Powers Under Article 227 Cannot Be Invoked to Correct Mere Legal Errors — Kerala High Court Refuses to Interfere with Stay of Domestic Violence Order

“Supervisory Jurisdiction Exists Only to Correct Manifest Miscarriage of Justice, Not to Review Interim Orders,” Kerala High Court, presided by Justice G. Girish, delivered a significant ruling clarifying the scope of the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in the context of interim relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act).

In the case titled Mariyam Philip v. Thushara Thomas & Anr. [O.P. (Crl.) No. 576 of 2024], the Court dismissed a petition seeking to set aside an interim stay granted by the Sessions Court, Thalassery, which had temporarily stayed the execution of a protection order only as against the daughter-in-law, pending appeal.

“The Stay Is Limited To Daughter-In-Law—Protection Order Against Son Remains Fully Operative,” Observes High Court

At the heart of the dispute was an order passed by the Gram Nyayalaya, Iritti, in M.C. No. 2/2021, granting the petitioner Mariyam Philip (mother-in-law) relief under the PWDV Act against her son and daughter-in-law, including protection from entry into the shared household, maintenance, compensation, and prohibitory orders.

While both parties had cross-litigations under the PWDV Act, the Sessions Court, pending the daughter-in-law's appeal, passed an order staying the operation of the protection order only against the daughter-in-law, leaving the directions against the son untouched.

Justice Girish noted: “The interim order merely maintains status quo pending appeal. There is absolutely no legal impediment for the petitioner to enforce the protection order as against her son.”

“Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227 Is Not An Appellate Power Over Interim Orders,” Rules High Court

The Court emphatically reiterated the limited scope of its powers under Article 227: “It is well settled that powers under Article 227 of the Constitution could be invoked only when the High Court is satisfied that there is manifest irregularity or impropriety in the orders or proceedings of subordinate courts.”

Quoting the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616, the Court extracted:

“Under Article 227, orders of both civil and criminal courts can be examined only in very exceptional cases when manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned. Such power, however, is not to be exercised to correct a mistake of fact and law.

“Interim Relief Balances Competing Interests—No Prejudice Caused to Petitioner,” Observes Court

The Court observed that the Sessions Court's order was well within its discretion to balance competing interests during the pendency of an appeal.

Justice Girish reasoned: “The order passed by the Sessions Judge cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. On the contrary, it is apparently intended to maintain the state of equilibrium pending the disposal of the appeal on merits.”

Importantly, the Court highlighted that the stay order “did not affect the petitioner’s rights against her son, as the prohibitory relief and other directions against him continued to be in force.”

Key Legal Principles Reaffirmed by the High Court:

• Article 227 jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct mere errors of fact or law.

• It is reserved for situations of jurisdictional error, perversity, or manifest miscarriage of justice.

• Interim relief granted by an appellate court, which maintains balance without nullifying the original order entirely, does not warrant interference.

• Supervisory jurisdiction does not convert the High Court into an appellate authority over interlocutory orders of subordinate courts.

The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition, holding that: “The order passed by the Sessions Court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, illegality, or perversity warranting interference under Article 227. The relief sought by the petitioner is declined.”

This ruling reinforces judicial discipline in the exercise of Article 227 jurisdiction, reminding litigants that it is not an avenue for revisiting interim orders unless gross injustice is demonstrable.

Date of Decision: 12th June 2025