- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shail (Smt) v. Manoj Kumar And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, alleging that she had been subjected to offences under Sections 376 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code by the respondent, agreed to marry him when he offered marriage to avoid criminal conviction. Shortly after the marriage, the respondent deserted her. The petitioner then filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Khanpur Nagar. Faced with delays, she approached the High Court, which directed the Family Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously. When this direction remained ineffective, she instituted contempt proceedings against the Presiding Judge of the Family Court. By order dated 29-10-2003, the High Court recorded a prima facie case of non-compliance and summoned the Presiding Judge for framing of charges. Dissatisfied because no maintenance was actually awarded, the petitioner sought special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether special leave to appeal should be granted against the High Court’s order that initiated contempt proceedings but did not award maintenance to the petitioner.
- Whether, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court could or should itself have directed payment of maintenance to the petitioner.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The High Court, while initiating contempt for disobedience of its earlier order, should also have granted her substantive relief by directing immediate payment of maintenance.
- Failure to grant such relief has left her without support and on the brink of destitution.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 | The High Court’s power under Article 227 to issue directions to subordinate courts and, where appropriate, to itself pass the order that the subordinate court should have passed. | The Supreme Court relied on this decision to note that the High Court possessed adequate jurisdiction to award maintenance directly if the circumstances so warranted, suggesting that the petitioner should pursue such relief before the High Court rather than through an immediate appeal. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that Article 227 empowers a High Court not only to supervise subordinate courts but, in suitable cases, to pass the order that the subordinate court ought to have made. Referring to Surya Dev Rai, the Court noted that the High Court could, if satisfied about the petitioner’s destitution, itself direct payment of maintenance and ensure compliance. Because the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court prematurely—before requesting such relief on the next scheduled date before the High Court—the Court found no substantive grievance arising from the impugned order, which merely initiated contempt proceedings. Consequently, it held that granting special leave was unnecessary and advised the petitioner to seek interim or urgent relief directly from the High Court.
Holding and Implications
The special leave petition is DISPOSED OF; leave to appeal is refused.
Immediate consequence: the petitioner must appear before the High Court on the next date of hearing to seek maintenance or other interim relief. The Supreme Court expressed confidence that the High Court would grant appropriate relief if merited. No new legal precedent was set; the decision reiterates existing principles governing the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
Order
1. The petitioner, appearing in person, is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal.
2. The facts of this case disclose an uncommon story. The petitioner was the victim of an offence under Sections 376 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code at the hands of the respondent Manoj Kumar. To save himself from the peril of conviction, the respondent agreed to enter into a marriage with the petitioner and the petitioner too agreed to do so. The dream of a happy married life soon turned out to be a nightmare as the petitioner was deserted by the respondent. On these averments the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Khanpur Nagar. The delay in disposal of the application persuaded the petitioner to knock the doors of the High Court. The High Court showed indulgence to the petitioner by directing the Family Court to expeditiously conclude the proceedings. As no substantial relief was forthcoming, the petitioner this time invoked the contempt jurisdiction of the High Court complaining of non-compliance with the orders of the High Court by the Presiding Judge, Family Court. By order dated 29-10-2003, the learned Judge of the High Court has expressed his anguish having found a prima facie case of non-compliance with the orders of the High Court having been made out. The High Court has directed summoning of the Presiding Judge of the Family Court to appear before the High Court in person for the purpose of framing charges for wilfully disobeying the orders of the High Court. The petitioner seeks leave to file appeal against the order of the High Court. Her grievance is that the initiation of the proceedings in contempt is alright but then she has still been left high and dry as no relief has been allowed to her. Appearing in person, she submits that the High Court ought to have directed award of maintenance to her and ought to have seen to some relief being granted to her so as to save her from destitution.
3. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675 this Court has held that in exercise of power of superintendence conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the High Court, the High Court does have power to make such directions as the facts and circumstances of the case may warrant, maybe, by way of guiding the inferior court or tribunal as to the manner in which it would proceed hence and the High Court has the jurisdiction also to pass itself such a decision or direction as the inferior court or tribunal should have made. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is to be exercised sparingly and with care and caution, but is certainly one vesting in the High Court and meant to be exercised in appropriate cases. If convinced of the genuineness of the averments made by the petitioner and if convinced that a deserted woman, repeatedly knocking at its doors, is on the verge of destitution the High Court itself has jurisdiction to direct suitable amount of maintenance being awarded and to secure compliance with its directions, if the subordinate court has failed to grant or to enforce the same relief. May be that the High Court could have passed such order on the next date of hearing. But the petitioner has approached this Court probably impelled by impatience.
4. It is not necessary to grant leave to appeal against the order dated 29-10-2003 of the High Court. There is nothing in the impugned order by which the petitioner may feel aggrieved. Let the petitioner appear before the High Court on the next date of hearing and seek appropriate interim and urgent relief from the High Court which if deserving, we have no reason to assume why the High Court shall not grant to the petitioner.
5. The special leave petition be treated as disposed of.
6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the High Court forthwith.
Alert