The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking to quash proceedings for restoration of conjugal rights is not maintainable. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 387]

The bench of Justice Amit Seth observed:

"this Court is of the considered opinion that the present miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the proceedings instituted by the respondent under Section 9 of HM Act before the Family Court, Gwalior, is not maintainable. The issue framed is thus, answered against the petitioner".

A miscellaneous petition was filed by a husband, claiming that the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the wife for restoration of conjugal rights is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law. The counsel for the husband further argued that when the husband had earlier filed an application under Section 9 of HMA, the wife had categorically refused to reside with him.

The counsel for the wife raised a plea regarding the maintainability of the husband's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The counsel argued that the power of superintendence is vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution; however, the same cannot be used to bypass statutory remedies or the original jurisdiction of the subordinate court.

The court noted that the primary issue was whether Article 227 of the Constitution could be invoked to quash proceedings filed under Section 9 of HMA.

The court emphasized that the Family Court is a civil court for matrimonial proceedings under Section 10 of the Family Courts Act. Therefore, the orders and decrees of the Family Court are appealable on both facts and law, and therefore the proceedings under Section 9 of HMA are civil proceedings.

Referring to the case of Jacky v Tiny Alias Antony [2014], the court reiterated that the High Court is empowered to set aside a claim in a civil/private dispute under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

In the present case, the court noted that the allegations that the wife had filed the suit under Section 9 HMA to harass him ought to be established by leading evidence. Thus, the merits or correction of the same cannot be examined by the High Court in this petition.

The court thus rejected the husband's arguments on two grounds: first, the instant petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, and second, judicial orders of a civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Thus, the bench directed:

"The aforesaid reasoning and finding rendered by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction (the Coordinate Bench of this Court) inter se between the parties, i.e., the petitioner and the respondent, has been allowed to attain finality and is therefore binding inter se between the parties. In view of the aforesaid discussions and considerations, the present miscellaneous petition stands dismissed on the ground of maintainability. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to seek remedy as may be permissible in law".

Case Title: D v G, MP-2816-2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 387

For Petitioner: Advocates Shashank Sharma, Haush Sharma, and Atif

For Respondent: Advocate Madan Mohan Shrivastava

Click here to read/download the Order