Pramosh P.K. v. Akhila C.P.

# **`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 1[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1944 ``` ``` O.P.(FC)NO.99OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2022 IN I.A.NO.3 OF 2023 IN O.P.NO.1323 OF 2021 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, ``` ## **`THRISSUR`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` PRAMOSH P.K., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O LATE KESAVAN, PUTHUPPULLY HOUSE, THOTTIPAL VILLAGE AND DESOM, THOTTIPPAL P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680310 ``` ``` BY ADVS. NIRMAL V NAIR M.ANEESH MUHAMMED NASEEF BIN SALIM ARATHI PRABHAKARAN DELLA ABRAHAM ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 AKHILA C.P., AGED 30 YEARS, D/O C.K. PRATHAP, CHENTHRA HOUSE, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, PUNNAMPARAMBU DESOM, THEKKUMKARA P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680589`** - **`2 MASTER AYUSHMAN, AGED 5 YEARS, CHENTHRA HOUSE, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, PUNNAMPARAMBU DESOM, THEKKUMKARA P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, AKHILA C.P, PIN - 680589`** ``` THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 O.P.(FC)No.99 of 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner is the respondent in O.P.No.1323 of 2021 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur, which is one filed by the 1[st] respondent herein-wife against the petitioner-husband and another seeking a decree of divorce. In that original petition, the 1[st] respondent along with the minor child filed I.A.No.3 of 2022 (Ext.P4), which is an application for interim maintenance and litigation expense. In that interlocutory application, the Family Court passed Ext.P6 order dated 01.10.2022, whereby the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards the maintenance of his wife and minor child and a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expense. The petitioner has filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking an order to set aside Ext.P6 order to the extent it directs the petitioner to pay litigation expense to the 1[st] respondent for conducting O.P.No.1323 of 2021 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The issue that arises for consideration in this 3 O.P.(FC)No.99 of 2023 original petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P6 order dated 01.10.2022 of the Family Court in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.P.No.1323 of 2021 to the extent of granting litigation expense to the respondent-wife. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that O.P.No.1323 of 2021 is one filed by the 1[st] respondent-wife. She is having sufficient income and in such circumstances, the Family Court went wrong in directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expense. 5. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with maintenance _pendente lite_ and expenses of proceedings. As per Section 24, where in any proceeding under the said Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceedings, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding and money during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable. As per the proviso to Section 24, the 4 O.P.(FC)No.99 of 2023 application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or husband, as the case may be. 6. In this original petition, the petitioner is not challenging the interim maintenance, i.e., maintenance _pendente lite_ granted to the respondents. Therefore, Ext.P6 order to that extent has attained finality. Insofar as the litigation expense is concerned, the Family Court granted a sum of Rs.10,000/-, which cannot be said to be on the higher side. The reasoning of the Family Court in Ext.P6 order for granting litigation expense to the respondents cannot be said to be either perverse or patently illegal, warranting interference by this Court. 7. 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. 8. In **Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar** 5 O.P.(FC)No.99 of 2023 **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. 9. 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 6 O.P.(FC)No.99 of 2023 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. 10. 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. 11. 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, 7 O.P.(FC)No.99 of 2023 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. 12. 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 8 O.P.(FC)No.99 of 2023 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. 13. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that no interference is warranted on Ext.P6 order dated 01.10.2022 of the Family Court to the extent of granting Rs.10,000/- as litigation expense, since the reasoning of the said Court in that order is neither perverse or patently illegal. In the result, this original petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- ## **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** MIN 9 O.P.(FC)No.99 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 99/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P1 ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN M.C 267/2021 DATED 16-07-2021 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR ``` ``` Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR IN M.C 267/2021 DATED 20-07-2021 DISMISSING THE M.C AS NOT PRESSED ``` ``` Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM IN O.P. NO. 1323/2021 DATED 19-7-2021 ``` ``` Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 27- 6-2022 IN I.A 3/2022 IN O.P. NO. 1323/2021 ``` ``` Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 15.9.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A. NO. 3/2022 IN O.P. NO. 1323/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR ``` ``` Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.10.2022 IN I.A 3/2022 IN O.P.1323/2022 ```