Khushi Doshi
Published on: March 28, 2022 at 19:23 IST
“In exercising its Superintendence, the High Court cannot Intervene to correct mere Errors of Law or fact or simply because another view than that taken by the Tribunals or Courts subordinate to it is a possible view,” the Gujarat High Court opined while hearing a Petition under Articles 226 and 227 in which the Petitioner prayed for Interim Custody of his children, which was Denied by the Family Court Judge.
In exercising its Superintendence, the High Court cannot intervene to remedy Minor Mistakes of Law or Fact, or simply because another Viewpoint than that of the Tribunals or Courts subordinate to it exists.
The Petitioner essentially maintained that the Respondent was having Extramarital encounters with other people and that, as a result, the Petitioner was entitled to Custody for the Child’s Welfare, which was of the utmost significance.
According to the Petitioner, the Respondent may have jeopardised the child’s future. There were also ongoing Disagreements between the Petitioner and the Respondent, which compelled the Petitioners to file a First Information Report against the Respondents for the Offences Punishable under Sections 323 and 294(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
The High Court agreed with the Family Court that it was unclear how the children were in danger if the Respondent was having Extramarital Affairs with other people.
Additional visitor privileges had previously been given to the Petitioner and Respondents, and proper conduct was being observed. As a result, the Family Court took into account all factors when issuing the contested Ruling. As a result, the Petition was Denied.
Also Read: Delhi Court criticized Child Welfare Committee over custody of children
