Praveen A R v Remya K J and others

# **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 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/18TH KARTHIKA, 1944 OP (FC) NO. 597 OF 2022** **IN ORDER IN I.A NO.27 OF 2022 IN GOP NO. 1792 OF 2017 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR** ## **PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:** **PRAVEEN A R, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. RAVEENDRAN A G ANJALASSERY HOUSE, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA, ERNAKULAM – 682 503 NOW RESIDING AT VILLA 97, BNIYAS EAST 11 ABUDABI UAE REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY-RAVEENDRAN A G AGED 71 YEARS, SON OF GOPALAN, RESIDING AT ANJALASSERI HOUSE, ELANKUNNAPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 682503** **BY ADVS.C.RAJENDRAN B.V.BALAKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5:** **1 REMYA K J AGED 31 YEARS W/O. PRAVEEN KOCHAN HOUSE, CHAVAKKAD, BLANGAD, THRISSUR, PIN – 680506** **2 JAYARAM AGED 56 YEARS SON OF BHASKARAN, KOCHAN HOUSE, CHAVAKKAD BLANGAD, THRISSUR, PIN – 685056** O.P.(FC)No.597 of 2022 2 **3 SAMYUKTHA @ RANI AGED 49 YEARS WIFE OF JAYARAM, KOCHAN HOUSE, CHAVAKKAD, BLANGAD, THRISSUR, PIN – 680506** **4 RAVEENDRAN A G AGED 71 YEARS SON OF GOPALAN, RESIDING AT ANJALASSERY HOUSE, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682503 5 VIJAYALAKSHMI, AGED 61 YEARS WIFE OF RAVEENDRAN A G ANJALASSERY HOUSE, ELANKUNNAPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682503** **BY ADV. SRI. RAJIT** **THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **09.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P.(FC)No.597 of 2022 3 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner filed GOP No.1792 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur, an application for permanent custody of the minor by name Nishan Krishna. In that original petition, the petitioner filed I.A.No.26 of 2022 seeking an order directing the 1[st] respondent herein-mother to give her consent in writing for renewal of the passport in the name of the minor child. According to the petitioner, he wants to take the child abroad and therefore, renewal of his passport is necessary. The said I.A. was followed by I.A.No.27 of 2022 filed by the 1[st] respondent hereinmother for return of passport of the minor child. Both applications were opposed by filing counter by the other side. After considering the rival contentions, by Ext.P6 common order dated 04.08.2022, the Family Court, Thrissur dismissed I.A.No.26 of 2022 filed by the petitioner-father and allowed I.A.No.27 of 2022 filed by the 1[st] respondent-mother and the father is directed to return the passport to the mother. Challeging the said order of the Family Court, the petitioner is before this Court in this original petition, invoking the O.P.(FC)No.597 of 2022 4 supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. On 26.10.2022, when this original petition came up for admission, this Court issued notice on admission to the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to take out notice to the respondents through their counsel before the Family Court, Thrissur where GOP No.1792 of 2017 is pending consideration. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. 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. 5. 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 O.P.(FC)No.597 of 2022 5 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. 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 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 O.P.(FC)No.597 of 2022 6 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. 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 O.P.(FC)No.597 of 2022 7 perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law. 9. 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 failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 10. The issue that arises for consideration in this original O.P.(FC)No.597 of 2022 8 petition is as to whether any interference is warranted in Ext.P6 order dated 04.08.2022 of the Family Court, Thrissur, whereby I.A.No.26 of 2022 filed by the petitioner stands rejected and I.A.No.27 of 2002 filed by the 1[st] respondent herein stands allowed, with the direction as contained therein. 11. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents would point out the specific averments in Ext.P3A objection filed by the 1[st] respondent-mother in I.A.No.26 of 2022. Paragraph 4 of the said objection reads thus:- “4) This respondent has filed I.A. 27/2022 paying to this Honourable Family Court, Thrisur to direct the petitioner to handover the passport of this respondent and that of the minor chld to this respondent. Upon receiveing the same, this respondent will take adequate steps for this renewal of the minor' s passport.” (underline supplied) 12. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, any interference on Ext.P6 order is warranted only if it is found that the reasoning of the Family Court in the said order is either perverse or patently illegal or that the Family Court has acted with material irregularity while passing such an order. In the abscence of any such grounds, we O.P.(FC)No.597 of 2022 9 do not find any reason to interfere with the said order of the Family Court. In the result, this original petition fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** Sd/- **P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE** DCS/14.11.2022 O.P.(FC)No.597 of 2022 10 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE FAMILY COURT THRISSUR ON 04/06/2022 TO DR. FR. JOSEPH ANTO CONSULTANT PSYCHOLOGOST, ELITE MISSION HOSPITAL, THRISSUR** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN GOP NO 1792/2017 DATED 9/7/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAMILY COURT THRISSUR (IA 31/2022)** **EXHIBIT1 P3 A COPY OF THE PETITION IN IA NO. 26/2022 IN GOP NO 1792/2017 ON 2/6/2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR EXHIBIT P3 A A COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN IA NO. 26/2022 IN GOP NO 1792/2017** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN IA 27/2022 GOP NO 1792/2017 DATED 06/06/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAMILY COURT THRISSUR EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF FORM C EXHIBIT P6 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 26/2022 & IA 27/2022 IN GOP NO 1792/2017 DATED 04/08/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAMILY COURT THRISSUR** **EXHIBIT P7 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 24/2022 IN GOP NO 1792/2017 DATED 27/05/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAMILY COURT THRISSUR** **EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA 28/2022 IN GOP NO 1792/2017 DATED 13/16/2022 EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA 29/2022 IN GOP NO 1792/2017 DATED 13/16/2022** O.P.(FC)No.597 of 2022 11 **EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 29/2022 IN GOP NO 1792/2017 DATED 04/08/2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT THRISSUR EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED IN IA 29/2022 IN GOP NO 1792/2017 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11/7/2022**