1 MP No. 3865/2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
(Smt Trupti Agrawal Vs. Anup Agrawal)
INDORE dt. 24-08-2018
Parties through their counsel.
The petitioner before this court has filed this present
petition being aggrieved by order dated 22-06-2018 passed by
the Principal Judge Family Court, Indore in H.M.A. Case
The facts of the case reveal that a marriage took place
between the petitioner and the sole respondent on 24-04-2014
and thereafter on account of differences, the parties are not
residing together. The undisputed facts also reveal that the wife
has filed a Divorce Petition and in the Divorce Petition the
husband who is respondent before this court has filed an
application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming
maintenance. The order dated 22-06-2018 reveal that wife is
working as Manager in ICICI Bank and she is receiving
approximately 60,000/- salary, whereas the respondent husband
is un-employed. He doesn’t have any job and in those
circumstances based upon the statement made by the parties a
sum of Rs. 10,000/- per months has been granted to the husband
towards maintenance. He has also granted Rs. 5000/- towards
litigation costs and Rs. 2500/- for travelling down to Indore
from Mandsaur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued
before this court that the husband is a well educated person. He
can work also and therefore the order deserves to be set aside.
2 MP No. 3865/2018
This court has carefully gone through the order passed by
the trial court. It is only in respect of grant of interim
maintenance. Undisputedly, the petitioner is a wife and is
earning Rs. 60,000/- per month and Rs. 10,000/- has been
granted to the husband. It is not a final order passed by the trial
court and the parties shall certainly be free to lead all possible
evidence before final order is passed by the trial court.
The apex court in the case of Shalini_Shyam Shetty Vs.
Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in 2010 (8) SCC
329 – 2 in paragraph 49 held as under:
“49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this
Court, the following principles on the exercise of
High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution may be formulated:
(a) A petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution is different from a petition under Article
227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court
under these two Articles is also different.
(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot
be called a writ petition. The history of the
conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is
substantially different from the history of conferment of
the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under
Article 227 and have been discussed above.
(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise
of its power of superintendence under Article 227
of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of
tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it,
in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over
the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it.
In cases where an alternative statutory mode of
redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a
restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court.
(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts
in exercise of its power of superintendence
have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this
regard the High Court must be guided by the principles
laid down by the Constitution Bench of this
Court in Waryam Singh (supra) and the
principles in Waryam Singh (supra) have
been repeatedly followed by subsequent
Constitution Benches and various other decisions
of this Court.
(e) According to the ratio in Waryam
3 MP No. 3865/2018
Singh (supra), followed in subsequent cases, the High
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence
can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals
and Courts subordinate to it, `within the bounds of
(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such
tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction
which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise
the jurisdiction which is vested in them.
(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High
Court can interfere in exercise of its power of
superintendence when there has been a patent
perversity in the orders of tribunals and Courts
subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and
manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of
natural justice have been flouted.
(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High
Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law
or fact or just because another view than
the one taken by the tribunals or Courts
subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other
words the jurisdiction has to be very
(i) High Court’s power of superintendence under Article
227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has
been declared a part of the basic structure of the
Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this
Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of
India others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and
therefore abridgement by a Constitutional amendment is
also very doubtful.
(j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather
cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil
Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code
(Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the
ambit of High Court’s power under Article 227. At the
same time, it must be remembered that such statutory
amendment does not correspondingly expand
the High Court’s jurisdiction of superintendence
under Article 227.
(k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised
on equitable principle. In an appropriate
case, the power can be exercised suo motu.
(l) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered
power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires
that the main object of this Article is to keep strict
administrative and judicial control by the High Court on
the administration of justice within its territory.
(m) 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 this Article is
4 MP No. 3865/2018
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 High
(n) This reserve and exceptional power of
judicial intervention is not to be exercised
just for grant of relief in individual
cases but should be directed for promotion of public
confidence in the administration of justice in the
larger public interest – 3 whereas Article 226 is
meant for protection of individual grievance.
Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be
unfettered but its exercise is subject to high
degree of judicial discipline pointed out above.
(o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will
be counter-productive and will divest this extraordinary
power of its strength and vitality.”
In light of the aforesaid judgment as no patent illegality
has been committed by the trial court and the order passed by
the trial court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, this
court does not find any reason to interfere with the order dated
22-06-2018. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial
within six months.
The admission is declined.
No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
Digitally signed by Rashmi
Date: 2018.08.28 11:03:25