Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution Seeking Quashing Of Proceedings For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Not Maintainable: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the proceedings arising out of an application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Justice Amit Seth, Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to quash the proceedings instituted under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.
The High Court was considering a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the proceedings arising out of an application filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, on account of abuse of the process of law.
The Single Bench of Justice Amit Seth held, “In view of the aforesaid preposition as expounded by the Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the proceedings instituted by the respondent under Section 9 of HM Act before the Family Court, Gwalior, is not maintainable. The issue framed is thus, answered against the petitioner.”
Advocate Shashank Sharma represented the Petitioner while Advocate Madan Mohan Shrivastava represented the Respondent.
Arguments
The quashment was sought on the ground that the filing of proceedings under Section 9 by the wife was a gross abuse of process of law and the said proceedings had been instituted for the sheer purpose of harassing the petitioner/husband. It was further argued that, in 2018, the petitioner/husband filed an application under Section 9, wherein the respondent/wife categorically refused to reside with him. According to the husband, the present proceedings instituted by the respondent/wife were a counter-blast to the petition for divorce filed by the petitioner/husband on account of alleged separation between the parties since 2007.
Reasoning
Considering that as per Section 28 of the HM Act, all decrees and orders passed by the Family Court are appealable on both facts and law, the Bench stated, “It can, therefore, be safely said that the proceedings under Section 9 of the HM Act are civil proceedings qua which the Court is competent to pass a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.”
The Bench was of the view that the plea made by the husband that the wife declined to reside with him, or the subsequent proceedings instituted by the wife under Section 9 were an attempt to cause harassment to the petitioner, were assertions of fact which were required to be established by leading evidence. “The correctness or merits of the same cannot be gone into by this Court in the present proceedings”, it added.
The Bench further noted that the petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking supervisory jurisdiction, and the Apex Court in Radhey Shyam and Another v. Chhabi Nath and Others (2015) has held that judicial orders of a civil Court are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Thus, the Bench dismissed the petition on the ground of maintainability.
Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-GWL:29158)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Shashank Sharma, Haush Sharma, Atif
Respondent: Advocate Madan Mohan Shrivastava