CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (crl.) 585 of 2004 PETITIONER: SHAIL RESPONDENT: MANOJ KUMAR AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/03/2004 BENCH: R.C. LAHOTI & ASHOK BHAN & ARUN KUMAR JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2004(3) SCR 649
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 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 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 willfully 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 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.
In Surya Dev Rai V. Ram Chancier 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
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 same
relief the subordinate Court has failed to grant or to enforce. 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.
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.
The special leave petition be treated as disposed of. Let a copy of this
order be communicated to the High Court forthwith.