYALAL GOPI, D/O.T.K.BABU, THAISUVALAPPIL HOUSE, KATTOOR ROAD, NEAR THANISSERY PETROL PUMP, THANISSERY P O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680701** **THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **2** **OP (FC) NO.602 OF 2022** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## Ajithkumar, J The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. The respondent filed O.P No.533 of 2020 before the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda claiming maintenance and return of gold ornaments. She also filed I.A No.1 of 2022 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 claiming interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month. The Family Court allowed that petition and directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.25000/- per month. The petitioner challenges the said order in this O.P filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Today when this matter came up for consideration, we heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Family Court to pay interim maintenance at an exorbitant rate without giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. It is further pointed out that the respondent left the matrimonial home on **3** **OP (FC) NO.602 OF 2022** her own volition and therefore she is not entitled to get the interim maintenance. 4. Ext.P3 is the objection filed by the petitioner in IA No.1 of 2022. The claim of the respondent for interim maintenance was opposed by raising several contentions. The contention of the respondent regarding the income he is said to have been drawing was disputed. However, It is an admitted fact that while the respondent was serving in the office of the petitioner, a salary of Rs.1,10,000/- was initially paid and later Rs.25000/-. They are now admittedly living separately, but it is alleged that the respondent voluntarily left the marital home. 5. After taking into account, the rival contentions as are born out from the pleadings and materials on record, the Family Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs.25000/- to the respondent as interim maintenance. We do not find any patent illegality or irregularity with the order. The matters now in dispute between the parties cannot be decided at this **4** **OP (FC) NO.602 OF 2022** interim stage and can be decided only at trial. 6. 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 quasijudicial 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 High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or appeal lies to the High Court. The jurisdiction under this Article is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, well to remember the well known adage that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, **5** **OP (FC) NO.602 OF 2022** caution and circumspection. 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. 7. In **K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan 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. On the facts of the said case, the Apex Court held that, when the Labour Court has exercised its discretion keeping in view the facts of the case **6** **OP (FC) NO.602 OF 2022** and the cases of similarly situated workmen, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the exercise of discretion by the Labour Court. 8. 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. 9. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 was examined in detail by this Court in **Subaida v. Deputy Tahsildar (RR), Thrissur District and others [2019 KLT** **7** **OP (FC) NO.602 OF 2022** ## **SN 68)** (rendered by one among us, Anil K. Narendran J), where it was held, “The power is discretionary and has to be exercised very sparingly on equitable principle. This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases, but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration in the larger public interest, whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievances. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline. The object of superintendence under Article 227, 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 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. The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited, where interference qua an interlocutory order of a subordinate court or tribunal is concerned. In such matters, the High Court has to consider the question as **8** **OP (FC) NO.602 OF 2022** to whether such an interlocutory order of the subordinate court or tribunal was vitiated due to want of jurisdiction or that the said Court or tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction or that the order passed by it ” had resulted in failure of justice. In the light of the law laid down in the decision referred to above we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Family Court, Irinjalakuda dated 16.8.2022 in I.A.No. 1 of 2022 in O.P.No. 533 of 2022. The original petition is accordingly dismissed. **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** ## **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** PV **9** **OP (FC) NO.602 OF 2022** ## **APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 602/2022** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1** **A TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. NO.533/2022 DATED 20/04/2022 CLAIMING MAINTENANCE UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE HINDU ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE ACT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT** - **Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO.1/2022 DATED 20/04/2022 IN O.P. NO.533/2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/PETITIONER FOR INTERIM MAINTENANCE** **Exhibit P3** **A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 28/06/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO I.A NO.1/2022 IN O.P. NO.533/2022** **Exhibit P4** **A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS IN O.P.NO.533/2022 OF THE FAMILY COURT DOWNLOADED FROM E-COURTS** - **Exhibit P5** **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/08/2022 IN I.A NO.1/2022 IN O.P. NO.533/2022 OF THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA**