Sreejith Raveendran v. Soorya P. R.

# **`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 14[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 23RD BHADRA, 1944 ``` ## **`O.P.(FC)NO.370 OF 2022`** ``` I.A.NO.1 OF 2020 IN O.P.(HMA)NO.57 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF THE ``` ``` FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SREEJITH RAVEENDRAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O RAVEENDRAN, MOOLASSERIL HOUSE, KUTHIRAPANTHY P.O., THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPALLY, NOW RESIDING AT AUSTRALIA REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SMT. SUJATHA, W/O. RAVEENDRAN, MOOLASSERIL HOUSE, KUTHIRAPANTHY P.O., THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPALLY. ``` ``` BY ADVS. UTHARA A.S C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) MAHESH CHANDRAN ANANDA PADMANABHAN VIJAYKRISHNAN S. MENON VIVEK NAIR P. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` SOORYA P. R., D/O RAJENDRAN, AGED 30 YEARS, MYLAMOOTTU VEEDU, PARUTHIPALLI P.O., MANNORKKARA VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. NOW RESIDING AT AJOYVILLA, POONKOODU, MEPPUKADA P.O., MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- , PIN – 695 571 ``` ``` BY ADVS. S.SAJU A.V.SAJAN ANJANADEVI.G ``` ``` THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` O.P.(FC)No.370 of 2022 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner filed O.P.(HMA)No.57 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court, Chavara, seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. Subsequent to the filing of the said original petition, the respondent-wife filed O.P.(HMA)No.809 of 2018, claiming maintenance. In that original petition, the wife filed I.A.No.1 of 2020, an application for interim maintenance, in which the Family Court passed an order dated 25.02.2022, whereby the petitioner-husband is directed to pay interim maintenance to the respondent-wife at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month and a further sum of Rs.1,00,00/- as litigation expenses. The said order passed by the Family Court is under challenger in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. On 27.06.2022, when this original petition came up for admission, this Court issued notice before admission to the respondent. This Court granted an interim stay of Ext.P3 order for a period of one month. O.P.(FC)No.370 of 2022 3 3. On 08.07.2022, when this original petition came up for consideration along with the connected matter i.e., O.P.(FC)No.243 of 2022, this Court passed the following order; “The petitioner in both cases is currently in Australia. His petition to examine him on the video conferencing platform has been rejected. He also challenges an order granting interim maintenance from the date of the petition as well as the cost of litigation. The respondent would contend that the entire exercise to adduce evidence through the video conferencing platform is to avoid the petitioner's presence before the court as he has a huge liability to pay maintenance. In such circumstances, we are of the view that to prove the bona fide of the petitioner to examine him through the video conferencing platform, he shall deposit Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only), within a period of four weeks, before the Family Court, Chavara. List this matter for further consideration on 03.8.2022.” 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband and also the learned counsel for the respondent-wife. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-husband would submit that the husband has already remitted a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, in terms of the order of this Court dated 08.07.2022. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife would O.P.(FC)No.370 of 2022 4 submit that after the said remittance, the balance amount towards interim maintenance comes to Rs.6,30,000/-. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner-husband would contend that the impugned order of the Family Court, Chavara granting interim maintenance to the respondent-wife at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month and granting a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards litigation expenses is per se arbitrary and illegal, which warrants interference by this Court. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife would point out the averment in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit filed in this original petition, which would show that wife is defending/prosecuting 12 matters before various courts, including this Court. Paragraph 10 of that affidavit reads thus; “10. The poor respondent is contesting the legal proceedings before the Hon'ble Family Court, Chavara as well as this Hon'ble Court since 2018. The list of cases ongoing and disposed by various courts is listed hereunder: 1) O.P.No.57 of 2018 - Divorce Petition filed by the petitioner-husband. 2) O.P.No.809 of 2018 - Realization of money and property filed by the respondent-wife. 3) M.C.No.299 of 2018 - Maintenance petition filed by the respondent-wife. O.P.(FC)No.370 of 2022 5 4) O.P.No.426 of 2021 - Divorce Petition filed by the respondent-wife. 5) O.P.No.358 of 2021 - OP money filed by the petitionerhusband. 6) O.P.(FC)No.206 of 2020 for speedy disposal of the case filed by the respondent-wife before this Hon'ble Court. 7) O.P.(FC)No.207 of 2020 for speedy disposal of the case filed by the respondent-wife before this Hon'ble Court. 8) R.P.No.911 of 2020 filed by the petitioner-husband before this Hon'ble Court. 9) R.P.No.913 of 2020 filed by the petitioner-husband before this Hon'ble Court. 10) O.P.(FC)No.243 of 2022 filed by the petitionerhusband before this Hon'ble Court for adducing evidence through video linkage facility. 11) O.P.(FC)No.370 of 2022 filed by the petitionerhusband before this Hon'ble Court for challenging the order in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.P.No.57 of 2020. 12) Crl.M.C.No.4217 of 2021 filed by the petitionerhusband for quashing the criminal case registered against him. The respondent is defending and prosecuting 12 cases in total. Presently, the respondent is financially struggling hard even to meet the lawyer fees as well as other litigation expenses.” 9. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife would submit that the wife is not employed, who has already disclosed O.P.(FC)No.370 of 2022 6 her assets and liabilities in an affidavit filed before the Family Court. On the other hand, the petitioner-husband is yet to file an affidavit before the Family Court disclosing his assets and liabilities. He is working as Operating Manager in a company at Australia. 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, 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.370 of 2022 7 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, this Court in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Family Court in the order dated 25.02.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.P.(HMA)No.57 of 2018. 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 the Family Court 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 this Court finds that the Family Court has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable. O.P.(FC)No.370 of 2022 8 13. Having considered pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, we find that the interim maintenance granted by the Family Court, Chavara at the rate of Rs.10,000/-, cannot be said to be on the higher side. Similarly, considering the number of litigations as pointed out in paragraph 10 of the affidavit, the Family Court, Chavara cannot be found fault with in granting a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the wife towards litigation expenses. In such circumstances, the challenge made in this original petition against the order dated 25.02.2022 of the Family Court, Chavara in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.P.(HMA)No.57 of 2018 fails and this original petition is dismissed. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner-husband would submit that the husband may be granted a breathing time to pay the balance amount in terms of the order dated 08.07.2022. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner-husband to pay the arrears as on the date of this judgment, in terms of the impugned order, less a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- already paid as per the order of this Court dated 08.07.2022, in three equal monthly installments commencing from 10.10.2022. On such deposit O.P.(FC)No.370 of 2022 9 being made, the respondent-wife may be permitted to withdraw the said amount. The petitioner-husband shall also continue to pay interim maintenance for the subsequent period, without any default, pending final disposal of O.P.(HMA)No.57 of 2018. **Sd/ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-** **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** MIN O.P.(FC)No.370 of 2022 10 ## **`APPENDIX OF O.P.(FC)NO.370/2022`** ``` PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ``` ``` EXHIBIT P1 ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE OP (HMA) NO: 57/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO: 1/2020 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/02/2022 IN IA NO: 1/2021 ``` ``` RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ``` ``` EXHIBIT R1(A) ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER AS M.C NO 299/2018 DATED 18.2.2018 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT AT CHAVARA ``` ``` EXHIBIT R1(B) ``` - **`TRUE COPY OF THE CASE HISTORY WITH RESPECT TO M.C NO 299/2018 DOWNLOADED FROM THE E-COURTS WEBSITE.`** ``` EXHIBIT R1(C) ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE AUSTRALIAN IMMIGRATION AND BOARDER PROTECTION DATED 10.02.2014 WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONERS VISA STATUS IN THE YEAR 2014. ``` ``` EXHIBIT R1(D) ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS DOWNLOADED BY THE RESPONDENT FROM THE WEBSITE OF ASIC (AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION) DATA BASE DATED 05.03.2020. ```