Kerala High Court
Pramosh P.K vs Akhila C.P on 1 March, 2023
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 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1944
O.P.(FC)NO.99 OF 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 1st respondent herein-wife against the petitioner-husband
and another seeking a decree of divorce. In that original
petition, the 1st 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 1st 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
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 1st
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
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
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 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
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,
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
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
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
