SMT. SHAIL versus SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 649 · Decided: 29-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, ASHOK BHAN, ARUN KUMAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
1. _)r-
SMT. SHAIL 
A 
v. 
SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AND ORS. 
MARCH 29, 2004 
[R.C. LAHOTI, ASHOK BHAN AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 22 7-Jurisdiction of High Court-Application for maintenance 
filed by wife before fami~y court-Delay in disposal-Wife approaching High C 
Court-Directions issued to family court for expeditious disposal of the 
application-When no substantial result seen to be forthcoming contempt 
petition filed-High Court passed order summoning the Presiding Judge of 
the family court on the date of next hearing-Wife filing petition for special 
leave contending that High Court granted no relief to her--Held, jurisdiction D 
under Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly and with care and caution, but 
is certainly one vesting in the High Court and meant to be e_xercised 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, Lv on the verge of destitution, the High Court itself has jurisdiction 
to direct suitable amount of maintenance being awarded and to secure E 
compliance with its directions, if the same relief the subordinate court has 
failed to grant or lo enforce-May be that the High Court could have passed 
such order on the next date of hearing-Petitioner has approached this court 
prematurely-There is nothing in the impugned order by which the petitioner 
may feel aggrieved-let the petitioner appear before the High Court on the F 
next date of hearing and seek appropriate interim and urgent relief from the 
High Court. 
Swya Dev Rai v, Ram Chander Rai and Ors., 120031 6 SCC 675, relied 
on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Special Leave Petition 
(Crl.) No. 585 of 2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2003 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.C.P. No. 2960 of 2002. 
649 
G 
H 
650 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Petitioner-in-person. 
B 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The petitioner, appearing in-person, is heard on the question of grant 
of leave to appeal. 
The facts of this case disclose an uncommon story. The petitioner was 
victim of an offence under Sections 376 and 328 of 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 happy married life soon 
C 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 
Cr.P.C. 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 
D 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 primafacie case 
E 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 willfully disobeying the orders of the High Court. The petitioner 
seeks leave to file appeal again_st the order of the High Court. Her grievance 
F is that the initiation of the proceedings in contempt is alright but then she has 
been left still 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. 
Q 
In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., (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, may be, by way of guiding the inferior Court or 
Tribunal as to the manner in which it would proceed hence and the High 
H 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.