Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against a Judicial Order of High Court is not maintainable

IN THE CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Transferred CaseNo 20 Neelam Manmohan Attavar Manmohan AttavarThr LRs O R D E R The petitioner instituted a writ petition1 under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to challenge a judgment dated 31 July 2018 delivered by a Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in the exercise of the criminal revisional jurisdiction. The relief which was sought in the writ petition was that the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court dated 31 July 2018 in Criminal Revision Petition 282 of 2018 “may be declared void disabled recalled”. For convenience of reference the prayers in the writ petition are extracted below The Writ may be permitted.” Judgment dt 31.7.2018 passed in Crl RP 282 2018 may be declared void disabled recalled to protect rights and secure probity in public life De novo Fresh Free hearing may be recommended before a higher full Bench.” Writ Petition 442318 The writ petition before the High Court has been transferred to this Court on 13 December 2019 under Article 139A of the Constitution in Transfer Petition Criminal) No 3419. The order of transfer reads thus “Having heard the petitioner in person and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through this transfer petition filed under Article 139A of the Constitution of India and considering the facts and circumstances of the case we deem it fit and proper to transfer W.P. No. 44237 2018 titled as “Neelam Manmohan Attavar Vs. Manmohan Attavarthrough LRs” from the High Court of Karnataka to this Court. We order accordingly. The Registry is directed to immediately transmit a copy of this order to the High Court forthwith.” The proceedings which have culminated in the institution of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court need to be summarized briefly at this stage. The petitioner instituted proceedings 2 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 20053. On 30 July 2015 the petition was dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court II Bengaluru. On 5 November 2015 in an appeal 4 arising out of the dismissal of the proceedings the interim relief seeking residence and expenses was initially refused by the Additional Sessions Judge Bengaluru. Subsequently on 19 September 2016 in a petition5 under Article 226 filed by the petitioner the Single Judge recognised a right of residence to the petitioner in a house situated at Bengaluru and on 24 October 2016 directed the withdrawal of the appeal to the High Court. These orders of the High Court became the subject matter of Criminal Misc Petition No 1713 renumbered as Criminal Misc Petition No 1315 4 Criminal Appeal No 10715 Writ Petition No 491516 proceedings before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos 2500 and 25017. On 14 July 2017 this Court set aside the orders passed by the High Court in regard to residence and for the withdrawal of the appeal to itself. On 17 August 2017 this Court also dismissed a petition seeking a review of its judgement dated 14 July 2017. As a consequence of the judgment rendered by this Court the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge was heard on merits and was eventually dismissed by an order dated 17 February 2018. The petitioner carried the matter in revision6 which was dismissed by the High Court on 31 July 2018. Challenging the order of the High Court the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition has been transferred to this Court under Article 139A by an order of this Court dated 13 December 2019 The petitioner who has appeared in person has submitted that the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable on the ground that the order dated 31 July 2018 of the High Court is void ab initio. Elaborating her submissions the petitioner has urged that the order has not been written by the Judge of the High Court. Moreover the petitioner submits that the High Court while disposing of the criminal revision has not exercised its jurisdiction in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. On merits the petitioner has assailed the correctness of the findings of the High Court which affirmed the judgment of the appellate court and held that the original respondent with whom the petitioner claims to have entered into a relationship ‘in the nature of marriage’ had a subsisting marriage and hence such an alleged relationship could not have been legitimately recognized in law 6 Criminal Revision Petition No 2818 The petitioner has challenged this finding of the High Court together with the other findings to the effect thatthere was no shared household andthere was no proof of marriage. The petitioner challenges these findings on the ground that they are erroneous The petitioner has further submitted that in order to put forth a claim based on a relationship in the nature of marriage it is not necessary under the law that neither of the parties should have a subsisting marriage and that notwithstanding the fact that the respondent was in a subsisting marriage a valid claim under the Act would be maintainable in a situation such as the one which has been set up by the petitioner as the foundation for the grant of relief She urged that in a situation such as the present if the respondent who had a subsisting marriage entered into a relationship with her there is no reason why a woman in the relationship should be left without a remedy At the outset and since the petitioner has appeared in person we have made her conscious of the fact that she has instituted a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge an order which has been passed on the judicial side by a Single Judge of the High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction against proceedings which originated from a claim under the Act Urging that the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 the petitioner has highlighted the pleadings contained in the writ petition as the basis for her grievance that the order has not as a matter of fact been scribed by the Single Judge of the High Court. The allegations which have been made in the writ petition are extracted below Grave Injustice and Serious Prejudice Evidence Act S 44 reads fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment or incompetency of court may be proved Judgment passed in Crl RP 282 2018 dated 31.7.2018 is the culminating evidence and testimony to trail of grave injustice and serious prejudice in the instant case where Courts themselves are complicit As submitted to Hon’ble CJ Kar vide CJC 1694 2018 dt 3.8.2018 and instructions dt 21.8.2018 on the evidence placed before Lordship issued on 23.8.2018 the Petitioner is resubmitting the two judgments passed by Hon’ble Sitting Judge of HC in her matters on 31.7.2018 and as PCCJ on 16.2.2016. Also another Judgment passed by “same” Hon’ble Sitting Judge of HC on 27.6.2018 in another matter as material proof of language of the Sitting Judge even on date Judgment in question dt 31.7.2018 is not written by Sitting Judge although it bears his authorship  That such a situation was foreseen after claims of Adv Vasudevan N prior commencement of hearing was duly reported to Ld RG. It is a verifiable fact and prima facie evidence Language of the Hon’ble Sitting Judge of HC is self speaking testimony to the fact. It is impropriety and the judgment should have no values in eyes of Litmus test amplifies further…PS to Director WCD was casually asked to read a free flowing para from each judgment passed in Petitioner’s case Q: Is it written by the same person This was enough to strengthen petitioner’s belief.” The original respondent has died on 12 December 2017. His Legal Representatives have been impleaded as parties to the writ petition Having heard the petitioner who appears in person and Mr. Balaji Srinivasan learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Legal Representatives of the original respondent we are of the view that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be maintainable in order to challenge an order which has been passed by the High Court in the exercise of its judicial powers. In the present case the High Court has exercised its revisional jurisdiction. Merely assailing the order as an order which is void would not enable a litigant to avoid the consequences which emanate from the order by instituting a writ petition under Article 226. A litigant is not without her remedies. An order which has been passed by the High Court can either be assailed in a Letters Patent Appeal in those cases where the remedy of a Letters Patent Appeal is available in law or by way of a reviewSECTION XVI A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transferred CaseNo.1 2020 NEELAM MANMOHAN ATTAVAR Petitioner(s VERSUS MANMOHAN ATTAVARTHR LRS Respondent(s WITITH IA No.84373 2020 APPROPRIATE ORDERS DIRECTIONS & IA No 31910 2020 APPROPRIATE ORDERS DIRECTIONS Date : 03 09 2020 This case was called on for hearing today CORAM : HON BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH Petitioner in person Mr. Balaji Srinivasan AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Transferred Case is disposed of in terms of the signed order Pending applications if any stand disposed of AR CUM PS COURT MASTER Signed order is placed on the file SAROJ KUMARI GAUR

Summary: The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Neelam Manmohan Attavar V. Manmohan Attavar (R) held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable if filed to challenge a Judicial order of a High court.   The division bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice DY Chandrachud and KM Joseph observed that, “we are of the view that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be maintainable in order to challenge an order which has been passed by the High Court in the exercise of its judicial powers. In the present case, the High Court has exercised its revisional jurisdiction. Merely assailing the order as an order which is void would not enable a litigant to avoid the consequences which emanate from the order, by instituting a writ petition under Article 226. A litigant is not without her remedies. An order which has been passed by the High Court can either be assailed in a Letters Patent Appeal (in those cases where the remedy of a Letters Patent Appeal is available in law) or by way of a review (where the remedy of a review is available in a certain class of matters). A remedy is available to a litigant against a judicial order of the High Court passed in revisional proceedings, under Article 136 of the Constitution before this court.”