Shahabeen Hameed v. Muhammed Ajnas A.B, 2025
The judgment reinforces the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies, which discourages litigants from directly approaching the High Court under Article 226 when an adequate statutory appeal mechanism exists.
Judgement Details
Court
High Court of Kerala
Date of Decision
3 November 2025
Judges
Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Snehalatha M.B.
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioner filed an Original Petition (Family Court) before the Kerala High Court challenging an order of the Family Court that had dismissed a restoration application filed under Order IX Rule 9 CPC.
-
The original suit before the Family Court was dismissed for non-appearance of the petitioner.
-
The petitioner sought to restore the suit, but the Family Court rejected the restoration application.
-
Instead of filing an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) CPC, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution through an Original Petition.
Issues
-
Whether an Original Petition under Article 226 is maintainable against an order of the Family Court rejecting a restoration application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC?
-
Whether the petitioner should have availed the alternative statutory remedy of appeal provided under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) CPC?
Held
-
The Original Petition was dismissed for non-maintainability.
-
The Court held that the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) CPC, rather than invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
-
The existence of an alternative efficacious statutory remedy bars the maintainability of such petitions under Article 226.
Analysis
-
he judgment reinforces the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies, which discourages litigants from directly approaching the High Court under Article 226 when an adequate statutory appeal mechanism exists.
-
The Court relied on the explicit language of Order XLIII Rule 1(c) CPC, which covers appeals against orders rejecting restoration of suits dismissed for default.
-
This decision serves as a procedural reminder that High Courts are not to entertain petitions under Article 226 in civil procedural matters where specific appellate provisions are available.
-
The ruling contributes to judicial discipline and procedural propriety, preventing misuse of writ jurisdiction and ensuring that hierarchical remedies are duly followed.