Abhimanyu Kumar vs Bidisa Sonar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2400 Gua

                                                                       Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010046592020




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : CRP(IO)/66/2020

             ABHIMANYU KUMAR
             S/O- SRI RAM CHANDRA KUMAR, R/O- NIZARA PATH, GOTANAGAR, P.O.
             GOTANAGAR, P.S. JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.



             VERSUS

             BIDISA SONAR
             D/O- SRI BIR BAHADUR SONAR, R/O- KAHIKUCHI, RANI, SURAJ NAGAR,
             NEAR BSF CAMP, RANI, P.O. AND P.S. RANI, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S SAIKIA

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A NARZARI


                                   BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA



                                        :: O R D E R ::

04.10.2021 Heard the learned counsel Mr. S. Saikia, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Barman, learned counsel representing the respondent.

This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the order dated 22.04.2019 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 16/2018 Page No.# 2/4

arises out of Misc. (G) Case No. 91/2016 by the Principal Judge, Family Court-II, Kamrup, Guwahati is put to challenge. The factual matrix giving rise to this petition arises out of the matrimonial dispute between a man and his wife. The present petitioner being the husband of the respondent filed a petition under Section 7 of The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 7 (1) of The Family Courts Act, 1984 praying for custodial guardianship of their minor daughter. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the husband filed a prayer seeking right to visit his child. The Court allowed the petitioner/husband to meet his minor daughter in a park in a fixed time. Thereafter, again under certain circumstances the Court allowed the petitioner to meet his daughter on

the 1st Sunday of every month and if he fails to do so then he was

allowed to meet his minor daughter on the 4th Sunday. Thereafter, the order was again reviewed and the petitioner was allowed to visit his

minor child for two hours on 4th Sunday and of every month and it was

also allowed that if the petitioner fails to meet his daughter on 4 th Sunday

he will be able to meet his minor daughter on 1st Sunday of the subsequent month.

Finally, the matter reached this Court. The question that arises at this stage is as to whether the High Court should interfere into the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, AIR 1954 SC 215, gave its view on Article 227 of the Constitution as follows-

Page No.# 3/4

"Re. 2.-- The material part of Article 227 substantially reproduces the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915, except that the power of superintendence has been extended by the Article also to Tribunals. That the Rent Controller and the District Judge exercising jurisdiction under the Act are Tribunals cannot and has not been controverted. The only question raised is as to the nature of the power of superintendence conferred by the Article. Reference is made to clause (2) of the article in support of the contention that this article only confers on the High Court administrative superintendence over the subordinate courts and tribunals. We are unable to accept this contention because clause (2) is expressed to be without prejudice to the generality of the provisions in clause (1). Further, the preponderance of judicial opinion in India was that Section 107 which was similar in terms to Section 15 of the High Courts Act, 1861, gave a power of judicial superintendence to the High Court apart from and independently of the provisions of other laws conferring revisional jurisdiction on the High Court..........".

Thereafter, in Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. of Hills Division and Appeals, AIR 1958 SC 398 , the Supreme Court has held that--

"41. A Constitution Bench of this Court examined the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution in the case of Waryam Singh v. Amarnath [(1954) SCR 565] . This Court, in the course of its judgment, made the following observations at p. 571:

"This power of superintendence conferred by article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee [AIR (1951) Cal 193] , to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors."

The Family Court, on each of the occasions passed the orders after hearing both sides. It acted within the jurisdiction bestowed by law and it has not exceeded its jurisdiction. The power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is a supervisory jurisdiction. I find no perversity in the orders passed by the Family Court. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition filed by the petitioner is, therefore, found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly.

Page No.# 4/4

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant