Dismissed

Arun Ashok v. Arya D

Kerala HC2 Sept 2022OP (FC)/508/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an Original Petition filed under Article 227 seeking to stop Family Court proceedings regarding interim custody. The Court held that the Family Court has jurisdiction to decide the application and the High Court should not interfere in pending merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition to stop proceedings in I.A. No.6 of 2022 and direction not to handover custody dismissed.

Arun Ashok Vs Arya D — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 11TH BHADRA, 1944

¶7

OP (FC) NO. 508 OF 2022

¶8

OPHMA 144/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA

¶9

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN I.A./PETITIONER IN O.P.:

¶10

ARUN ASHOK
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O ASHOK R,
NADUVILEPURAKKAL VEETIL,
CHATHENKARI (P.O.)
PERINGARA VILLAGE,
THIRUVALLA ,TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN 689 591.
PIN – 689591

¶11

BY ADVS.AJITH MURALI
 MOHANAN M.K.

¶12

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN I.A./RESPONDENT IN O.P.:

¶13

ARYA D
D/O DOMINIC BASIL ,
KARTHIKAYIL VEETIL, AKSHYA NAGER,
-89, KADPPAKADA P.O, KOLLAM VILLAGE,
KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY :-
DOMINIC BASIL, S/O LUKOSE, AGED 66 YAERS
KARTHIKAYIL VEETIL, AKSHYA NAGER,
-89, KADPPAKADA P.O, KOLLAM VILLAGE,
KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN – 691 008

¶14

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

OP (FC) NO. 508 OF 2022 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶18

The petitioner filed O.P.(HMA) No.144 of 2020 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla against the respondent herein seeking a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnised on 12.12.2009 and a girl child, by name, Aaradhya Arun, was born in that wedlock on 30.06.2012. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent stands dissolved by mutual consent vide Ext.P3 order dated 27.09.2021 in O.P. (HMA)No.116 of 2021, by the Family Court, Thiruvalla.

¶19

The respondent through her power of attorney, filed I.A. No.6 of 2022 in O.P.(HMA) No.144 of 2020 seeking a direction to handover the minor child to grandparents. The copy of that interlocutory application is produced as Ext.P4 in this original petition. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 objection dated 23.08.2022 to Ext.P4. Now the petitioner is before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory

¶20

OP (FC) NO. 508 OF 2022 3

¶21

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to stop all further proceedings in I.A.No.6 of 2022 in O.P.(HMA) No.144 of 2020; and a direction to the Family Court, Thiruvalla not to handover interim custody of the child, Kumari, Aaradhya Arun to the respondent, in the pending proceedings in I.A.No. 6 of 2022 in O.P. (HMA) No.144 of 2020. In the original petition, it is stated that I.A. No.6 of 2022, now stands posted to 03.09.2022 for producing the minor child.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. During the course of arguments, on a query made by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Family Court, Thiruvalla is yet to pass orders in I.A.No.6 of 2022 in in O.P.(HMA) No.144 of 2020.

¶23

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. Clause (2) of Article 227 provides that, without prejudice to the generality of the provisions under clause (1), the High Court may call for returns from such courts; make

¶24

OP (FC) NO. 508 OF 2022 4

¶25

and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. Going by clause (4), nothing in Article 227 shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

¶26

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 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.

¶27

The petitioner has absolutely no case that I.A.No. 6 of 2022 filed by the respondent in O.P. (HMA) No.144 of 2020

¶28

OP (FC) NO. 508 OF 2022 5

¶29

is not legally maintainable or that the Family Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such an application. The respondent has filed that application seeking interim custody of the minor child. The petitioner has already filed his objections. It is for the Family Court to consider that application and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. The reliefs as sought for in this original petition cannot be entertained in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

This original petition is nothing but an abuse of process of court and the same is accordingly dismissed. Considering the situation prevailing on account of Covid-19 pandemic, we refrain ourselves from imposing cost on the petitioner.

¶31

ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶32

Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE

¶33

DCS/02.09.2022

¶34

OP (FC) NO. 508 OF 2022 6

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶37

Exhibit-P1A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT
DATED 11.02.2021 IN O.P. (HMA) NO.
144/2020 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
THIRUVALLA

¶38

Exhibit-P2A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN DATED O.P.
(HMA) NO 144/2020 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
THIRUVALLA DATED 03.03.2021

¶39

Exhibit-P3A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
27.09.2021 IN O.P. (HMA) NO. 116/2021
OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA

¶40

Exhibit-P4A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED
02.08.2022 AS I.A NO. 6 /2022 IN O.P.
(HMA) NO. 144/2020 OF THE FAMILY
COURT, THIRUVALLA

¶41

Exhibit-P5A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
23.08.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA

Arun Ashok v. Arya D

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Ashok v. Arya D

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mini Muraleedharan, Vs Vivek Vayalan Veetil Mundayadam

Kuttan Unnithan, Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

State of Kerala Vs George

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala

Salman Bin Ameer Ali, Aged 40 Years, S/O. Ameer Vs Hasheen Mehamood, D/O.K.K.Mohammed, Aged 35 Years

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala