1 2026:CGHC:24165 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 644 of 2026 Dr. Prajwal Pradeep S/o Mr. Pradeep Soni Aged About 43 Years R/o Soni Mult Speciality Hospital Abhanpur Tahsil Abhanpur District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner versus Dr. Gurpreet Kour W/o Dr. Parajwal Pradeep Soni Aged About 42 Years D/o Late Manindar Pal Singh R/o 61, Moti Lal Nehru Nagar Bhilai District Durg C.G.- Current R/o J-27, Avinash New County Sector -30, New Raipur Tahsil Abhanpur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board 16/06/2026 Heard. 1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner-husband calling in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the orders dated 04.06.2026 and 05.06.2026 (Annexure P/8 colly.) and memo dated 05.06.2026 VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.06.17 18:43:34 +0530 2 (Annexure P/10) passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, in Case No. 91/2022, whereby, while dealing with the issue of interim custody/visitation of the minor child namely Hunar @ Nihal Soni, aged about 9 years and 7 months, the learned Family Court directed that the custody of the child be handed over to the respondent-wife and further directed that, in the event of non-compliance of the orders by the petitioner, the assistance of the police and Child Welfare Committee be taken for handing over the custody of the child to the respondent-wife. The petitioner prayed for following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition, call for the record and set aside the impugned orders dated 04.06.2026, 05.06.2026 & Memo dated 05.06.2026 (Annexure P/10) passed by learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge Family Court Raipur, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and direct the learned 3rd Add. Principal Judge Family Court Raipur to pass a revised order after interacting with the child, in the interest and welfare of the child. 10.3 An affidavit in support of this petition is filed herewith.” 2. The undisputed factual matrix reveals that the respondent-wife instituted proceedings before the learned Family Court, Raipur seeking custody of the minor child under the provisions of Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. During the pendency of the proceedings, the learned Family Court had passed an order on 3 23.06.2025, by which the application filed by the respondent-wife for immediate custody of minor child was dismissed. The said order dated 23.06.2025 was challenged by the respondent-wife before this Court in WP(227) No. 808 of 2025, which was decided by coordinate bench of this Court on 24.02.2026, whereby the Family Court was directed to take a decision with respect to interim custody of the child and also directed to know the wishes of the child, as to with whom he wants to live. Thereafter, on 10.04.2026, the Family Court passed an order after having conversation with the child and made arrangement of interim custody of the child and also ordered that, in the summer vacations the minor child will remain in custody of the petitioner- husband from 01.05.2026 to 30.05.2026 and in between that period, the respondent-wife will take the child on every Saturday, at 6:00 PM and the petitioner-husband will take him back on every Sunday at 6:00 PM. This arrangement was only for the period of summer vacations. It is also ordered that, in the winter vacation the minor child will remain in custody with the petitioner-husband for two days. 3. As per the order passed by learned Family Court, the custody of the child was handed over to the petitioner-husband on 01.05.2026. as per the order dated 10.04.2026, the respondent-wife came to the house of the petitioner-husband on 23.05.2026 (Saturday) to take the child back with her, but the child was not willing to go with the respondent-wife and then the petitioner-husband made an application on 23.05.2026 to the learned Family Court on the same day i.e. on 23.05.2026 that after having a conversation with the child, appropriate orders may be passed. However, the learned Family Court has not passed any order on the application. On 30.05.2026, 4 the respondent-wife has made an application before the learned Family Court for taking custody of the child with the help of police personnel and the case was again taken up for hearing ion 04.06.2026 for consideration on the application filed by the respondent-wife on 30.05.2026. Thereafter, on 04.06.2026, the learned Family Court directed the petitioner-husband to handover the custody of the child to the respondent-wife on 04.06.2026 itself and she will inform the court on 05.06.2026 about the same. If the petitioner-husband will not comply with the order, the court will constrain to take the help of the police personnel for execution of the order. 4. On 05.06.2026, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the parties were appeared before the learned Family Court and the respondent-wife had again made an application for handing over the custody of the child with the help of police personnel/Child Welfare Committee. However, no order was passed at the time, when they leave the Court regarding issuance of memo to the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Raipur and Child Welfare Committee, Raipur for taking custody of the child from the petitioner-husband to the respondent-wife. The said order dated 04.06.2026, 05.06.2026 and the memo issued to the Superintendent of Police and Child Welfare Committee on 05.06.2026 are under challenge in the present writ petition. 5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders suffer from patent illegality and jurisdictional error. It is submitted that this Court, in the earlier round 5 of litigation, specifically directed the Family Court to interact with the child and ascertain his wishes before arriving at a conclusion regarding his welfare, the Family Court could not have ignored the subsequent change in circumstances brought to its notice by the petitioner without undertaking a fresh interaction with the child. The petitioner-husband is ready and willing to comply with the order passed by the learned Family Court, but the child himself is not willing to go with the respondent-wife and started crying and insisting on staying with his father. He would further submit that on 23.05.2026 itself, the petitioner-husband made an application before the learned Family Court informing the situation and the petitioner-husband cannot forcefully throw him in the custody of the respondent-wife and requested before the learned Family Court to interact with the child and to pass appropriate order, but his application was not considered. He would also submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to produce the child before this Court to ascertain his wishes or he may be directed to produce the child before the learned Family Court, who may interact with him afresh and to pass appropriate order. It is also submitted by him that the learned Family Court passed the order for handing over the custody of the child with the help of police personal, however in the matter of custody of the child, the police personal are not required to be involved. It would affect the welfare of the child and create a mental trauma upon him. The petitioner is a qualified medical doctor and having very good reputation in the locality and the society. Indulgence of the police would also create harm in his reputation, which would seriously prejudice his career. It is further submitted that orders relating to 6 custody are inherently temporary in nature and are always subject to modification depending upon changing circumstances affecting the welfare of the child. The learned Family Court was required to interact with the child before passing the order on 04.06.2026 and 05.06.2026 and to pass the order according to his wish. Therefore, the petition may be allowed and the impugned orders may be set aside. 6. In support of his submission, he would rely upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka and others” 2022 Live Law (SC) 643, “Jai Prakash Khadaria v. Shyam Sunder Agarwalla and another” 2000 (6) SCC 598, “Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal” (1973) 1 SCC 840 and the order dated 20.05.2025, passed by Kerala High Court in MAT Appeal No. 398 of 2025. 7. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent- wife opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the conduct of the petitioner- husband was suspicious and instead of complying with the orders passed by the learned Family Court, he is roaming here and there along with the child, which does affect the welfare of the minor child and creating mental trauma upon him. Only to avoid the compliance of the order dated 10.04.2026 and with intention to not to returned the custody of the minor child to the respondent-wife, he made an application on 23.05.2026 that the child is not willing to go with his mother and to interact again with him. He would also submit that the interaction with the child again and again by the Court within short 7 intervals would expose the child to avoidable stress and may facilitate tutoring or parental influence. The child was ordered to be handed over to the petitioner-husband from 01.05.2026 to 30.05.2026 and thereafter the petitioner-husband is required to hand over the custody of the child back to the respondent-wife, but he is flouting the orders passed by the learned Family Court. Considering the non-compliance of the orders, the learned Family Court passed the order on 05.06.2026 for help of the police personal and Child Welfare Committee for compliance of its order. He would draw attention to this Court to the order dated 05.06.2026 that the petitioner-husband has refused orally before the Court that he will not handover the custody of the child back to the respondent-wife on that day, and then the order has been passed by the learned Family Court. In compliance of the order dated 05.06.2026, the learned Family Court issued a memo to the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Raipur for police force in civil dress and Child Welfare Committee, Raipur to take custody of the child from the petitioner-husband and handover the same to the respondent-wife. When the police personal and members of the Child Welfare Committee had gone to the residence of the petitioner-husband on repeated attempts, he was not found there along with the child on all the times and the petitioner-husband is not cooperating. Such a conduct of the petitioner-husband itself sufficient to consider that the welfare of the child is not with the petitioner-husband. 8. It is also argued that the order dated 10.04.2026 was passed after complying with the directions issued by this Court and after interacting with the child. The said order attained finality insofar as 8 interim arrangement was concerned and was binding upon both parties. The petitioner, under the guise of alleged unwillingness of the child, was deliberately frustrating implementation of the visitation arrangement and was attempting to keep away the child from the respondent-wife. It is further argued that the Family Court possesses ample powers to enforce its own orders and the impugned directions were issued only because the petitioner failed to comply with the subsisting custody arrangement. The welfare of the child necessarily includes preservation of his emotional bond with both parents and the respondent, being the natural guardian entitled to visitation under the subsisting order, cannot be deprived of such access merely on the basis of unilateral assertions made by the petitioner. In support of his submission, he would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh” 2017 (3) SCC 231. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is necessary here to notice the relevant part of sequence of orders passed by learned Family Court, which is the subject matter and issue between the parties. Learned Family Court, Raipur has passed the order on 10.04.2026 that: ******* “ माननय उच्च न्ययलय के द्वारा डब्ल पी 227 नबरा 808/2026 के पीरिराप्रेक्ष्य मा अपीत्य हुनरा के अभिराक्षा के संबध मा पी न! उसंके" इच्छा जानन के पीश्चात इसं न्ययलय के( आदेश केरान हेत निनदे.शिशत निकेय गय हे1 । ******* अपीत्य हुनरा उर्फ4 निनहेल सं(न वत4मान मा अपीन मा आवदिदेके के संथ राहे राहे हे1 तथ उसं के संथ न्ययलय आय 9 हे1 । इसं प्रेकेरा अपीत्य माननय उच्च न्ययलय के आदेश के पीलन के पीव4 अनवदेके के संपीके4 मा नहे8 आय हे1 । माननय उच्च न्ययलय के न्ययदृष्टांत श्रीमात नहे शमा4 निवरुद्ध के शल निकेश(रा शमा4 एर्फ एमा नबरा 115/2022 निनर्ण4य दिदेनके 04.04.2025 के अन संरा अपीत्य के पीरावरिराश के देयियत्व मात- निपीत के हे1 इसंशिलए मात- निपीत के देयियत्व हे1 बच्च के निवकेसं के शिलए निवचारा केरा । उक्त न्ययदृष्टांत के पीरिराप्रेक्ष्य मा अपीत्य के" इच्छा जानन के पीव4 अपीत्य के( आध घंटा अनवदेके के संथ निकेलकेरा केक्षा मा निबतन/ राहेन के निनदे.शिशत दिदेय जात हे1 तथ आवदिदेके के( निनदे.शिशत निकेय जात हे1 निके जिजासं प्रेकेरा अपीत्य उसंके अयिधपीत्य मा थ तब अनवदेके अपीत्य के संथ नहे8 थ उसं प्रेकेरा आवदिदेके अपीत्य के पीसं नहे8 ब1ठेग औरा न हे अपीत्य एव अनवदेके के( उक्त अवयिध मा हेस्तक्षापी केराग । लनिकेन आवदिदेके दूरा मा राहेकेरा देख संकेत हे1 पीश्चात उयपीक्षाकेरा अपीत्य के( अके ल आध घंटा तके न्ययलय मा छो(डग । पीश्चात अपीत्य हुनरा उर्फ4 निनहेल सं(न के" स्वतत्र इच्छा के संबध मा उयपीक्षाM के" उपीस्थिOनित मा ख ल न्ययलय मा पीछोतछो जावग । ******* अत! प्रेकेरार्ण एके घंटा बदे पीश हे( । ( आनंद कु मार ध्रुव) तPतय अनित. प्रेधन न्ययधश के टा म्ब न्ययलय रायपी रा (छो.ग.) पुनंश्च - ******* आव दिदेके संनिहेत श्री अमान खन न्यययिमात्र उपीस्थिOत । ******* अनव देके संनिहेत श्री ल के श यिमाश्री न्यययिमात्र उपीस्थिOत । ******* एके घंटा पीश्चात आव दिदेके एव अनव देके जा( निके अपीत्य हुनरा उर्फ4 निनहेल सं(न के मात- निपीत हे1 उनके" उपीस्थिOनित मा ख ल न्ययलय मा अपीत्य के" इच्छा के संबध मा पीछोतछो केरा बयन ल खबद्ध निकेय गय, पीश्चात उसं उन्मा क्त निकेय गय । ******* अपीत्य हुनरा के बयन के आधरा पीरा वहे अपीन माम्मा / आव दिदेके के पीसं राहेन व्यक्त निकेय हे1 तथ छो दिSयM मा अपीन इच्छान संरा अपीन पीपी/ अनव देके के पीसं निबतन चाहेत हे1 । चानिके अपीत्य अपीन इच्छा अपीन माम्मा के संमाक्षा प्रेकेटा केरा ग । यदिदे उसंके" माम्मा उसंके पीपी सं यिमालन नहे8 ल जाय ग त( 10 अपीत्य के" इच्छा पीरा नहे8 हे(ग । इसं प्रेकेरा ग्रीष्माकेलन एव शतकेलन अवकेश के संबध मा पीछोतछो निकेय गय । अपीत्य अपीन पीपी के पीसं आध संमाय राहेन व्यक्त निकेय हे1 । इसं संबध मा अपीत्य के माम्मा सं अपीत्य के स्के ल वर्षिWXके के1 लडरा आहूत निकेय गय, जिजासं पीरा अपीत्य के मात- निपीत न हेस्तक्षारा निकेय हे1 जा( निके इसं आदे श के अग हे(ग। ******* अपीत्य के इच्छा के आधरा पीरा अपीत्य अपीन निपीत सं प्रेत्य के माहेन के दूसंरा शनिनवरा के( छो(ड़केरा श W माहेन के शनिनवरा के" शमा 06:00 बजा अपीन स्के ल के बस्त ( यदिदे हे(मा वके4 यिमाल हे1) के संथ घंरा सं जाय ग । अपीत्य के" माम्मा/ आव दिदेके रानिववरा शमा 06:00 बजा अपीत्य के( ल न जाय ग । अपीत्य स्के ल के1 लडरा के" छो दिSय[ जिजासंमा ग रुननके जायत एव केमाराछोटा मा अपीन मा के पीसं राहे ग तथ राख त्य(हेरा मा आध- आध दिदेवसं अपीन मात- निपीत के संथ निबतय ग, जिजासंके संमाय के निनध4रार्ण उ यपीक्षाकेरा यिमालकेरा केराग । ******* अपीत्य के स्के ल के1 लडरा अन संरा देशहेरा मा 5 दिदेन के अवकेश हे1 तथ दे\पीवल 6 दिदेन के अवकेश हे1 । उक्त छो दिSयM मा प्रेरा के तन- तन दिदेन अपीत्य अपीन निपीत के पीसं छो S\ प्रेरा हे(न के दिदेनके सं शमा 6 बजा जाय ग औरा तसंरा दिदेन शमा 6 बजा अपीत्य के" माम्मा/ आव दिदेके रानिववरा शमा 06 बजा अपीत्य के( ल न जाय ग । ******* ग्रीष्माकेलन अवकेश मा अपीत्य दिदेनके 01.05.2026 सं 30.05.2026 तके अपीन निपीत के पीसं राहे ग उक्त अवयिध मा आव दिदेके प्रेत्य के शनिनवरा के" शमा 06:00 बजा अनव देके के घंरा सं अपीत्य के( ल न जाय ग औरा रानिववरा शमा 06:00 बजा अपीत्य के( ल न अनव देके जाय ग ( ग्रीष्माकेलन अवकेश मा लग हे(ग) तथ शतकेलन अवकेश मा 2 दिदेन अपीन निपीत के पीसं राहे ग । अपीत्य शमा 05 बजा अपीन स्के ल के बस्त (यदिदे हे(मा वके4 यिमाल हे1) के संथ जाय ग । अपीत्य के निपीत अपीत्य के" रुकेन के" अवयिध पीरा हे(न पीरा अपीत्य के" माम्मा/आव दिदेके रानिववरा शमा 06 बजा अपीत्य के( ल न जाय ग । अपीत्य के मात- निपीत/आव दिदेके/ अनव देके अपीत्य के( अभि राक्षा मा ल न - दे न हे त 15 यिमानटा सं आध घंटा सं अयिधके इतजारा नहे8 केरायग तथ यदिदे आव दिदेके/ अनव देके स्वय ल न नहे8 जायग औरा पीरिरावरा के 11 संदेस्य के( जाग य स्टा]र्फ ल न जायग त( उ यपीक्षाकेरा इसंके" संचान र्फ(टा( संनिहेत मा(बईल पीरा देग । ******* आव दिदेके न व्यक्त निकेय निके अपीत्य हुनरा उर्फ4 निनहेल सं(न ग्रीष्माकेलन अवकेश मा नि_के टा संखन अटाल नि_के टा अके डमा नय रायपी रा जात हे1 । अत! यहे आदेशिशत निकेय जात हे1 निके उक्त अवयिध मा अपीत्य उयपीक्षाM के जिजासंके आयिधपीत्य मा अपीत्य राहेग वहे अटाल नि_के टा अके डमा नय रायपी रा छो(डन औरा लन जायग । ******* उक्त आदेश अपीत्य के इच्छा के आधरा पीरा निकेय जा राहे हे1, जिजासं पीरा उयपीक्षाकेरा निकेसं प्रेकेरा के हेस्तक्षापी नहे8 केराग । प्रेकेरार्ण आवदिदेके संक्ष्य हेत निनयत हे1 । अत! प्रेकेरार्ण आवदिदेके संक्ष्य हेत निनयत निकेय जात हे1 । ******* प्रेकेरार्ण आवदिदेके संक्ष्य हेत दिदेनके 18/06/2026 ( आनंद कु मार ध्रुव) तPतय अनित. प्रेधन न्ययधश के टा म्ब न्ययलय रायपी रा (छो.ग.) 11. On 23.05.2026, the petitioner-husband has filed the application before the learned Family Court with the averment that the child is not willing to go with his mother and after interacting with the child appropriate orders may be passed. The relevant part of his application is as under:- “1. यहे निके अनवदेके मान. न्ययलय आदेशन संरा दिदे. 10/4/26 सं 'बलके' के( शनिनवरा शमा सं रानिववरा शमा तके, आवदिदेके के( बलके हुनरा सं(न के" अभिराक्षा सं`पीन के शिलए हेमाश त1यरा राहे हे1। 2. यहे निके बलके हुनरा सं(न आजा शनिनवरा दिदे. 23/5/26 के( शमा 6 बजा अपीन मा (आवदिदेके) के संथ जान के शिलए राजा नहे8 हे( राहे हे1, जिजादे पीकेड़ शिलय हे1। 3. यहे निके ऐसं पीरिरास्थिOनित मा तत्केल यहे आवदेन प्रेस्त त केरा राहे हू[, संथ मा बलके के(  न्ययलय मा प्रेस्त त निकेय हे1।” 12 12. On 04.06.2026, the learned Family Court passed the following order:- ******* “ उयपीक्षाM के( पीव4 मा सं न गय । अभिलख के अवल(केन निकेय । आदेश पीत्र दिदेनके 10.04.2026 के अवल(केन सं यहे प्रेकेटा हे( राहे हे1 निके आवदिदेके न माननय उच्च न्ययलय निबलसंपी रा के संमाक्षा WP 227 न. 808/2025 पी श के" थ, जिजासंमा माननय न्ययलय द्वारा दिदेय गय आदे श अन संरा अपीत्य हुनरा सं(न के अभि राक्षा मा राहेन हे त उसंके" इच्छा के संबध मा बयन शिलय गय । अपीत्य हुनरा सं(न द्वारा अपीन मा/ आव दिदेके के संथ राहेन व्यक्त निकेय । ******* न्ययलय द्वारा अपीत्य के इच्छान संरा ग्रीष्माकेलन अवकेश मा अपीत्य दिदेनके 01.05.2026 सं 30.05.2026 तके अपीन निपीत के पीसं राहे ग उक्त अवयिध मा आव दिदेके प्रेत्य के शनिनवरा के" शमा 06:00 बजा अनव देके के घंरा सं अपीत्य के( ल न जाय ग औरा रानिववरा शमा 06:00 बजा अपीत्य के( ल न अनव देके जाय ग ( ग्रीष्माकेलन अवकेश मा लग हे(ग) तथ शतकेलन अवकेश मा 2 दिदेन अपीन निपीत के पीसं राहे ग । अपीत्य शमा 05 बजा अपीन स्के ल के बस्त ( यदिदे हे(मा वके4 यिमाल हे1) के संथ जाय ग । अपीत्य के निपीत अपीत्य के" रुकेन के" अवयिध पीरा हे(न पीरा अपीत्य के" माम्मा/ आव दिदेके रानिववरा शमा 06 बजा अपीत्य के( ल न जाय ग । अपीत्य के मात- निपीत/आव दिदेके/ अनव देके अपीत्य के( अभि राक्षा मा ल न - दे न हे त 15 यिमानटा सं आध घंटा सं अयिधके इतजारा नहे8 केराय ग तथ यदिदे आव दिदेके/ अनव देके स्वय ल न नहे8 जायग औरा पीरिरावरा के संदेस्य के( जाग य स्टा]र्फ ल न जायग त( उ यपीक्षाकेरा इसंके" संचान र्फ(टा( संनिहेत मा(बईल पीरा देग । ******* आव दिदेके उक्त आदे श के पीलन मा अपीत्य के( ल न अनव देके के निनवसं Oन अ नपी रा मा दिदेनके 23.05.2026 के( संमाय शमा 06 बजा गई थ । निकेन्त अनव देके न आव दिदेके के हेथ के( पीकेड़केरा मारा(ड़त हुए घंरा के शिलफ्टा सं यहे केहेत हुए निनकेल दिदेय निके अपीत्य त मासं नहे8 यिमालन चाहेत हे1 । अनव देके न  अपीन जावब तथ न्ययलय के( दिदेनके 23.05.2026 के( दे\ गई शिलखिखत संचान एव थन मा दे\ गई संचान मा यहे ल ख निकेय हे1 निके अपीत्य त मासं नहे8 यिमालन चाहेत हे1 । अनव देके के संथ राहेन चाहेत हे1 औरा आव दिदेके के संथ 13 नहे8 जान के" जिजाद्द केरा राहे हे1 । अनव देके के उक्त केथन के आधरा पीरा यहे प्रेकेटा हे( राहे हे1 निके अपीत्य के" मा न्ययलय के आदे शन संरा अपीत्य के( ल न अनव देके के घंरा गई थ ल निकेन अनव देके अपीत्य के( उक्त आधरा पीरा आव दिदेके के संथ नहे8 जा । इसं प्रेकेरा अनव देके न अपीत्य के" इच्छा एव न्ययलय के आदे श दिदेनके 10.04.2026 के पीलन नहे8 केरात हुए आदे श के उल्लघंन निकेय हे1 । ******* अनव देके न अपीत्य के पी न! इच्छा पीछो जान हेत बयन केराय जान के निनवदेन निकेय हे1 तथ ऊपीरा मा लख न्ययदृष्टांत के( पीश निकेय हे1 । अपीत्य के" इच्छा माननय उच्च न्ययलय के आदेशन संरा दिदेनके 10.04.2026 के( शिलय गय हे1 । इसंशिलए पी न! अपीत्य के इच्छा जानन हेत बयन शिलय जान के के(ई आधरा नहे8 हे1। अनवदेके द्वारा पीश न्ययदृष्टांत उक्त आदेश के" पीरिरास्थिOनितयM सं भिन्न हे(न सं प्रेय(जानय नहे8 हे1 । ******* अत! अनवदेके के( निनदे.शिशत निकेय जात हे1 निके आदेश अन संरा अपीत्य के( आजा दिदेनके 04.06.2026 के( आवदिदेके के( सं`पी देग । इसं संबध आवदिदेके दिदेनके 05.06.2026 के( अवगत केरायग । अनवदेके द्वारा अपीत्य के( आवदिदेके के अभिराक्षा मा नहे8 देत हे1 त( न्ययलय के( बध्य हे(केरा अपीत्य हुनरा सं(न के( पी शिलसं बल के माध्यमा सं आवदिदेके के अभिराक्षा मा दिदेय जान हेत दिदेनके 05.06.2026 आदेश पीरिरात निकेय जायग । उक्त रुपी मा आवदिदेके के उक्त आवदेन स्वकेरा निकेय जात हे1। ******* प्रेकेरार्ण दिदेनके 05.06.2026 के( निनयत निकेय जात हे1। ( आनंद कु मार ध्रुव) तPतय अनित. प्रेधन न्ययधश के टा म्ब न्ययलय रायपी रा (छो.ग.)” 13. When the case was taken up for hearing on 05.06.2026, the learned Family Court has passed the order that:- “ आवदिदेके संनिहेत श्री अमान खन न्यययिमात्र उपीस्थिOत। अनवदेके संनिहेत श्री दुल4 अग्रीवल न्यययिमात्र उपीस्थिOत । 14 ******* प्रेकेरार्ण आजा आवदिदेके द्वारा अपीत्य के( अपीन अभिराक्षा मा प्रेप्त केरान के संबध मा न्ययलय के( अवगत केरान हेत निनयत हे1। ******* आवदिदेके द्वारा एके आवदेन पीत्र वस्त अपीत्य के( पी शिलसं बल के माध्यमा सं यिमालय जान हेत पी शिलसं अधक्षाके ग्रीमार्ण/ बल केल्यर्ण संयिमानित के( ज्ञापीन जारा निकेय जान बबत पीश निकेय । के]पी अनवदेके के न्यययिमात्र के( प्रेदेन निकेय गय । पीवत शिलय गय । ******* अनवदेके अपीत्य के( संथ लकेरा उपीस्थिOत हे1 । अनवदेके के( संमाझाईसं दिदेय गय निके वहे अपीत्य के( आदेश दिदेनके 10-04-2026 अन संरा आवदिदेके के( सं`पी देव । इसं संबध मा अनवदेके एव उसंके न्यययिमात्र निवचारा केरा थ(ड़ देरा बदे न्ययलय के( अवगत केरान के केथन केरा न्ययलय सं चाल गय । ******* अनवदेके अपीन न्यययिमात्र के संथ संमाय 01.55 बजा उपीस्थिOत हे(केरा एके आवदेन पीत्र वस्त अतरिरामा अभिराक्षा आदेश मा संश(धन निकेय जान बबत पीश निकेय । के]पी आवदिदेके के न्यययिमात्र के( प्रेदेन निकेय गय । पीवत शिलय गय । ******* अनवदेके न माmखिखके व्यक्त निकेय निके वहे अपीत्य के अभिराक्षा आजा आवदिदेके के( नहे8 देग । न्ययलय आवदिदेके के आवदेन पीरा आदेश पीरिरात केरा संकेत हे1 । इसं प्रेकेरा अनवदेके के" माश अपीत्य के( आवदिदेके के अभिराक्षा मा सं`पीन के नहे8 हे1 । अत! आवदिदेके के उपीरा(क्त आवदेन पीत्र पीरा आदेश हेत प्रेकेरार्ण थ(ड़ देरा बदे पीश हे( । आनदे के मारा ध्रु व तPतय अनित. प्रेधन न्ययधश के टा म्ब न्ययलय रायपी रा (छो.ग.) पुनंश्च । आवदिदेके संनिहेत श्री अमान खन न्यययिमात्र उपीस्थिOत । अनवदेके संनिहेत श्री दुल4 अग्रीवल न्यययिमात्र उपीस्थिOत । ******* आवदिदेके न अपीन आवदेन मा लख निकेय हे1 निके न्ययलय के आदेशन संरा दिदेनके 04-06-2026 के( अनवदेके के अनपी रा स्थिOत उसंके अस्पतल मा अपीत्य के( लन शमा 06 बजा गई थ लनिकेन अनवदेके अपीत्य के( आवदिदेके के अभिराक्षा 15 मा नहे8 सं`पी औरा अपीत्य के( शिसंख- पीढ़ाकेरा अपीत्य के संमान खड़ केरा दिदेय, जिजासंके केरार्ण अपीत्य आवदिदेके के संथ जान सं इकेरा केरा दिदेय औरा मा हेजा(रा केरान लग । अत! अपीत्य के( पी शिलसं अधक्षाके ग्रीमार्ण के( संदे\ वदेq मा केमा4चारिरायM/बल केल्यर्ण संयिमानित के माध्यमा सं ज्ञापीन जारा केरा अपीत्य हूनरा सं(न के अभिराक्षा आवदिदेके के( दिदेलय जान हेत पीश निकेय हे1 । ******* अभिलख के अवल(केन निकेय । आदेश पीत्र दिदेनके 10-04-2026 के( इसं न्ययलय द्वारा माननय उच्च न्ययलय डब्ल्य.पी. 227 नबरा 808/2025 मा दिदेय गय निनदे.शन संरा अपीत्य हूनरा सं(न के" इच्छा जानन के पीश्चात आदेश पीरिरात निकेय गय हे1, जिजासं पीरा उयपीक्षाकेरा संहेमात थ । आवदिदेके आदेशन संरा अपीत्य के( लन शनिनवरा के" शमा 06 बजा अनवदेके के घंरा जान पीरा अनवदेके न आवदिदेके सं केहे निके अपीत्य त मासं नहे8 यिमालन चाहेत हे1, केहेकेरा अपीत्य के अभिराक्षा आवदिदेके के( प्रेदेन नहे8 निकेय । अनवदेके आजा अपीत्य के संथ न्ययलय मा उपीस्थिOत हुआ हे1 । न्ययलय द्वारा अनवदेके के( निनदे.शिशत केरात हुए केहे गय निके अपीत्य के" अभिराक्षा आवदिदेके के( प्रेदेन केरा देव लनिकेन अनवदेके अपीत्य के" अभिराक्षा आवदिदेके के( सं`पीन सं माmखिखके मान निकेय । अत! आवदिदेके के आवदेन स्वकेरा निकेय जात हे1 । अनवदेके सं अपीत्य के" अभिराक्षा लकेरा आवदिदेके के( सं`पीन हेत पी शिलसं अधक्षाके ग्रीमार्ण रायपी रा एव बल केल्यर्ण संयिमानित रायपी रा के( ज्ञापीन जारा हे( । ******* आवदिदेके के न्यययिमात्र द्वारा अनवदेके द्वारा पीश आवदेन पीत्र वस्त आदेश दिदेनके 04.06.2026 के निवरूद्ध माननय उच्च न्ययलय निबलसंपी रा मा न्ययियके केय4वहे निकेय जान हेत संमाय प्रेदेन निकेय जान बबत तथ आजा पीश आवदेन पीत्र वस्त अतरिरामा अभिराक्षा आदेश मा संश(धन निकेय जान के जावब पीश निकेय जान हेत संमाय दिदेय जान के निनवदेन निकेय । वत4मान मा शिसंनिवल अवकेश हे1 । प्रेकेरार्ण शिसंनिवल प्रेकेP नित के हे1 । अत! आवदिदेके पीव4 मा निनध4रिरात नितशिथ के( जावब पीश केरा । ******* प्रेकेरार्ण जावब हेत दिदेनके 18-06-2026 आनदे के मारा ध्रु व तPतय अनित. प्रेधन न्ययधश के टा म्ब न्ययलय रायपी रा (छो.ग.)” 16 14. From perusal of the application dated 23.05.2026 filed by the petitioner-husband before the learned Family Court, it reveals that the petitioner made averment that the child did not want to go with his mother and insisting on staying with his father. The said application was filed on 23.05.2026 itself i.e. the Saturday on the date on which the respondent-wife was entitled to take the custody of the child at 6:00 PM on that day. Obviously the situation that the child is not willing to go with his mother, would arise only after 6:00 PM on that day, when the respondent-wife would reach to the house of the petitioner-husband to take the child and then only the petitioner- husband can make the application, if the situation arises. The circumstances surrounding the filing of the application dated 23.05.2026 create a reasonable doubt regarding the genuineness of the alleged subsequent event. The petitioner has not demonstrated from the record that the child had actually refused to accompany the respondent-wife after the scheduled time of visitation. Consequently, the said application appears to have been founded more upon apprehension than upon an established subsequent development. Filing of the application on 23.05.2026 reveals that it is made within the court hours i.e. definitely prior to 6:00 PM, which is prior to the scheduled time of taking the child back by the respondent-wife. The application filed by the petitioner-husband on 23.05.2026 appears to be on apprehension that the child is not willing to go with his mother. 15. When the learned Family Court asked the petitioner to handover the custody of the child to the respondent-wife, initially he take time to think over it and subsequently, he refused to handover the child to the respondent-wife on that day. The conduct of the petitioner- 17 husband revealed that he was intended not to comply with the order passed by the learned Family Court and then the learned Family Court directed for compliance of the order with the help of police personal in civil dress and the members of the Child Welfare Committee, and accordingly memo was issued on 05.06.2026. 16. From the documents submitted by the respondent-wife on 16.06.2026 along with the covering memo, it transpires that when the police personal in civil dress and the members of the Child Helpline, Raipur made attempt for compliance of the order of the learned Family Court, petitioner-husband and the child was not found in the address of the petitioner-husband and a report has been submitted on 06.06.2026 by the members of the Committee. It is also necessary here to reproduce the report dated 06.06.2026 submitted by the members of the Committee, which reads as under:- ******* “ आजा दिदेनके 06/06/2026 के( मान० न्ययलय तPतय अनित० प्रेधन न्ययधश, के टा म्ब न्ययलय रायपी रा सं आदेश प्रेप्त हुआ निके अपीत्य हुनरा सं(न @ निनहेल, आय - 06 वW4 के( अनवदेके ड]० प्रेज्वल प्रेदे\पी सं(न निपीत प्रेदे\पी सं(न के अयिधपीत्य सं आवदिदेके ड]० ग रामात केmरा पीनित प्रेज्वल प्रेदे\पी सं(न के( प्रेदेन निकेय गय हे1। उक्त आदेश के अन पीलन मा मानिहेल एव बल निवकेसं निवग के" टा\मा एव थन अनपी रा सं टा\मा यिमालकेरा ड]० प्रेदे\पी सं(न के घंरा संहे हे]स्पिस्पटाल मा आकेरा जानकेरा शिलए। ड]० प्रेदे\पी सं(न के संबध मा हे]स्पिस्पटाल स्टार्फ द्वारा जानकेरा दे\ गई निके वहे निवगत दे( दिदेवसं सं अपीन व्यस्थिक्तगत केयv सं बहेरा गए हुय हेw। उनके घंरा मा उनके हेउसंके"पिंपीXग नमात जा( यिमाल, उन्हेMन  ड]० प्रेदे\पी सं(न के बरा मा के(ई जानकेरा नहे हे(न बतय। मान० न्ययलय ( के टा म्ब न्ययलय) सं प्रेप्त ज्ञापी के( उनके HR के( दिदेय एव एके प्रेनित उनके घंरा के मा ख्य द्वारा पीरा चास्प निकेय गय। हे]स्पिस्पटाल प्रेबधन के(  ड]० प्रेदे\पी सं(न के आन पीरा मान० 18 न्ययलय ( के टा म्ब न्ययलय) अथव बल केल्यर्ण संयिमानित रायपी रा के संमाक्षा प्रेस्त त हे(न संचान देन केहे। एव ड]० प्रेदे\पी सं(न के निपीत जा सं दूराW पीरा बत निकेय औरा उनके( ड]० प्रेदे\पी सं(न के बरा मा जानकेरा लत हुय उनके( आन पीरा संचान देन केहे गय। निर्फरा मानिहेल एव बल निवकेसं निवग के" टा\मा व थन अनपी रा के" टा\मा वपीसं लmटा आय। माmके पीरा आवदिदेके ग रामात केmरा  उपीस्थिOत थ। ******* अत! माहे(देय तत्संबध मा जानकेरा संदेरा संचानथ4 प्रेनिWत।” 17. From perusal of the documents submitted by the respondent-wife, it further transpires that on 08.06.2026, 10.06.2026 and 12.06.2026, the repeated attempts were made by the police personal in civil dress and members of the Child Welfare Committee to comply with the orders passed by the learned Family Court, but in all the times, the petitioner-husband and the child was not found there and the order could not be complied with. 18. The question for consideration in the present petition is, whether the learned Family Court was justified in directing forcible implementation of the interim custody arrangement through police intervention without undertaking a fresh exercise to ascertain whether the changed circumstances brought to its notice had any bearing upon the welfare of the minor child. 19. In the case of Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka and Others [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 643], the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that though the wishes of the child constitute a relevant circumstance, the Court is under an obligation to independently determine what would best serve the welfare and overall well-being of the child after evaluating the totality of circumstances. Applying the 19 aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner had brought to the notice of the learned Family Court, by way of application dated 23.05.2026, that the child was allegedly expressing unwillingness to accompany the respondent- wife and sought a fresh interaction with the child. However, as already noticed hereinabove, the said application itself appears to have been filed on mere anticipation and apprehension even before the situation projected therein had actually arisen. The timing and surrounding circumstances of filing of the said application reasonably indicate that it was not founded upon any subsequent event of such magnitude as would compel the learned Family Court to immediately reopen the exercise of interacting with the child afresh. It is equally relevant to note that the interim arrangement dated 10.04.2026 had not been passed mechanically. The said arrangement was framed by the learned Family Court after complying with the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation and after ascertaining the wishes of the child. The said order attained finality and remained binding upon both parties. Merely because one of the parties repeatedly insists upon a further interaction with the child at short intervals, the Court cannot be expected to subject the child to repeated interviews, unless there exists some substantial change in circumstances demonstrably affecting the child's welfare. Such repeated interactions may themselves become a source of emotional burden and may expose the child to avoidable stress and influence. 20. In Vivek Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in custody matters, the child should not become a pawn in the legal battle between the parents and the Courts are required to protect the 20 child from the trauma of parental conflict. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that a child should not be treated as an object of possession and the Court must endeavour to ensure that the child does not become a casualty of parental rivalry. The duty of the Court is to secure an environment conducive to the emotional, psychological and intellectual development of the child. The principle assumes greater significance where repeated litigation and continuous insistence upon the child's participation in adversarial proceedings are likely to aggravate emotional conflict and insecurity. In Vivek Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed observed that:- “16.3 Within the few days, i.e. on August 26, 2010, the respondent filed the petition seeking custody of the child and for appointment of her guardian. She did not lose any time making her intentions clear that as a natural mother she wanted to have the custody of the child. It was her mis- fortune that the trial court vide its judgment dated December 07, 2011 dismissed her petition. Though, she filed the appeal against the said judgment immediately, but during the pendency of the appeal, the custody remained with the appellant because of the dismissal of the petition by the Family Court. The High Court has, by impugned judgment dated April 02, 2013 granted the custody to the respondent. However, the respondent has not been able to reap the benefit thereof because of the interim orders passed in the instant appeal. It is in these circumstances that child Saesha from the tender age of 21 months has remained with the appellant and today she is 8 years and 3 months. 21 Obviously, because of this reason, as of today, she is very much attached to the father and she thinks that she should remain in the present environment. A child, who has not seen, experienced or lived the comfort of the company of the mother is, naturally, not in a position to comprehend that the grass on the other side may turn out to be greener. Only when she is exposed to that environment of living with her mother, that she would be in a position to properly evaluate as to whether her welfare lies more in the company of her mother or in the company of her father. As of today, the assessment and perception are one sided. Few years ago, when the High Court passed the impugned judgment, the ground realities were different. 18. The aforesaid observations, contained in para 31 of the order of the High Court extracted above, apply with greater force today, when Saesha is 8 years' old child. She is at a crucial phase when there is a major shift in thinking ability which may help her to understand cause and effect better and think about the future. She would need regular and frequent contact with each parent as well as shielding from parental hostility. Involvement of both parents in her life and regular school attendance are absolutely essential at this age for her personality development. She would soon be able to establish her individual interests and preferences, shaped by her own individual personality as well as experience. Towards this end, it also becomes necessary for parents to exhibit model good behaviour and set healthy and positive examples as much and as often as possible. It is the age when her emotional development may be evolving at a deeper level 22 than ever before. In order to ensure that she achieves stability and maturity in her thinking and is able to deal with complex emotions, it is necessary that she is in the company of her mother as well, for some time. This Court cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that there have been strong feelings of bitterness, betrayal, anger and distress between the appellant and the respondent, where each party feels that they are 'right' in many of their views on issues which led to separation. The intensity of negative feeling of the appellant towards the respondent would have obvious effect on the psyche of Saesha, who has remained in the company of her father, to the exclusion of her mother. The possibility of appellant's effort to get the child to give up her own positive perceptions of the other parent, i.e., the mother and change her to agree with the appellant's view point cannot be ruled out thereby diminishing the affection of Saesha towards her mother. Obviously, the appellant, during all this period, would not have said anything about the positive traits of the respondent. Even the matrimonial discord between the two parties would have been understood by Saesha, as perceived by the appellant. Psychologist term it as 'The Parental Alienation Syndrome'[4]. It has at least two psychological destructive effects: (i) First, it puts the child squarely in the middle of a contest of loyalty, a contest which cannot possibly be won. The child is asked to choose who is the preferred parent. No matter whatever is the choice, the child is very likely to end up feeling painfully guilty and confused. This is because in the overwhelming majority of cases, what the child wants and needs is to continue a 23 relationship with each parent, as independent as possible from their own conflicts. (ii) Second, the child is required to make a shift in assessing reality. One parent is presented as being totally to blame for all problems, and as someone who is devoid of any positive characteristics. Both of these assertions represent one parent's distortions of reality. 19. The aforesaid discussion leads us to feel that continuous company of the mother with Saesha, for some time, is absolutely essential. It may also be underlying that the notion that a child's primary need is for the care and love of its mother, where she has been its primary care giving parent, is supported by a vast body of psychological literature. Empirical studies show that mother infant “bonding” begins at the child's birth and that infants as young as two months old frequently show signs of distress when the mother is replaced by a substitute caregiver. An infant typically responds preferentially to the sound of its mother's voice by four weeks, actively demands her presence and protests her absence by eight months, and within the first year has formed a profound and enduring attachment to her. Psychological theory hypothesizes that the mother is the center of an infant's small world, his psychological homebase, and that she “must continue to be so for some years to come.” Developmental psychologists believe that the quality and strength of this original bond largely determines the child's later capacity to fulfill her individual potential and to form attachments to other individuals and to the human community." 24 21. Thus, repeated insistence by the petitioner for fresh interaction with the child, despite a subsisting arrangement having already been formulated after such exercise, cannot be accepted as a matter of routine, particularly when the circumstances relied upon by him do not inspire confidence. The conduct of the petitioner subsequent to passing of the order dated 04.06.2026 also assumes considerable significance. The learned Family Court has specifically recorded that when called upon to comply with the order and hand over the custody of the child to the respondent-wife, the petitioner initially sought time and thereafter declined to comply with the direction. Even before this Court, the petitioner has disputed the factual aspect regarding refusal. However, the order-sheet dated 05.06.2026 carries a clear recording to the effect that the petitioner was unwilling to hand over the custody in terms of the subsisting arrangement. Judicial records carry a presumption of correctness and cannot ordinarily be brushed aside on the basis of a mere oral denial. 22. Further, the material placed before this Court by the respondent-wife discloses that despite issuance of memo dated 05.06.2026 and repeated attempts made by the police personnel in civil dress along with the members of the Child Welfare Committee on 06.06.2026, 08.06.2026, 10.06.2026 and 12.06.2026, the petitioner along with the minor child was not found at the address furnished by him and, consequently, the orders of the learned Family Court could not be implemented. Such conduct cannot be ignored while examining the paramount consideration of welfare of the child. The petitioner, instead of facilitating implementation of the interim arrangement, chose to evade the process and thereby deprived the child of the 25 opportunity to maintain continuity of relationship with the respondent- wife. The repeated non-compliance of judicial directions and the absence of the petitioner from his disclosed address, despite several attempts by the authorities entrusted with implementation of the Family Court's order, are circumstances which reflect adversely upon his conduct. The resultant uncertainty and instability inevitably expose the child to emotional distress and anxiety. A child of tender age ought not to be made to experience apprehension arising out of avoidance of lawful processes or continuous parental confrontation. Such circumstances are, in themselves, capable of causing trauma to the child and are inconsistent with the concept of welfare which the Courts are duty-bound to preserve. So far as the grievance of the petitioner regarding involvement of police personnel is concerned, the same also does not merit acceptance. The Family Court had not straightaway resorted to coercive measures. The direction for assistance of police personnel in civil dress and members of the Child Welfare Committee came only after the petitioner failed to honour the subsisting arrangement and declined to hand over custody despite specific directions. The assistance was intended only to secure implementation of the judicial order with minimal disturbance to the child and cannot be construed as punitive action against the petitioner. 23. In “Rosy Jacob” (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that orders relating to custody are interlocutory in nature and are always subject to modification keeping in view the welfare of the minor; however, until such modification is lawfully made, the parties are bound to honour and comply with the existing arrangement. No litigant can 26 unilaterally decide to disregard a subsisting custody order on the basis of his own assessment of the child's preference.The Family Court, being entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding the welfare of the child and ensuring due implementation of its orders, was justified in adopting coercive measures only after finding deliberate non-compliance on the part of the petitioner-husband. The direction for assistance of police personnel in civil dress and members of the Child Welfare Committee was not punitive in nature, but was intended to secure compliance with the lawful orders already passed by the Court while minimizing any possible adverse impact upon the child. 24. Having regard to the entire conspectus of facts, namely, (i) that the order dated 10.04.2026 had been passed after interacting with the child in compliance with the directions issued by this Court; (ii) that the application dated 23.05.2026 seeking fresh interaction appears to have been filed merely on anticipation and apprehension; (iii) that the petitioner repeatedly insisted upon fresh interaction without demonstrating any substantial change of circumstances; (iv) that the order dated 05.06.2026 was not complied with and the petitioner denied such compliance; and (v) that repeated attempts by the authorities revealed that the petitioner and the child were not found at the disclosed address, thereby exposing the child to avoidable emotional strain and trauma, this Court is of the considered opinion that no jurisdictional error, perversity or patent illegality can be attributed to the impugned orders warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 27 25. It is well settled that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution is supervisory and not appellate. Interference is warranted only where there is patent perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest failure of justice. Re-appreciation of factual issues or substitution of another possible view is impermissible. The impugned orders disclose neither lack of jurisdiction nor perversity warranting exercise of supervisory powers. 26. With respect to the scope of interference under the jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil” 2010 (8) SCC 329 held that: “40. Same principles have been followed by this Court in the case of Mani Nariman Daruwala @ Bharucha (deceased) through Lrs. & others vs. Phiroz N. Bhatena and others etc. reported in (1991) 3 SCC 141, wherein it has been held that in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court can set aside or reverse finding of an inferior Court or tribunal only in a case where there is no evidence or where no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the Court or tribunal has come to. This Court made it clear that except to this `limited extent' the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact (see para 18, page 149-150). In coming to the above finding, this Court relied on its previous decision rendered in the case of Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs. Ashalata S. Guram reported in (1986) 4 SCC 447. The decision in Chandavarkar (supra) is based on the principle of the Constitution Bench 28 judgments in Waryam Singh (supra) and Nagendra Nath (supra) discussed above. 41. To the same effect is the judgment rendered in the case of Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani and another vs. Pratapsingh Mohansingh Pardeshi reported in (1995) 6 SCC 576. In paragraph 9, page 579 of the report, this Court clearly reminded the High Court that under Article 227 that it cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. Its exercise must be restricted to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law and justice. 42. Same views have been taken by this Court in respect of the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227 in the case of Sarpanch, Lonand Grampanchayat vs. Ramgiri Gosavi and another, reported in AIR 1968 SC 222, (see para 5 page 222-234 of the report) and the decision of this Court in Jijabai Vithalrao Gajre vs. Pathankhan and others reported in (1970) 2 SCC 717. The Constitution Bench ratio in Waryam Singh (supra) about the scope of Article 227 was again followed in Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. vs. Ram Tahel Ramnand and others reported in (1972) 1 SCC 898. 43. In a rather recent decision of the Supreme Court in case of Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675, a two judge Bench of this Court discussed the principles of interference by High Court under Article 227. Of course in Surya Dev Rai (supra) this Court held that a writ of Certiorari is maintainable against the order of a civil Court, subordinate to the High Court (para 19, page 668 29 of the report). The correctness of that ratio was doubted by another Division Bench of this Court in Radhey Shyam and another vs. Chhabi Nath and others [(2009) 5 SCC 616] and a request to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for a reference to a larger Bench is pending. But in so far as the formulation of the principles on the scope of interference by the High Court under Article 227 is concerned, there is no divergence of views. 44. In paragraph 38, sub-paragraph (4) at page 695 of the report, the following principles have been laid down in Surya Dev Rai (supra) and they are set out: "38 (4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction." 45. Sub-paras (5), (7) and (8) of para 38 are also on the same lines and extracted below: "38.(5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings 30 such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. (6) xxx xxx (7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred thereagainst and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis. (8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in 31 re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character." 49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated: (a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these two Articles is also different. (b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above. (c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court. 32 (d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh (supra) and the principles in Waryam Singh (supra) have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court. (e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh (supra), followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, `within the bounds of their authority'. (f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. (g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. (h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or 33 fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised. (i) High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and therefore abridgement by a Constitutional amendment is also very doubtful. (j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227. At the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227. (k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu. (l) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this Article is to keep strict 34 administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory. (m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. (n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out above. (o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counter-productive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality.” 27. In the case of “Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel” 2022 (4) SCC 181, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:- 35 “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 28. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner- husband are distinguishable on facts and do not advance the case of the petitioner. 29. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. The petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 30. No order as to costs. 36 31. It is, however, observed that the learned Family Court shall continue to monitor the proceedings relating to custody and visitation strictly keeping in view the paramount consideration of the welfare, emotional well-being and best interests of the minor child and shall be at liberty to pass such further orders as may be warranted by any genuinely changed circumstances brought before it in accordance with law. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved