APHC010328452026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 20249 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-5 [3584] Chiratanagalla Kiran Kumar ...Petitioner Vs. The Special District And Sessions Judge and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 27th July 2026 Present: Advocate for Petitioner: BALA DASTAGIRI P Advocate for Respondent: NONE ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the inaction of 1st respondent in disposing I.A. No.936 of 2025 filed for vacating the order dated 04.12.2023 passed in I.A. No.249 of 2022 granting interim maintenance of ₹10,000/- in favour of 2nd respondent pending disposal of F.C.O.P. No.414 of 2020 on the file of learned Special 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.No.20249 of 2026 District and Sessions Judge for the Court constituted under the Family Courts Act, Guntur, to be illegal and arbitrary. 2. Petitioner and 2nd respondent are husband and wife. 2nd respondent - wife filed F.C.O.P. No.414 of 2020 for restitution of conjugal rights and further to pay maintenance till grant of such relief. 2nd respondent also filed I.A. No.249 of 2022 seeking interim maintenance for ₹20,000/- per month. By Order dated 04.12.2023, I.A. came to be allowed, directing the writ petitioner to pay ₹10,000 /- towards monthly interim maintenance from the rate of petition. Writ petitioner filed I.A. No.936 of 2025 in I.A. No.249 of 2022 for cancelling the interim maintenance. As the same is not being disposed of, the petitioner preferred to file present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner sought to advance arguments on merits of the matter by contending that the amount of interim maintenance granted was excessive and even after filing of application for cancellation of the same, the 1st respondent has not been disposing of the same. When it has been pointed out as to how the writ petition is maintainable, learned counsel submitted that the writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction but not under Article 226. When it has been specifically 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.No.20249 of 2026 pointed out to him that the writ petition indeed was preferred under Article 226, learned counsel stated that it was by inadvertence. 4. We have considered the submissions made above and perused the record. 5. The docket orders as annexed along with writ repetition indicate that after filing of I.A. No.936 of 2025, the matter has undergone multiple adjustments. The writ petitioner was not present on couple of occasions, i.e., on 15.04.2026 and 29.05.2026. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Exercising of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 is well settled and in catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court had clearly set out that the supervisory jurisdiction is 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. Unless the Court satisfies that there has been a manifest and apparent error on the face of the proceedings, such as when it is based on clear ignorance or disobedience of the provisions of law and grave 4 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.No.20249 of 2026 injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned, such power should not be exercised. 7. Given the facts and circumstances, the relief sought for in the present writ petition does not fall within the exceptions for us to exercise supervisory jurisdiction. The petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application before the 1st respondent for expeditious disposal of the I.A. No.936 of 2025 in I.A. No.249 of 2022 in F.C.O.P. No.414 of 2020. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with liberty as aforesaid. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J SS