Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45937 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4577 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Arti Kashyap Respondent :- Shiva @ Shiv Nandan Kashyap Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Maurya,Prashant Agarwal,Rupesh Kumar Kasaudhan Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard Shri Prashant Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for the following relief:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that in the interest of justice and the above circumstances, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 as contained in annexure no.6 and further be pleased to allow the application dated 02.07.2025 of the petitioner thereby directing the learned Court of Additional Principal Judge 4, Family Court, Lucknow to start the proceedings a fresh from the stage of order dated 04.04.2024 and subsequent proceedings be quashed/declared as null and void being vitiated on account of without jurisdiction in the Matrimonial Old CASE (R.S.) No.1416/2012 and New Case No.214/2017; Shiva Versus Arti Kashyap (Under Section 13 of the H.M. Act) to secure the ends of justice please". 3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant petition, it will be necessary to take a note of the prelude. 4. The record indicates that matrimonial proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was initiated by the respondent against the petitioner which was bearing Old R.S. No.1416/2012 which was allotted new Case No.214/2017 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow. 5. During pendency of the proceedings, an administrative order dated 20.04.2024 was issued indicating that all files from S.No.85 to 100 (as mentioned in the said administrative order) would be transferred to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow from the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow. 6. The case of the petitioner also fell within the said list of cases, hence, it was transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow. Subsequently, almost four days thereafter on 26.04.2024, another administrative order was passed staying the operation of the earlier administrative order dated 20.04.2024, as a consequence, all the files which had been transferred were reverted back to the Court from where they were called for. However, it is the case of the petitioner that her file was retained by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow while all other files had been sent back. 7. This was assailed by the petitioner by moving an application before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, however, it did not find any favour. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred a transfer application bearing No.223 of 2024 - Arti Kashyap v. Shiva, which was decided by this Court vide its order dated 16.05.2025 and the relevant portion thereof reads as under:- "Be that as it may, this Court at this stage may not delve into the issues regarding the actions of the Principal Judge, Family Court. Since the applicant has moved an application for transfer and there are eight Courts of Additional Judges, Family Court, Lucknow, hence, this Court in the ends of justice and to ally any dispute between the parties is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met by directing the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, to transfer R.S. No. 1416 of 2012 (New Case No. 214 of 2017), Shiva v. Arti Kashyap, to the Court of Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court- IV, at Lucknow forthwith. It is also provided that the transferee Court shall, after affording full opportunity of hearing, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment, shall proceed with the matter on weekly basis, to ensure that the matter is taken to its logical conclusion, within 4 months. The parties shall appear before the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court- IV, Lucknow on 19.05.2025. With the aforesaid observations, this application is allowed. Costs are made easy.". 8. After the said application for transfer was allowed and the parties were directed to proceed and appear before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-IV, Lucknow on 19.05.2025, the petitioner thereafter moved an application on 02.07.2025, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.6, with the prayer that an order be passed by the Court to start the proceedings afresh from the stage of the order dated 04.04.2024 as the subsequent proceedings being without jurisdiction is void and deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. 9. This application has been rejected by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-IV, Lucknow by means of the order dated 14.07.2025 which is under challenge in the instant petition. 10. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the proceedings were held to be without jurisdiction and this Court in the transfer application had transferred the matter to the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-IV, Lucknow, hence, with the effect the date when the administrative order dated 20.04.2024 was passed and till the order of the High Court dated 16.05.2025, all the proceedings held in the interregnum be declared as null and void, hence, this aspect has not been considered by the trial Court. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the material on record. 12. At the outset, it may be noticed that the issue of jurisdiction as sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not as if that the Court itself did not have the jurisdiction to entertain or proceed with the matter. There is a difference in subject matter jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the Court inheritedly to deal with the controversy in the first place. 13. This aspect has been clearly explained by the Apex Court in the celebrated case of Kiran Singh andn others v. Chaman Paswan and others, (1954) 1 SCC 710 which has further been noticed in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. and another, (2005) 7 SCC 791. 14. Applying the principles relating to the jurisdiction as set out by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, all that can be deciphered is a fact that the Court which had passed the administrative order of calling for the files definitely did possess the jurisdiction to do so. 15. For whatever reason the said administrative order was recalled and one of the files was retained, this is not a jurisdictional error. The only apprehension that the petitioner had was the fact while all files have been back then why one particular file has been retained. This was the ground upon which the petitioner had moved the earlier application under Section 24 CPC. Needless to say that the scope of the proceedings under Section 24 CPC are altogether different then the proceedings wherein the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and proceed with the matter is concerned. It will be relevant to point out that the petitioner had never challenged the administrative order on the ground that the Court concerned had no authority to issue it. Later, retention of one file had apprehension of sorts and for this purpose an application under Section 24 CPC was moved. 16. This Court while allowing the transfer application on 16.05.2025 merely transferred the proceedings from one Court to another and it was clearly indicated that the issue regarding the actions of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow was not being considered inasmuch as it had nothing to do with the jurisdiction which was clarified by the Court while passing of the order dated 16.05.2025. 17. A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to indicate that what were the nature of the proceedings which were held after the administrative order dated 04.04.2024 was passed which has caused prejudice to the petitioner and it has been indicated that two orders dated 22.05.2024 and 05.08.2024 were passed by the Court concerned. The said orders have been brought on record at the running page No.94 to 100 of the paper-book and the other order dated 05.08.2024 at running page No.104 to 106 of the paper-book. 18. Both the aforesaid orders if perused would indicate that they have been passed after hearing the parties on merits. Needless to say that if any party is aggrieved by an order, the said party can avail the remedy under the Family Courts Act to take appropriate recourse. Once the said orders were passed and the petitioner succumbed to the said orders and did not choose to assail the same at the time when they were passed, now indirectly, challenging the entire proceedings by virtue of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is nothing but as abuse of the process of law for the simple reason that while transfer application was allowed by this Court by means of the order dated 16.05.2025, it was specifically provided that the transferree Court to whom the proceedings had been transferred would proceed with the matter on weekly basis without granting any unnecessary adjournments to ensure that the matter is taken to its logical conclusion within a period of four months. This order was in the knowledge of the petitioner and in terms of the said order, the petitioner had also appeared in the said Court on 19.05.2025, however, the application which has given rise to the order impugned was filed only in the month of July, 2025. 19. For all the aforesaid reason, this Court finds that neither there is any palpable error in the order passed by the Court dated 14.07.2025 nor there are any bonafides of the petitioner to assail the proceedings on the grounds as alleged in the petition, hence, this Court is of the clear view that the petition is misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench