This is an oral order dismissing a civil miscellaneous application. The Patna High Court held that a supervisory jurisdiction carte blanche cannot be granted under Article 227 to interfere with a consent order regarding maintenance arrears.
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.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1580 of 2016 (2) dt.09-01-2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1580 of 2016
====================================================== Ajay Kumar Jha .... .... Appellant/s Versus Smt. Sarita Mishra .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER
2 09-01-2017 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha for the petitioner.
Perused the impugned order dated 08.01.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger in Misc. Case No.90 of 2014 whereby the learned Court below has directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month i.e. Rs.11,000(arrears)+Rs.4,000(current) as directed earlier.
From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that a consent order was passed as both the parties agreed that husband will pay Rs.11,000/- per month towards arrears of maintenance amount till the whole arrear amount is exhausted. The husbandpetitioner further agreed that he will also pay the current maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- per month. Now therefore, the impugned order has been passed on the basis of consent of the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1580 of 2016 (2) dt.09-01-2017 2
parties. Therefore, there is no question of interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction arises.
So far the other relief claimed by the petitioner is concerned, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no such blanket direction can be given to the court below.
Thus, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J)
Saurabh/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with a consent order passed by the Family Court directing maintenance payment.
Whether a blanket direction can be given to the lower court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ajay Kumar Jha
Smt. Sarita Mishra
Mungeshwar Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
