IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26032 of 2009(R) -------------------------- OP.133/2009 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SULFIKKAR, S/O. SHAMSUDDIN, SULFI MANZIL, PUTHIYAKAVUL KILIMANOOR.P.O., TVM. DIST. REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,NAJEEM, S/O. SHAMSUDDIN, NEDIYAVILA HOUSE, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND SMT.B.MEERA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. NIMLA, D/O. ZAINABA BEEVI, NIMSHA, MANZIL, CHANGAYILKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. AALISHA FATHIMA (MINOR) D/O. NIMLA, NIMSHA MANZIL, CHANGAYILKONAM, PULAYRAKONAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.26032 OF 2009 R ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. Petitioner is the respondent in a proceedings initiated before the Family Court, Nedumangad by the respondents, who are none other than his wife and minor child aged 1 ½ years. During the pendency of that petition, respondents filed an application for interim maintenance. Exhibit P3 is his application and the same bears the date 8.4.2009. The learned Judge of the Family Court vide the impugned order Exhibit P4 which is also dated 8.4.2009 proceeded to direct the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem respectively to the claimants, i.e., wife and minor child. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order and seeks invocation of the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order. Though an amount of Rs.3,000/- and 5,000/- were claimed by the claimants, the court below had awarded only an amount of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem. W.P.(C)No.26032/09 -2- 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is his grievance? Called upon to explain specifically the grievance, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that principles of natural justice appear to have been infringed transparently, as the petition is dated 8.4.2009 and the order is also dated 8.4.2009. No reasonable opportunity has been given to the petitioner to raise his objections against Exhibit P3 petition and even before that Exhibit P4 order was passed by the court below. The contention appears to be very impressive at the first blush, but, we feel that further probing is necessary. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. There is no specific contention even before this Court that the wife has any other employment or income earning activity. That the petitioner is employed abroad as a driver for the past 14 years is also not disputed. 3. We must alertly remind ourselves of the nature, quality and contours of our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Any and every inadequacy will not prompt us to invoke such extraordinary W.P.(C)No.26032/09 -3- jurisdiction. Has there been failure of justice? Has there been gross injustice perpetrated because of the order? These are the concerns that will weigh with us while considering invocation of the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. 4. In the admitted facts before us, though we do not find any fault with the learned counsel for the petitioner for urging the contention that reasonable opportunity has not been given before passing the impugned order, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is for this court to ascertain the proper case in which such jurisdiction can or ought to be invoked. We are not persuaded to agree that the said jurisdiction deserves to be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. This Writ Petition is in these circumstances dismissed. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn