Karnataka High Court upholds Rs 15 lakh alimony: ‘Able-bodied husband has to work’

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a plea from seven Family Court judges in Maharashtra who were asking to be considered for elevation to the high court under Article 217 of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that their judicial roles in Family Courts entititled them to be evaluated for high court positions. However, a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana raised concerns about creating a distinct cadre for Family Courts judges.

They questioned whether prior rulings could be reconsidered without altering the facts or law. The court suggested the petitioners could instead urge the relevant high court and state government to revise the rules for appointing Family Court presiding officers, given that such appointment procedures exist in other states. The bench emphasized this issue is essentially a policy matter to be addressed by the high court and state government, in collaboration, rather than a legal case.

The petitioner, R Basant, argued the case raised questions about how Article 217 of the Constitution should be interpreted. He contended that while Family Court judges preside over such courts, they are not part of the state judicial service nor hold a judicial office as defined in Article 217, and thus lack the right to be considered for elevation to the high court.