IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19895 of 2011 Anupama Kumari Versus Prabhash Kumar ---------------------------------- 02. 17.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the prayer of the petitioner, this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is heard treating the same as an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.09.2011 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Case No.481 of 2011 whereby the learned Court below in exercise of jurisdiction as provided under Proviso to Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act granted leave to the respondent to present the matrimonial case prior to expiry of one year from the date of marriage. So far the question raised by the petitioner, that there is no hardship caused to the respondent and the finding of the Court below that there was hardship is erroneous. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below could not have granted the leave to present the matrimonial case prior to expiry of one year from the date of marriage. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the application was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 09.07.2011 whereby the - 2 - leave was granted to present the matrimonial case. The learned Court below consider the fact that at the time of disposal of the application one year had already expired and also found that earlier finding that there is exceptional hardship the leave was granted, therefore, rejected the application filed by the petitioner. In view of the above facts, it appears that a possible view has been taken by the lower Court. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Court below has inherent lack of jurisdiction to grant leave to present the matrimonial case. Therefore, if one possible view has been taken by the Court below then in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot substitute its own finding, that there was no hardship because admittedly there is no straight jacket formulae as to what facts constitutes the hardship. It will depend on the facts of each case and also from men to men. Therefore, it is not a case of jurisdictional error. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)