Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010050152026 2026:GAU-AS:4308 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/74/2026 SMTI. MIRA SINGH PERMANENT RESIDENT OF GANESH NAGAR, KALITAKUCHI, NARENGI, GUWAHATI-781027, P.S.- SATGAON, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS SMTI. MOMI DAS W/O LATE BIJU DAS, R/O PANDU COLONY, PANDU, P.S.- JALUKBARI, PIN CODE- 781012, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A BHATTACHARYA, MR S PAUL,MS ANKITA SAHARIA,MS K TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 25-03-2026 Heard Mr. A. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. On 16.03.2026, upon the matter coming up for motion, this Court while issuing notice upon the respondent, was pleased to permit the petitioner to take steps by dasti service to be routed through the Registry of this Court. Page No.# 2/4 3. It appears that, accordingly, on 19.03.2026, the petitioner served a copy of the notice of the civil revision petition upon the respondent at her workplace. An affidavit of service dated 24.03.2026 has been filed, enclosing the receipt as Annexure-A thereto. A perusal of the receipt indicates that the respondent received the notice on 19.03.2026. It further appears that the notice clearly indicates that the matter is made returnable today, i.e., 25.03.2026. However, despite service of notice, none appears for the respondent on call. 4. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.02.2026, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.III, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in Misc.(J) Case No.08/2026, arising out of Misc.(G) Case No.169/2024, whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed Petition No.486/2026 filed by the petitioner seeking preponement of the date of hearing. 5. The petitioner had adopted the minor girl child in question. After a lapse of nearly 13 years, the respondent, claiming herself to be the natural guardian of the child, instituted a guardianship suit being Misc.(G) Case No.169/2024 before the learned Family Court. The said proceeding culminated in an ex-parte judgment, whereby custody of the girl minor child was granted to the respondent. 6. In execution of the said ex-parte decree, a warrant for custody was issued. It was only upon the visit of the jurisdictional police to the petitioner’s residence on 31.12.2025 that the petitioner became aware of the said ex-parte judgment. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner on 12.01.2026 filed an application being Misc. (J) Case No.08/2026 before the jurisdictional Family Court, seeking setting aside of the ex-parte judgment. Notice was issued and the matter was fixed on 23.02.2026. On Page No.# 3/4 that date, the respondent entered appearance and sought adjournment, which was granted, and the matter was posted to 02.04.2026. 8. Aggrieved by the said adjournment, the petitioner immediately filed Petition No.486/2026 seeking preponement of the date of hearing, inter alia, on the ground that the minor child has been kept in the Government Children Home for Girls at Jalukbari since 31.12.2025. The learned Family Court rejected the said prayer, giving rise to the present petition. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 10. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the order refusing preponement of the date of hearing warrants interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. The jurisdiction exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution is supervisory in nature and does not partake the character of an appellate jurisdiction. Interference by this Court is therefore warranted only in cases where there is patent perversity, gross jurisdictional error, or manifest injustice. Routine interlocutory orders, particularly those concerning adjournments or the scheduling of proceedings, ordinarily do not merit interference unless it is demonstrated that such orders have resulted in grave prejudice or failure of justice. This principle is intended to ensure that judicial proceedings are not unnecessarily impeded and that Trial Courts retain autonomy in managing procedural aspects of the case. Reliance in this regard is placed on Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329. Page No.# 4/4 12. In the present case, the learned Family Court upon appearance of the respondent, granted a short adjournment and fixed the next date as 02.04.2026. Such an order, by itself, cannot be said to suffer from any jurisdictional error or patent illegality warranting interference. 13. However, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the fact that the minor child, who was admittedly in custody of the petitioner, is presently lodged in a Government Children Home. The issue of custody of a minor is to be decided with utmost expedition, keeping in view the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child. 14. Therefore, while this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, it is of the considered view that the proceedings for setting aside the ex-parte judgment ought to be taken up and decided expeditiously. 15. In view of the above, no case for interference under Article 227 is made out. 16. However, the learned Family Court No.III, Kamrup(M), Guwahati is directed to expeditiously consider and dispose of Misc.(J) Case No.08/2026, preferably within a reasonable time frame in accordance with law. 17. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant