Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 706 (ORI)

Satya Sundar Tripathi v. Mamata Tripathi

2007-09-12

I.MAHANTY

body2007
ORDER 12.9.2007 — This petition has been filed before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 18.7.2007 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 782 of 2004. The present dispute is between two private individuals relating to family affairs, which cannot be the subject matter of a writ petition. Apart from that, in a family Court proceeding, the question is one of granting remedy in personal law. The writ petition being a proceeding for a remedy in public law as held by the Supreme Court in number of judgments, the petition under Article 226 against the order of Judge, Family Court is not maintainable. Therefore, it is treated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be exercised very sparingly inasmuch as under Article 227, the High Court has been given merely the power of superintend¬ence. Such power of superintendence is to be exercised in a very rare case. The purpose of such jurisdiction is to keep the Tribunal within the bounds of their authority. Unless there is a miscarriage of justice or lack of jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the proceeding, the jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be lightly invoked. It has been settled by the Supreme Court that jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be restored to correction of errors of facts. From the impugned order we do not find any such circumstance for our interference. Apart from the above, this application arises out of a matrimonial proceeding, which was filed in the year 2004. It appears that though the said proceeding has been dragged for more than three years and the Respondent-husband filed a petition seeking time by filing 11 witnesses, the learned Judge, Family Court has rightly deprecated the said attempt of the Respondent, which is virtually for keeping the matter pending for a longer time. Therefore, learned Judge, Family Court directed both the parties to argue their cases themselves. The Respondent who is the petitioner before us, is an I.P.S. Officer and the wife of the petitioner is also a qualified lady. Therefore, learned Judge, Family Court directed both the parties to argue their cases themselves. The Respondent who is the petitioner before us, is an I.P.S. Officer and the wife of the petitioner is also a qualified lady. That being the factual position, we do not think that the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court is unreasonable nor does the same require any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus the petition is dismissed. Misc. Case Nos. 8671, 8672 and 8673 of 2007 are also dis¬posed of. Petition dismissed.