MANOJ A R v. PUSHPA T R

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 ``` ``` OP (FC) NO.662 OF 2022 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER IN O.P.NO.346 OF 2022 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` MANOJ A R, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, ATTATHARA HOUSE, KUNDANNUR POST & VILLAGE, WADAKANCHERY POST, TALAPPILY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680590 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.N.ABHILASH SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT RITHIK S.ANAND ANU PAUL SREELAKSHMI MENON P. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` PUSHPA T R, AGED 42 YEARS D/O.RAVI, THARAYIL HOUSE, THALAKKOTTUKARA POST, CHIRANELLUR VILLAGE, KECHERY VIA, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680501 ``` ``` THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` O.P.(FC)No.662 of 2022 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner is the respondent in O.P.No.346 of 2022 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur, which is one filed by the respondent herein-wife, seeking a decree of divorce. In that original petition, the respondent filed I.A.No.2 of 2022, an application seeking payment of interim maintenance and litigation expenses. In that interlocutory application, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 counter. After considering the rival contentions, the Family Court by the order dated 07.10.2022 granted Rs.7,000/- as interim maintenance to the respondentwife and minor child. She is also granted Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. The petitioner herein-husband filed I.A.No.3 of 2022, seeking recovery of litigation expense from the respondent-wife every month. That application stands dismissed by the said order. 2. On 02.12.2022, when this original petition came up for admission, this Court issued notice on admission to the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to take out notice to the respondent through her counsel before the Family Court, Thrissur, where O.P.No.346 of 2022 is pending consideration. O.P.(FC)No.662 of 2022 3 3. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already effected service of notice on the respondent, through her counsel before the Family Court and a memo to that effect is being filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The issue that arises for consideration in this original petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on the order dated 07.10.2022 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.P.No.346 of 2022, whereby the Family Court granted a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the respondent herein-wife and the minor child towards monthly maintenance and a further sum of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent-wife towards litigation expenses. 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 O.P.(FC)No.662 of 2022 4 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. 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 O.P.(FC)No.662 of 2022 5 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 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. O.P.(FC)No.662 of 2022 6 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 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 O.P.(FC)No.662 of 2022 7 failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 12. While exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not sitting on appeal over an order passed by the Family Court in an interlocutory application filed by the respondent-wife, claiming interim maintenance and litigation expenses. Unless and until the reasoning of the Family Court in that order is either perverse or patently illegal, no interference is warranted in an original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 07.10.2022 of the Family Court, Thrissur in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.P.No.346 of 2022. In the result, this original petition fails and the same is dismissed. Sd/- ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** Sd/- **P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE** **yd** O.P.(FC)No.662 of 2022 8 ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS:`** ``` Exhibit P1 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN I.A. NO. 2/2022 IN O.P. NO. 346/2022 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT ``` ``` Exhibit P2 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 2/2022 IN O.P. NO. 346/2022 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR ``` ``` Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A. NO. 2/2022 IN O.P. NO. 346/2022 ON THE FILES OF FAM- ILY COURT, THRISSUR ``` ``` Exhibit P4 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A. NO. 3/2022 IN O.P. NO. 346/2022 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT ``` ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS: NIL ```