The High Court has the power to expunge irrelevant and scandalous remarks made by a subordinate Court, but it does not have the power to expunge remarks from the judgment of a Judge of the High Court.

RAJAMANNAR, C.J. :- These are two applications filed by an advocate of this court to expunge the remarks and observations against him appearing as counsel for the defendant in three suits, C. S. Nos. 54 and 55 and O. M. S. No. 9 of 1957 made by Subrahmanyam J. in his judgment dated 28-10-1958 disposing of the said three suits. A list of ten passages from the judgment is given as containing remarks and observations sought to be expunged.

In the above suits the plaintiff was Mrs. Leelie Kuriakose and the sole defendant was her husband, Mr. T. N. Kuriakose. C. S. Nos. 54 and 55 of 1957 were originally filed in the City Civil Court, Madras, but were transferred to this court on the application of the defendant. In C. S. No. 54 of 1957 the wife prayed for separate maintenance from the defendant on the ground of cruelty and desertion. In C. S. No. 55 of 1957 she prayed for recovery of possession of a car, furniture and wedding presents which according to her were her exclusive property.

In O. M. S. No. 9 of 1957 she prayed for a decree for judicial separation and for alimony. The plaintiff is the daughter of Dr. V. K. John a senior advocate of this court. The defendant was at the time of trial Deputy Financial Officer in the Southern railway. The parties were married on 2-2-1947. At the time of the marriage the defendant was an Accounts Officer in the Bombay Baroda and Central Indian Railway. The marriage was celebrated at Madras. After the marriage the husband and wife went to the husbands house and stayed for a short time.

Then they left for Bombay where they lived till 1950 in which year the defendant was transferred to the Southern Railway and posted to Tiruchirapalli. The plaintiff and the defendant were living in the railway colony in Golden Rock till 1953. Thereafter the defendant was transferred to Madras. In Madras the plaintiff and defendant were living for a short period in the railway colony at Teynampet and subsequently in a railway bungalow at Sterling Road, Nungambakkam. The residence of the plaintiffs father was three furlongs from where they were staying.

2. It is common ground that on 17-1-1957 the defendant left the plaintiff at her fathers house. On the night of 5-2-1957 the plaintiff came to her husbands house. She was there on the 6th until the evening of the 7th. That night both the plaintiff and the defendant spent in the house of one V John a cousin of the plaintiff. On the 8th of February the plaintiffs father took her to his house from Mr. V. Johns house. The plaintiff continued to remain there. The two suits, C. S. Nos. 54 and 55 were instituted in the City Civil Court, Madras, in March 1957 and O. M. S. No. 9 of 1957 was instituted on 22-7-1957.

3. It is not necessary to set out at great length the several allegations made by the wife against her husband and by the husband against the wife. Suffice it to say that the plaintiff accused the defendant of physical and mental cruelty and desertion which were denied by the defendant. The learned Judge, Subrahmanyam J. who tried the three suits together found that the defendant was guilty of acts of physical and mental cruelty against the plaintiff and desertion of the plaintiff and that she was entitled to a decree for judicial separation and for permanent alimony.

He granted a decree accordingly fixing alimony at Rs. 420 per mensem. In C. S. No. 54 of 1957 the learned Judge passed a decree directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff maintenance at Rs. 150 per mensem from 8-2-1957 to 12-8-1957. The subsequent period was covered by the decree in the matrimonial suit. In C. S. No. 55 of 1957, the learned Judge passed a decree directing the defendant to deliver to the plaintiff possession of .the car or in the alternative to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 7000 with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim.

He also passed a decree for the return to the plaintiff of her wedding presents but dismissed the claim in so far as it related to the fu