Article 227 Cannot Be Used To Quash Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Plea: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Gwalior Bench has held that a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be used to quash restitution of conjugal rights proceedings pending before a Family Court, reiterating firmly that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be stretched to question a plaint or substitute a Family Court's original jurisdiction.

Justice Amit Seth dismissed the miscellaneous petition filed by a husband seeking quashment of a Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act application filed by his wife before the Family Court, Gwalior, on the ground of maintainability itself, without going into the merits of the underlying matrimonial dispute.

The husband had approached the High Court against the wife's restitution plea, arguing it amounted to "a gross abuse of process of law" and was instituted "for the sheer purpose of harassing the petitioner/husband." His counsel contended he had earlier moved a similar application in 2018, which the wife refused to comply with, and that her 2023 application was a "counter-blast" to his divorce petition, filed on the ground of separation since March 2007.

Appearing for the wife, advocate Madan Mohan Shrivastava raised a preliminary objection on maintainability itself, arguing that Article 227 is purely supervisory and "cannot be invoked to supplant the original jurisdiction of the subordinate court or to bypass statutory remedies." He also pointed out that an earlier order dated June 18, 2025, by a coordinate Bench, which had actually allowed the husband's petition and quashed the wife's Section 9 proceedings, was subsequently recalled on August 13, 2025, in a review petition, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in K. Valarmathi and Others v. Kumaresan.

Advocate Shashank Sharma, appearing with Haush Sharma and Atif for the husband, relied on the Kerala High Court's ruling in Rinju v. Santosh, the Supreme Court's judgment in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Others, and a 2026 Madras High Court order in K. Sivakumar vs. Anita Udayakumar to argue that the plea was maintainable.

The Court, examining the scheme of the Family Courts Act and the Hindu Marriage Act, noted that Section 10 of the Family Courts Act makes the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to proceedings before a Family Court, and that decrees passed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act are appealable under Section 28. It therefore held that "the proceedings under Section 9 of the HM Act are civil proceedings qua which the Court is competent to pass a decree of restitution of conjugal rights."

Relying heavily on the Supreme Court's decisions in Jacky v. Tiny Alias Antony and Others and K. Valarmathi, the Bench observed that "in no case power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be exercised to question a plaint." The Court further remarked that "short-circuiting of procedure to reach hasty outcomes is an undesirable propensity of an overburdened judiciary," and that such impulses render "procedural safeguards and substantive rights otiose."

The Court also rejected the husband's alternative reliance on Article 226, noting that the petition itself had been filed invoking Article 227, and that the Surya Dev Rai ruling stood "partly overruled" by the Supreme Court's later decision in Radhey Shyam and Another v. Chhabi Nath and Others, which held that judicial orders of a civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Importantly, the Bench additionally held that the earlier review order recalling the June 2025 order had already examined and rejected the same arguments now being raised by the husband, and had "attained finality inter se between the parties," making it binding on both sides.

While dismissing the petition on the ground of maintainability, the Court granted the husband liberty "to seek remedy as may be permissible in law," leaving open the possibility of his contesting the restitution proceedings on merits before the Family Court itself, going forward.

Case Title: Devashish Yadav vs. Gunjan Yadav

Date of Order: September 23, 2026

Bench: Justice Amit Seth