D v. G, 2026

The case arose from matrimonial proceedings initiated by the wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Gwalior.

The husband approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the proceedings pending before the Family Court.

The husband argued that the wife's proceedings under Section 9 HMA amounted to an abuse of the process of law.

His counsel relied upon the fact that the husband had earlier instituted proceedings under Section 9 HMA and, according to his case, the wife had categorically refused to live with him.

On this basis, the husband contended that the wife's subsequent proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights were legally untenable and should be quashed.

The wife opposed the maintainability of the husband's Article 227 petition.

The wife's counsel argued that although Article 227 gives the High Court supervisory jurisdiction, that power cannot ordinarily be used to bypass statutory remedies or the jurisdiction of the competent subordinate court.

The High Court identified the central question as whether an Article 227 petition could be used to quash proceedings instituted under Section 9 HMA before a Family Court.

The Court considered the nature of proceedings before the Family Court and the remedies available against orders and decrees passed by such courts.

The Court also considered the husband's allegation that the wife had initiated the Section 9 proceedings merely to harass him.

The Court found that such allegations involved disputed factual questions which would require evidence and proper adjudication before the competent court.

The Court therefore declined to examine the merits of those factual allegations in the Article 227 proceedings.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the husband's miscellaneous petition on the ground of maintainability.

The Court held that the petition filed under Article 227 seeking quashing of the Section 9 HMA proceedings before the Family Court was not maintainable in the circumstances of the case.

The Court emphasized that proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 HMA are civil matrimonial proceedings.

The Court considered the Family Court's statutory status and the remedies available in respect of orders and decrees passed by such courts.

The High Court declined to conduct an examination of the factual allegations made by the husband concerning the wife's alleged intention to harass him.

The allegation that the Section 9 proceedings were instituted as an abuse of process would have to be established through evidence before the competent forum.

The Court therefore held that the merits of those allegations could not appropriately be determined in the miscellaneous petition under Article 227.

The Court distinguished the existence of the High Court's supervisory power from an unrestricted power to substitute itself for the statutory adjudicatory process.

The Court also relied upon the principle that judicial orders of a civil court are not ordinarily subject to being challenged through writ jurisdiction under Article 226, while the present petition itself had been framed under Article 227.

The Court noted that an earlier decision rendered by a coordinate Bench between the same parties had been allowed to attain finality and was therefore binding inter se between the parties.

Consequently, the High Court found no basis to interfere with the Family Court proceedings at that stage.

The petition was dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

The Court nevertheless reserved liberty for the petitioner to pursue such other remedy as may be permissible in law.

Scope of Article 227: The judgment reinforces that Article 227 gives the High Court a supervisory power rather than an unrestricted appellate jurisdiction. The High Court ordinarily intervenes to correct jurisdictional errors, serious procedural irregularities or other circumstances warranting supervisory intervention.

Maintainability before merits: A significant feature of the judgment is that the Court addressed the maintainability of the petition before examining the substantive allegations. Once the petition was found not maintainable, the Court did not undertake a detailed determination of the matrimonial dispute.

Section 9 HMA proceedings: Section 9 provides a statutory mechanism for seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The existence of a dispute between spouses concerning their willingness to live together does not, by itself, make proceedings under Section 9 liable to be quashed at the threshold.

Need for evidence: The husband's allegation that the wife initiated the proceedings merely to harass him involved questions of fact. Whether that allegation was correct would require consideration of the parties' conduct, documents and other evidence.

Article 227 versus statutory remedies: The judgment emphasizes that supervisory jurisdiction should not ordinarily become a means of avoiding the remedies and procedures specifically provided by law.

Civil nature of Family Court proceedings: Since matrimonial proceedings before the Family Court are civil in nature, challenges to judicial orders and findings are governed by the relevant statutory framework and established principles governing civil adjudication.

No mini-trial in supervisory jurisdiction: The High Court avoided determining disputed matrimonial facts in a proceeding that was primarily concerned with the maintainability of the challenge.

Effect of previous judicial determination: The Court attached significance to the fact that a prior order of a coordinate Bench concerning the same parties had attained finality. Such a final determination was treated as binding between the parties.

Practical significance: The judgment indicates that a party cannot ordinarily use Article 227 merely as a mechanism to prematurely terminate matrimonial proceedings because the opposing party's factual case is disputed.

Limited nature of the ruling: The decision does not mean that Section 9 HMA proceedings can never be challenged under Article 227. Rather, the Court found the particular petition before it not maintainable and left the petitioner free to pursue any remedy permissible under law.