NEETHU JAGDISH Vs. MANUMOHAN MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed O.P.No.1159 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad, under Sec. 13(1)(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the respondent herein-husband, seeking a decree of divorce to dissolve the marriage solemnised between them on 20/3/2009 at Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayur. The petitioner-wife filed I.A.No.3 of 2022 (Ext.P3) before the Family Court, seeking time-bound disposal of O.P.No.1159 of 2018. In that interlocutory application, the Family Court passed an order dtd. 13/9/2022, which is placed on record as Ext.P5, along with I.A.No.1 of 2023. The said order reads thus;

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-wife. Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted, service of notice on the respondent-husband is dispensed with.

(3.) In Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab [(2006) 8 SCC 294] the Apex Court held that the power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over all courts and Tribunals throughout the territory of the State is both of administrative and judicial nature and it could be exercised suo motu also. In Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath [(2015) 5 SCC 423] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court reiterated that Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked by the High Court suo motu as a custodian of justice.