Invocation Of Article 227 Against Final Orders/ Judgments Passed By Sessions Court In Appeal Is 'Almost Barred': Kerala High Court

Article 227 deals with the superintendence of the High Court over all courts and tribunals in its territory.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas referred to multiple Supreme Court decisions which held that a person cannot approach the High Court under Article 227 when there is an alternate remedy available. The High Court held that a person has the remedy of criminal revision petition to challenge the final order of Sessions Court in an appeal made under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act.

“Hence, notwithstanding the power of Article 227 not being circumscribed by any limitation, still, its exercise is limited to exceptional circumstances. When the impugned order is a final order of the judgment in an appeal before the Sessions Court, resort to Article 227 is almost an absolute bar.”

The petitioner initially moved the Sessions Court with an appeal against an order of maintenance passed against him. The Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate had on an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) moved by the wife of the petitioner ordered the petitioner to pay her a monthly maintenance. The Sessions Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Challenging this order, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

A question came before the Court whether the petitioner could approach the court via Article 227. Amicus Curiae Vivek Venugopal submitted that the petition is not maintainable as the power of superintendence can be exercised only in matters that are pending before the trial court.

The petitioner, however argued that the power under Article 227 is all comprehensive and can be invoked even when an alternate remedy is available.

The Court observed that by now, it is settled law that though the power under Article 227 is vast and not limited by statute, it should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. The power is not to be invoked as a substitute for appellate or revisional powers.

Thus the Court held that the instant petition is not maintainable.

Counsel of the Petitioner: Advocates Shaji Chirayath, Raju Joseph, Jiji M. Varkey, M. K. Safeela Beevi, Savitha Ganapathiyatan, M. M. Shajahan

Case No: OP (Crl.) 223 0f 2024 (Filing No.)

Case Title: C. K. Kunjumon v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 556

Click Here To Read/ Download Order