Jincy and Adhidev (minor) through Guardian Mother v. Muraleedharan

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **FRIDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1944** **OP (FC) NO. 328 OF 2022** **MC 326/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD** ## **PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:** **1 JINCY AGED 35 YEARS W/O MURALEEDHARAN, NADANJARAKKALAM HOUSE, PUDUNAGARAM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678503 2 ADHIDEV AGED 10 YEARS (MINOR), S/O MURALEEDHARAN - REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER - 1ST PETITIONER, NADANJARAKKALAM HOUSE, PUDUNAGARAM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT , PIN – 678503** **BY ADV. R.HARISHANKAR** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **MURALEEDHARAN AGED 44 YEARS S/O BALAN, KANNALATH VEEDU, NATTUKAL, KOZHINJAMPARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678554** **THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P.(FC)No.328 of 2022 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioners filed M.C.No.326 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad, under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the respondent herein, who is the husband of the 1[st] petitioner and the father of the 2[nd] petitioner. The second petitioner is a minor, aged 10 years. Petitioners have filed the said M.C. seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount already awarded by the Family Court in M.C.No.25 of 2013. The petitioners have filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order directing the Family Court, Palakkad, to consider and finalise M.C.No.326 of 2018, on merits, within a reasonable time frame. 2. The averments in the original petition would show that in M.C.No.326 of 2018, the respondent entered appearance and filed objections on 15.06.2020. Now the said case stands posted to 13.06.2022 for evidence. According to the petitioners, they filed this original petition in view of the observation made by the Family Court Judge, in open court, on O.P.(FC)No.328 of 2022 3 09.06.2022, that M.C.No. 326 of 2018 will be dismissed on 13.06.2022, since R.P.(F.C.)No.212 of 2016 filed by the petitioners and R.P.(F.C.) No.355/2016 filed by the respondent are pending before this Court, challenging the correctness of the order dated 31.03.2016 in M.C.No.25 of 2013. Therefore, the petitioners are seeking expeditious consideration and disposal of M.C.No. 326 of 2018 by the Family Court, Palakkad, on merits. 3. 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. Clause (2) of Article 227 provides that, without prejudice to the generality of the provisions under clause (1), the High Court may call for returns from such courts; make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. Going by clause (4), nothing in Article 227 shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of O.P.(FC)No.328 of 2022 4 superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces. 4. 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 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. 5. 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- O.P.(FC)No.328 of 2022 5 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. 6. 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. 7. In **Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016** O.P.(FC)No.328 of 2022 6 **(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. 8. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred 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 O.P.(FC)No.328 of 2022 7 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. 9. During the course of argument, on a query made by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that M.C.No.326 of 2018 now stands posted to 13.06.2022 for evidence. If that be so, the petitioners cannot invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, directing the Family Court, Palakkad, to consider and finalise M.C.No.326 of 2018, on merits, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. In case, the order passed by the Family Court in M.C.No.326 of 2018 is erroneous, petitioners can certainly challenge that order by filing R.P. (F.C.). At any rate, on the allegations contained in this original O.P.(FC)No.328 of 2022 8 petition, no direction can be issued to the Family Court to consider M.C.No.326 of 2018, on merits, which has already been listed for evidence on 13.06.2022. In such circumstances, we find no reason to entertain this original petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** Sd/- **P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE** DCS/10.06.2022 O.P.(FC)No.328 of 2022 9 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT 1 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 25-10-2018 IN MC NO. 326/2018 FILED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 127 OF CR.PC BEFORE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD EXHIBIT 2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18-12-2017 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN RP (FC). 355/2016**