JUDGMENT

Ajithkumar, J.

The respondent-wife in GOP No.697 of 2018 of the Family Court, Irinajakuda is the petitioner in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. She is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order and also the steps initiated by the Family Court pursuant to the said order. Therefore, she seeks to set aside Ext.P4.

2. The respondent filed GOP No.697 of 2018 against the petitioner seeking custody of their minor child and such other reliefs. Ext.P1 is a copy of that petition. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 counter-statement, where the contentions of the respondent were strongly assailed. It was contended that although the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Irinajakuda, passed Ext.P3 order directing the respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, he did not make any payment and that his intention is only to grab the custody of the child, for which he is not entitled to. The respondent filed I.A.No.8 of 2022 in the GOP claiming interim custody of the child. When that matter came up for consideration before the Family Court, Irinajakuda, on 12.04.2022, the court on the consent of the parties, passed Ext.P4 order, which reads thus:

“This petition is filed under Section 12 of the Guardian & Wards Act and under Section 38 of the Special Marriage Act for the interim custody of the minor child.

Respondent agrees to give custody of the child from 10 am on April, 15 to 10 am on May, 15. Take and return child from court premises.

Pay Rs.10,000/- maintenance due, while taking the child and returning him.”

3. Now, the allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent has continuously been flouting the direction for payment of maintenance amount to the petitioner, but he is insisting to hand over custody of the child. She also contends that the said order was passed without taking all the relevant facts into account and therefore the said order is liable to be set aside.

4. When the matter came up for admission today, we heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in detail.

5. Ext.P4 is an interim order passed by the Family Court, Irinajakuda, on the basis of the consent of the petitioner. Now, the allegations are that the respondent is not complying with the directions in the order; whereas, he insists to hand over custody of the child. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without abiding by the stipulations in the order regarding the payment, the respondent cannot insist the petitioner to comply with the corresponding obligation. It is contended that Ext.P4 order is vitiated for the reason of want of consideration of relevant aspects, especially the welfare of the child. But, nothing has been pointed out which eluded consideration of the Family Court. When Ext.P4 order was passed on the consensus of the party, there was no reason for the Family Court to go into the matter in great detail. Ext.P4 is only an interlocutory order as per which, the petitioner was directed to give custody of the child to its father during vacation, April 15th to May 15th. The period is already over. Of course, the respondent was directed to pay the maintenance amount as well. If the respondent fails to comply with that direction, the remedy of the petitioner is to get that order enforced. That is not a reason for the petitioner to challenge Ext. P4 order or to disobey it.

6. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Clause (2) of Article 227 provides that, without prejudice to the generality of the provisions under clause (1), the High Court may call for returns from such courts; make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and prescribe forms in which