SKARIA K.C. @ CHACKO SKARIA Vs. SOFI SKARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 by the petitioner, who is the respondent in O.P. No. 2546/2001 on the files of the Family Court, Ernakulam for recovery of money and ornaments, is Ext. P12 order passed by that Family Court. Ext. P12 is passed by the Family Court on I.A. No. 1706/2012 filed by the petitioner. The prayer in the above I.A. was that the parties be referred to a Medical Board for psychological counselling. The learned Family Court by the impugned order found that there is no warrant for referring the parties to psychological counselling. The main ground raised by the petitioner is that Ext. P2 was a principal document relied on by the petitioner in support of I.A. No. 1706/2012 and the learned Judge of the Family Court did not even look into Ext. P2. We remind ourselves immediately of the well delineated contours of our jurisdiction under Article 227. Jurisdiction under Article 227 is visitorial in nature and will be invoked only very sparingly. When Ext. P12 is gauged by the parameters that are applicable to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, we are convinced that there is no warrant at all for the exercise of the above jurisdiction. Ext. P12 cannot said to be per se illegal in the sense that it was passed without jurisdiction or that it offends clear provision of law either statutory or settled. Ext. P12 cannot be said to be a perverse order in the sense that such an order will not be authored by anybody having reasonable learning and training in law.