Petitioner sought supervisory jurisdiction intervention for instalments of family court decree debt. Petitioner withdrew the petition. Court dismissed the original petition as withdrawn.
The original petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 29TH ASWINA, 1944
O.P(FC) NO.595 OF 2022
IN THE MATTER OF E.P NO.15 OF 2013 IN O.P.NO.397 OF 2010
ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR/RESPONDENT:
SHAIK MUSTHAFA
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.SAITH MUHAMMAD,
HOUSE NO 12/90, PATTANCHERY POST,
THANNEER PANTHAL,
CHITTUR, PALAKKAD,PIN - 678532
BY ADVS.
SARATH M.S.
B.PREMNATH (E)
RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER/PETITIONER:
SHAJEENA
D/O.SHAIK MUSTHAFA
THOTTAKKARA VEEDU, ELAPPULLY, PUDUSERRY,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678622
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
OP(FC) No.595 of 2022
J U D G M E N T
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner is the Judgment Debtor in E.P.No.15 of 2013 in O.P. No.397 of 2010 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad, in which the respondent herein is the Decree Holder. The petitioner has filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for an order directing the Family Court, Palakkad to grant 15 instalments to clear the arrears and 15 months time period to close the total amount with interest as specified in the judgment in Mat.Appeal No.237 of 2012. The respondent is the daughter of the petitioner in his first wife.
3
OP(FC) No.595 of 2022
Mat.Appeal No.237 of 2012. This Court by the judgment dated 18.09.2018 directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2,50,000/towards marriage expenses with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of lower court decree till payment.
4
OP(FC) No.595 of 2022
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.
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.
[(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
5
OP(FC) No.595 of 2022
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 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.
8. 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
6
OP(FC) No.595 of 2022
justice have been flouted.
Accordingly, this original petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE
PV
7
OP(FC) No.595 of 2022
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 595/2022
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE E.P. NO.15/2013 IN
O.P. NO.397/2010 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY
COURT, PALAKKAD FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT DATED 25/3/2013
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
18/9/2018 IN MAT.APPEAL NO.237/2012
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER,
CHITTUR DATED 17.10.2022
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY DR.P.
BABURAJ, M.D., JUBILEE MISSION MEDICAL
COLLEGE, THRISSUR DATED 19/10/2013
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to grant instalments for decree arrears in this family court execution case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar PatilExplained¶34
Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329] · Who else cites this
Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of DelhiExplained¶38
Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [(2010) 9 SCC 385] · Who else cites this
K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport CorporationExplained¶46
K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] · Who else cites this
SHAIK MUSTHAFA
SHAJEENA
ANIL K NARENDRAN
P G AJITHKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
ANIL K NARENDRAN and P G AJITHKUMAR
Parties & counsel