Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, holding that the petitioner had no substantive grievance against the High Court order and that the matter should be pursued before the High Court for appropriate interim relief.

Summary

The petitioner, Smt. Shail, was a victim of offences under Sections 376 and 328 of the IPC by the respondent, Manoj Kumar, who later married her to avoid conviction but subsequently deserted her. She filed a maintenance application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court, which was delayed; the High Court directed the Family Court to expedite the matter. When no relief was granted, she invoked the High Court's contempt jurisdiction, leading the High Court to summon the Family Court judge but not award maintenance. The petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court should have directed maintenance and that she was left without relief. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 227 to direct maintenance in appropriate cases, the petitioner had approached prematurely and there was no grievance in the impugned order; consequently, leave was not granted and the petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

What is the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 to direct maintenance in contempt proceedings?
Whether the Supreme Court should entertain a Special Leave Petition against a High Court order that merely summons a subordinate judge without granting relief.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. Section 125
Constitution of Indias. Article 227
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. Section 328, s. Section 376

Subjects

maintenanceSection 125 CrPCArticle 227contempt of courtfamily courthigh court jurisdictionspecial leave petitiondesertiondomestic violence

Judgment

•

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
1. _)r-
next date of hearing and seek appropriate interim and urgent relieffrom the
High Court.

Swya Dev Rai v, Ram Chander Rai and Ors., 120031 6 SCC 675, relied
on.
G
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 H
)-·

650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A Petitioner-in-person.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

The petitioner, appearing in-person, is heard on the question of grant
of leave to appeal.
B
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
is that the initiation of the proceedings in contempt is alright but then she has
F -... !
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 Court has the jurisdiction also to pass itself such a decision or direction as
SMT. SHAIL v. SHRI MANO.I KUMAR 651
the inferior Court or Tribunal should have made. The jurisdiction under A
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 petitiOJler and if convinced that a deserted woman,
repeatedly knocking at its doors, is on the verge of destitution the High Court B
itself has jurisdiction to direct suitable amount of maintenance being awarded
and to secure compliance with its directions, ifthe 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
c
29. I 0.2003 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. D
The special leave petition be treated as disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the High Court forthwith.

R.P. Petition disposed of. E