Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court dismissed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging a Sessions Court’s order that stayed certain directions passed by the Gram Nyayalaya, Iritti in a domestic violence case. The High Court held that:
“The interim order of stay… cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. It is apparently intended to maintain the state of equilibrium and status quo pending the disposal of the appeal on merits.”
It reiterated that powers under Article 227 are to be exercised sparingly and only in cases of manifest miscarriage of justice.
Facts
The petitioner, a 72-year-old woman, filed a domestic violence petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) before the Gram Nyayalaya, Iritti against her son and daughter-in-law. In MC No.2/2021, the Nyayadhikari granted multiple reliefs in her favour, including a restraining order prohibiting the respondents from entering the shared household and orders for maintenance and compensation.
Simultaneously, the daughter-in-law filed a cross-petition (MC No.3/2021) seeking protection and alternate accommodation, which was also allowed. An appeal was filed before the Sessions Court challenging the order in MC No.2/2021, and the court stayed the order against the daughter-in-law alone while leaving the order against the son untouched.
Issues
- Whether the Sessions Court’s stay on part of the Nyayadhikari’s order warranted interference under Article 227?
- Whether the interim stay order resulted in a miscarriage of justice to the petitioner?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Sessions Court’s order staying the operation of the Nyayadhikari’s decision, albeit partially, was arbitrary and adversely affected her right to enjoy peaceful possession of the shared household. It was contended that the appeal was frivolous and an attempt to frustrate the reliefs obtained in the original proceedings.
Respondent’s Arguments
The second respondent (son) supported the Sessions Court’s order and submitted that the stay was limited only to the daughter-in-law and that the Nyayadhikari’s order against him remained enforceable. It was further argued that the interim stay was meant to preserve status quo until final disposal of the appeal.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court relied on the principle that Article 227 jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate. It invoked the precedent laid down in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616, where the Supreme Court held that High Courts can interfere under Article 227 only in cases of gross jurisdictional errors or manifest miscarriage of justice, and not to correct mere errors in law or fact.
Precedent Analysis
The Court cited Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616, which clarified the limited scope of Article 227. It emphasized that:
“Orders of both civil and criminal courts can be examined only in very exceptional cases when manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned.”
This precedent guided the Court in holding that the impugned order did not warrant intervention.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that:
- The stay granted was clearly restricted to the daughter-in-law, and enforcement against the son was untouched.
- The Sessions Judge’s approach sought to maintain balance and status quo, not undermine the Nyayadhikari’s findings.
- No irregularity, perversity, or miscarriage of justice was demonstrated.
Thus, it found no reason to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the original petition, upholding the Sessions Court’s interim order. It preserved the petitioner’s right to enforce the Nyayadhikari’s order against the son and allowed the appeal process to continue unimpeded.
Implications
This ruling underscores judicial restraint in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and affirms that High Courts will not interfere with interim appellate decisions unless they result in egregious injustice. It also reinforces the autonomy of appellate courts to maintain balance pending final adjudication, particularly in family disputes involving domestic violence.
Summary of Referred Case
Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s power under Article 227 is limited to situations involving manifest miscarriage of justice or jurisdictional errors. It cannot be used to correct mere legal or factual mistakes.
Also Read: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against In-Laws in Dowry Cruelty Case
