JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. Heard Shri Dilip Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri U. N. Misra, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the opposite party no.1 may be directed to decide the Civil Misc. Case No.1060 of 2013 "Hari Om Rastogi vs. Rekha Rastogi under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before him expeditiously. 3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the records. 4. Supervisory power under Article 227 , High Court can correct errors of jurisdiction committed by subordinate Courts. It also held that when subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned, the Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. 5. Further, the High Court while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution must take into consideration that it would exercise such powers most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. The power of superintendence exercised over the subordinate courts and tribunals does not imply that the High Court can intervene in the judicial functions of the lower judiciary. The independence of the subordinate courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is of paramount importance, just as the independence of the superior courts in the discharge of their judicial functions. 6. In Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 , Hon'ble the Apex Court held that power of interference under Article 227 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. 7. In Abdul Razak (D) through Lrs. & others Vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and others (2010) 2 SCC 432 , Apex Court reminded that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227, High Courts should not act as if? they are exercising an appellate jurisdiction. 8. 7. In Abdul Razak (D) through Lrs. & others Vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and others (2010) 2 SCC 432 , Apex Court reminded that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227, High Courts should not act as if? they are exercising an appellate jurisdiction. 8. In T.G.N. Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and others (2011) 2 SCC 772 , it has been held that power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is both administrative and judicial, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. 9. Further, well-recognized principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well-established principles of law. The High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or appeal lies to the High Court. 10. The jurisdiction under this article is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, well to remember the well-known adage that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognized constraints. 11. Thus, in view of the facts stated herein above as well as facts stated in the petition, I do not find any good ground or reason to decide the Civil Misc. Case No.1060 of 2013 "Hari Om Rastogi vs. Rekha Rastogi filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.), District-Unnao. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.