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 No. 524/2017.
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.
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. Â
(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.     Â
(e) According to the ratio in Waryam 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 their authority'.
(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 sparingly
exercised.   Â
(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 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 Court.           Â
(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 â€" 3 whereas Article 226 is meant forÂ
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. Â
(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.
