SSSff' ^gs: cyz HIGH <X>OTtT OF CSHATTIBOAIUB AT BILASPUR Writ Aiioeal No.237 of 2009 APPELLANT: Petitioner Smfc Racha& Rao, age about 35 years, W/o Shri. Prabhakar Rao,. D/o Dr. T.J.R. Naidu, R/o Chiirch Road, Gandhi Nagar, Belrind Balrani TaBdes, Bilaspur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. Famify Court, Bflaspur {CCS) Prabbakar Rao, aged about 39 years, S/o Shri Laxman Rao, R/o Indira Colony, Tarbatiar, Bilaspur (CG) Present: Shri Rahul Birtharey, coiUKel for fhe appeBant •,—».------——--—----—i-^, DIvt^oa Ben®luHon'ble Sttri Dblreadra Mlstea fc Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chaadnikaa. JJ. JUDGMBIIT (16-3-2010) 1. Heard on I.A. Nos. 1/2009 and 2, appUcation for fakmg documents on record. The applications are aMowed and the documCTits are taken on record. , 2. Also heard on I.A, No.3, appUcation for correction crflypographlcal error in fhe petition/memo of appeal and documents annexed. The appUcatton fe allowed and fhe apgellant is perautted to make necessary correction in fhe memo of appeal and the documents annexed, 3. The appeUant is fhe wife'ofrespondent No.2. The Pamity Court, Bilaspur passed a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act with the mutual consent of the parties. ^f-Bs,^ ^A.» ff £ ^.Sft ~"*^VS3t^1 ffSSSS' Respondent No.2 was further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs at the rate of Rs.lO,0(X)/- per monffa to the appeHMit for maintenance of son Adilya. The appeltont filed execution proceedii^ for recovery oftfae suan that was dlr«;tedt6 be paid as maintenance to son Aditya and ni fhe said proceedng, she also filed an appUcation under Section 26 (1)(3) read wlth Section 20('t) • and 22 of fhe Protection of the Women From Domestic Violence Act (for short 'fhe Acf). 4 The aUegation of the appeUant is th&t learned Famfly C<nut refiised to accept fhe above appUcations whereupon the appeBant sent those appUcations through post. In these circiim.stances, the appeUant fHed a wnt petition and prayed for dlrection'to the Famify Court, Bilaspnr, to accept applicatton of (he appeMant sent through registered post for fhe reUefs clauned'therein. 5. Learaed Single Jiidge by the impugned ca-der diamiseed the; petition as not maintainable. 6. Leamed counsel for fhe appeDant submitted fhat in the instant case, the appellant was compelled to file a writ petition before the High Coiut, as fhe Famity Court refused to give acknowledgement. On refusal, sfae wascompelled to send the same through registered post, however, fhe same was also not accepted. Her' application for • disbursement of fhe maiatenance amount jleposited by respondent No.2 was ateo not accepted. On her complamt against tearned Pamity Coxut in the High Court, no actfon hsis been taken. In these circumstances, she had no ot&er option except to ffle a writ petition under Article 226 of the ^- wr Constitution of India. The writ petition has been dismissed oiily the ground that any order passed by theJudicial Authority can be impugned under Article 227 of the Constitation of fadja and EBO • writ can be issued against anyjudicial aufhorily. Suice no order has been passed ia fbe instant case; question of iavoldng supervisory jurisdietionof the H^h Couet iinder Article 227 does not arise. It is clear violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India in refusing t» accept appUcation ty any judicial autliority, In (hese clrcumstances, a wnt of mandainus cominanduig the concemed Famity Court to accept appUcatioin • filed by the appeUant could be issued. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 8. The writ petition has been dismissed wifh an observation "that Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India gives power of SuperinteBdence to the Higb Coiirt over all subordmate Courts ; and tdbiuials to uiterfere with the order passed by fhe Courts below in such cases where perversity, iBegaB.ty, uteguterily or juri.sdicti.onal error is wnt large on (he faceof fhe record, Since titie appeUant is seekuig du-ectioA to the subordinate Court ta condoct ofite proceedir^s, onty remedy available to the appeUant fe' Arttele • 227 ofthe Constitution of India and no writ can be issued under Article 226 against any judicial authority. However, Uberty was ; reserved to ttie appeUant to take recourse to tte remedy available under provisions oflaw, ifso advised. Reliance has beea placed in (he matters of Na»eshSltridhNr Mirajkar Vs. State of Mahanwhtra and another (AIR 1967 SC 1) /. 7| ?W1!F"T '•i-w^ ^^^s: t. ••^f-^'s,^^ ff. •i«.t<-1./ Barve 4 and Radheshyam and another Va. Chhabi Hatb and othera {(2009) 5 SCC 616}. 9. Duru^ the course ofargumente, leamed coi.msel for the appeltent admitted that respondent No.2 has deposited the ainourit as mentioned in the iuformation dated 4-11-2009 furmstaed uader the Right to Information Act by fhe Pubifc Information Qfficer 'of fhe District and Sessions Judge, Bflaspur aad tte appellant has wifhdrawn the same on the dates iadicated in the document. Ife also submitted that on receipt offhe appUcation under Section 26' (1)(2) read vrith Section 20(1) and 22 of fhe Act, the Fanaily Court registered a case on 2-4-2009. The appellant appeared ©n26~5- 2009 and tfae matter was flxed on 30th Juae, 2(X>9, however, on account of absence of the appeUant, the 'proceedir^s were dismissed and thereaflier the appeUant has not taken any action in fhe matter. 10.In view ofthe above fact, which is estabUshed from fhe documents flled by fhe appellant herself, grievance of the appeUant that leamed FamUy Court refused to accept her appUcation arid dld not take any action when the appenant sent those appHcatfons through registered post appears to be incorrect and we do not deem it necessary to consider and decide fhe fesue raised by the appeUant arising out offhe uflpugned jyc^ment. II. On fbe basis of aforesald discussion, we 'Are of the opinion that fhere is no substance in fhis appeal, fhe same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. — T—-' f 'v £7 / a; ^/Af- 1 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd'- R.N. ChaRdrakar Judge