Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Johari vs Ku. Rani Johari@Urvashi on 23 June, 2025
1 M.P..No.5807 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 5807 of 2024
SUNIL JOHARI
Versus
KU. RANI JOHARI @ URVASHI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri R.K. Sharma - Senior Advocate with Shri A.S. Tomar -
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri F.A. Shah - Advocate for respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 17.06.2025.
Delivered on : 23.06.2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief :
"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to allow
the present petition and it is further prayed that the
impugned order dated 18.09.2024 (Annexure P/1)
passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Gwalior be kindly set aside and thereby may
kindly order for the closing of the case pending in the
court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Gwalior as Case No.15/2018 (M.J.C)."
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
respondent (daughter of the petitioner) filed an application under
Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act
(hereinafter referred to as 'H.A.M.A.') against the petitioner before
the Family Court, Gwalior, seeking grant of maintenance, which
has been registered as Case No. 15/2018 (MJC). It is further
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide judgment
dated 31.05.2024 passed in F.A. No. 975/2011 by the Division
Bench of this Court at Indore, permanent alimony was granted in
favour of the wife (mother of the respondent) of petitioner,
including the respondent/unmarried daughter. Therefore, the
respondent in a separate proceeding under Section 20 of H.A.M.A.,
cannot claim maintenance. He drew attention of this Court to
paragraph Nos.15 & 19 of the judgment dated 31.05.2024 passed in
F.A. No.975/2011 and submitted that the maintenance of unmarried
daughter was also considered while awarding the permanent
alimony. Accordingly, the petitioner moved an application for
closure of the case filed by the respondent under H.A.M.A. before
the Family Court, in view of the order passed in F.A. No.
975/2011; however, the same was dismissed by the Family Court
vide order dated 18.09.2024. Being aggrieved by the order dated
18.09.2024, petitioner has filed this petition. It is submitted that in
view of the judgment dated 31.05.2024 passed in F.A. No.
975/2011, the respondent cannot claim maintenance in a separate
proceeding under Section 20 of H.A.M.A.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent opposed the petition on the ground that the
respondent/unmarried daughter was not a party to the proceedings
in the First Appeal before the High Court, and only the wife of the
petitioner was a party to those proceedings. It is further submitted
that one of the issues framed in that case was whether, the wife is
entitled for permanent alimony and if yes then what should be and
in what form. The issue of permanent alimony to the unmarried
daughter was not under consideration in those proceedings, which
is evident from Para 8 of the judgment dated 31.05.2024 passed in
F.A. No. 975/2011. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 20 of
H.A.M.A before the Family Court are tenable, and the Family Court
has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. It is
submitted that the matter is pending before the Family Court and
the same may be decided by the Family Court on merits after
recording the evidence from both sides. Hence, he prays for
dismissal of the present petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. It is trite that the scope of interference under Article 227 of
the Constitution is limited. Interference can be made if order
impugned suffers from palpable procedural impropriety or manifest
illegality. Another view is possible, is not a ground of interference.
This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution is not required to act as a bull in a china shop (See:
Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil
(2010) 8 SCC 329).
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Singh and
Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr., (2010) 9
SCC 385, has held as under :
15. ................ we may notice certain well-recognised
principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the
High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. Undoubtedly the High Court, under this article,
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 High Court is
vested with the powers of superintendence and/or
judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or
appeal lies to the High Court. The jurisdiction under this
article is, in some ways, wider than the power and
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. It is, however, well to remember the well-known
adage that greater the power, greater the care and
caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is,
therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with
great care, caution and circumspection. The exercise of
jurisdiction must be within the well-recognised
constraints. It can not be exercised like a "bull in a
china shop", to correct all errors of 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.
16. The High Court cannot lightly or liberally act as an
appellate court and reappreciate the evidence.
Generally, it can not substitute its own conclusions for
the conclusions reached by the courts below or the
statutory/quasi-judicial tribunals. The power to
reappreciate evidence would only be justified in rare
and exceptional situations where grave injustice would
be done unless the High Court interferes. The exercise
of such discretionary power would depend on the
peculiar facts of each case, with the sole objective of
ensuring that there is no miscarriage of justice.
7. Having considered the aforesaid legal position, it is
necessary to examine whether the Miscellaneous Petition filed rests
on cogent grounds. From the judgment dated 31.05.2024 passed by
the Division Bench of this Court at Indore in F.A. No. 975/2011, it
is evident that the respondent was not a party to that First Appeal,
which was filed against the judgment and decree of dissolution of
marriage on the ground of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage
Act. The issues for determination framed by the Division Bench in
the said case also included the issue, whether the appellant/wife is
entitled for permanent alimony. Though in paragraph 15 of the
judgment during discussion, it has been stated that the amount
claimed for permanent alimony is justified for the maintenance of
the appellant/wife and her unmarried daughter Urvashi born in
2003?, but in paragraph 19 where the amount of permanent
alimony has been clarified, it has been categorically mentioned that
"Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) is granted to the
appellant/wife as permanent alimony.".
8. It is an admitted position that under Section 20 of H.A.M.A.,
the respondent, who was 14 years old at the time of filing the
application, had claimed maintenance through her mother. As per
the age mentioned in the memo of this petition, she is now 20 years
old. She cannot be denied her statutory right to claim maintenance
under Section 20 of H.A.M.A. The Family Court while dismissing
the application of petitioner/father has rightly observed that
respondent/applicant can file application for maintenance from her
father and has fixed the matter for evidence. In that case, both
parties shall lead evidence, and thereafter the application for
maintenance under Section 20 of H.A.M.A. shall be decided on its
own merits.
9. It is trite that maintenance can be sought under the various
benevolent provisions of different enactments. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC
324, has held as under :
60. It is well settled that a wife can make a claim for
maintenance under different statutes. For instance, there
is no bar to seek maintenance both under the DV Act
and Section 125 CrPC, or under HMA. It would,
however, be inequitable to direct the husband to pay
maintenance under each of the proceedings,
independent of the relief granted in a previous
proceeding. If maintenance is awarded to the wife in a
previously instituted proceeding, she is under a legal
obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent
proceeding for maintenance, which may be filed under
another enactment. While deciding the quantum of
maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the civil
court/Family Court shall take into account the
maintenance awarded in any previously instituted
proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to
the claimant.
61. To overcome the issue of overlapping
jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed
in different proceedings, we direct that in a subsequent
maintenance proceeding, the applicant shall disclose the
previous maintenance proceeding, and the orders passed
therein, so that the court would take into consideration
the maintenance already awarded in the previous
proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the
said amount. If the order passed in the previous
proceeding requires any modification or variation, the
party would be required to move the court concerned in
the previous proceeding.
10. Under these circumstances, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the aforesaid settled principle
of law, no case is made out warranting interference in the impugned
order.
11. Accordingly, the present petition being sans merit is hereby
dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Aman
