Trilok Nath Jha v. Sarita Kumari @ Sarita Jha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.471 of 2015 ======================================================

1. Trilok Nath Jha Son of Shiv Narayan Jha R/o - Village - Dullipatti Visa Tola, P.S. - Jainagar, Distt. - Madhbani .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Sarita Kumari @ Sarita Jha W/o - Trilok Nath Jha, D/o - Pavitra Narayan Jha R/o - Village - Jainagar, P.S. - Jainagar, Distt. - Madhubani. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimal Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 01-03-2016 Heard Mr. Bimal Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

In this application under Article 227 of the Constitutions of India prayer has been made for issue of writ/writs/direction/directions in the nature of prohibition for setting aside the entire proceeding of Matrimonial Case No. 249 of 2006 and for holding and declaring that the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2007 / 12.04.2007 passed in Matrimonial Case No. 249 of 2006 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna is absolute.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalimi Shyam Shetty & anr -v- Rajendra Shnkar Patil, (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 329, has held that writs can be issued by the High

Patna High Court CWJC No.471 of 2015 (2) dt.01-03-2016 2/2 Courts only under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and by the Supreme Court only under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. No writ petition can be moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India nor can a writ be issued under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be called a writ petition. Since in Patna High Court Rules there was no provision for registering an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, all applications filed under Article 227 were registered as civil writ cases.

Now, therefore, merely because the application has been registered as civil writ jurisdiction cases, the High Court cannot issue writs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the order passed by the court below is of civil court and in view of recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam -v- Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 423, the judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. Further, in the present case for general direction the application under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable. Thus, this writ application is dismissed.

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) singh/- U