CASE NAME: D v G
CASE NUMBER: Misc. Petition No. 2816 of 2024
COURT: High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior
DATE: 23 September 2026
QUORUM: Hon’ble Shri Justice Amit Seth
FACTS
The petitioners/husband has challenged the Family Court, Gwalior’s exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 through a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The grounds raised were that there was an abuse of legal process by the wife in filing proceedings under Section 9 as a means to harass him. It was contended by the husband that he had earlier filed proceedings under Section 9 as he would not reside with him in 2018. The subsequent proceedings by the wife under Section 9 were an act of retaliation against his action to seek divorce since March 2007. The first preliminary objection taken up by the respondent/wife was as to the maintainability of the present writ petition. She contended that the jurisdiction provided for in Article 227 is that of supervision and cannot be used to circumvent the jurisdiction and reliefs provided for under the Family Court. Another reliance was placed on the order dated 13 August 2025 wherein the earlier order permitting the filing of the petition by the husband was recalled in review, relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in K. Valarmathi v. Kumaresan, 2025 INSC 606.
ISSUES
- Whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution can be invoked to quash proceedings initiated under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court?
- Whether the High Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to examine factual allegations that the Section 9 proceedings were filed as a counter-blast or for harassment?
- Whether Article 226 could be invoked to quash such proceedings?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Article 227, Constitution of India – Grants the High Court supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and tribunals, ensuring that they exercise powers within their jurisdiction.
- Article 226, Constitution of India – Grants writ jurisdiction to the High Court, separate from the supervisory jurisdiction granted under Article 227.
- Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Gives restitution of conjugal rights in cases when one of the spouses has withdrawn from the society of the other without reasonable cause.
- Section 10, Family Courts Act, 1984 – Provides that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to the proceedings in a Family Court.
- Section 28, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Provisions relating to appeals from decrees and orders made under the Act.
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT:
Husband contended that the proceedings initiated under Section 9 by the wife were an abuse of process of law and were done with an ulterior motive to harass him. Husband invoked earlier Section 9 proceedings of himself, refusal of wife to stay with him along with the proceedings of divorce to argue that the case of wife was simply a counter blast. Husband further cited cases of Rinju v. Santosh, Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and K. Sivakumar v. Anita Udayakumar for invocation of constitutional jurisdiction.
RESPONDENTS:
In support of her case, the wife contended that Article 227 is purely supervisory in nature and cannot be utilized to usurp the jurisdiction of the Family Court or circumvent statutory measures. Her main case rested on the cases of Jacky v. Tiny Alias Antony and K. Valarmathi v. Kumaresan where it was held that questions regarding the maintainability and existence of a fact for a suit are to be resolved under statutory provisions and not under Article 227.
ANALYSIS
The High Court noted that the proceeding by way of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is a civil proceeding. The application of the CPC to Family Court proceedings arises out of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, and granting of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is possible under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, it was held that the proceeding could not be converted into a matter of original jurisdiction under Article 227 of the High Court.
The decision was based on the case of Jacky v. Tiny Alias Antony, (2014) 6 SCC 508, where it was ruled that Articles 226/227 cannot be employed in questioning a plaint in a private civil suit. The intention behind the provisions of Article 227 is to make sure that the subordinate courts act within bounds while exercising their jurisdiction. It is not a mechanism for determining disputed factual allegations between private parties.
The Court also referred to K. Valarmathi v. Kumaresan, 2025 INSC 606, which made it clear that “the supervisory jurisdiction under the Constitution can never be exercised for usurping the original jurisdiction of the trial court”. On the basis of these rulings, the High Court ruled that the husband’s contentions that his wife’s case was merely a counterblast or harassment of her husband were questions of facts which needed to be proved and could not be determined in exercise of powers under Article 227.
The Court further refused to rely upon Surya Dev Rai, observing that this decision had already been partially overruled by Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423 where the difference between Articles 226 and 227 had been explained and it was pointed out that orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction of Article 226.
JUDGMENT
The case was dismissed as not maintainable by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. According to the Court, a petition filed under Article 227 to quash the proceedings of the wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court was not maintainable. The Court decided the main question in the negative for the petitioner and ruled that the allegations of the facts of counter-blast and harassment could not be considered in the present case.
It was also stated that the previous order made on 18 June 2025, in which the petition was allowed, had been revoked on 13 August 2025 in Review Petition No. 1254/2025, and that decision had become final between the parties.
But liberty was accorded to the petitioner in order to seek such relief as he may have available to him.
CONCLUSION
This judgment underscores the limited nature of jurisdiction under Article 227. The High Court is not at liberty to invoke the provisions of Article 227 to dismiss or decide upon any civil proceeding which may be pending in the competent Family Court on the mere ground that abuse of process or counter-blast or harassment has been committed. The facts have to be proved through the proper proceedings and by the proper evidence in the competent court. The decision also reiterates that constitutional supervisory jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass statutory remedies or substitute the High Court for the original jurisdiction of the Family Court.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: KHWAISH SACHDEVA
