The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:24124-DB R.P. No.217/2023 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV PRESENT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REVIEW PETITION NO.217/2023 Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka BETWEEN: SRI. AJIT NAYAK S/O A. PANDURANGA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO.2B, GROUND FLOOR GULLAPPA REDDY BUILDING NEAR RAMAIAH GARDEN SOS POST, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560076.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. L.V. MURALIDHARA, ADV.,) AND: SMT. SHREELATHA NAYAK ALIAS SMT. SHREELATHA BHANDARKAR WIFE OF SRI. AJIT NAYAK AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.85, FIRST FLOOR 'PRATHIMA', 8TH MAIN SECTOR-1. NOBO NAGAR, SOS POST, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560076. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHREELATHA NAYAK, PARTY-IN-PERSON) …RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 AND ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT ORDER DATED 05.04.2023 IN MFA NO.3407/2016 AND WITHDRAW THE ORDER ALLOWING THE APPEAL MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND UPHOLD THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24124-DB R.P. No.217/2023 HC-KAR 11.03.2016 IN M.C.NO.1780/2010, PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.06.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908, by the respondent seeking to review the judgment dated 05.04.2023 passed in MFA No.3407/2016 (FC). 2. Heard. 3. Sri.A.S.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant submits that the Court has grossly erred in ignoring the admissions of the respondent during the trial. It is submitted that she has clearly admitted that the petitioner and respondent are not in talking terms and there is no cohabitation between the husband and wife. It is further submitted that the respondent has admitted in the cross-examination that she - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24124-DB R.P. No.217/2023 HC-KAR suspects illicit relationship of the petitioner with his sister-in- law which amounts to cruelty. This aspect is not considered by the Court while reversing the judgment of the Trial Court. It is also submitted that from the last 17 years, the petitioner and the respondent are residing separately which demonstrates that there is no love and affection between them. Hence, there is no point in continuing their marriage. It is contended that if the marriage is not dissolved, great injustice would be caused to the petitioner-husband. 4. It is further contended that the serious allegations made by the respondent with regard to the illicit relationship of the petitioner is factually false, amounts to cruelty and the same is rightly considered by the Trial Court while ordering for dissolution of marriage. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by reviewing the judgment dated 05.04.2023. 5. Smt.Shreelatha Nayak, respondent - party-in- person submits that the judgment under review is a well considered judgment and paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment clearly shows that the petitioner failed to prove the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24124-DB R.P. No.217/2023 HC-KAR cruelty by way of independent witnesses. It is submitted that the judgment dated 05.04.2023 does not call for any modification or review. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the petition. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner, respondent - party-in-person and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. 7. The petitioner filed M.C.No.1780/2010 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage dated 26.11.2007 on the ground of cruelty. The Family Court allowed the petition mainly on the ground that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent became dead, emotionless and the allegation against the petitioner with regard to the relationship with his sister-in-law amounts to mental cruelty. The petitioner, in the petition has made an allegation against the respondent that the respondent became suspicious and alleged that the petitioner was in illicit relationship with his own sister-in-law and made a - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24124-DB R.P. No.217/2023 HC-KAR reference to some other incidents. The respondent, in her statement of objections has given an explanation for such suspicion. However, she has not made any specific allegation in her pleading with regard to the relationship of the petitioner with his sister-in-law. The Court has considered the aforesaid aspect in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove the grounds of cruelty. We do not find any error on the face of record in the judgment under review. 8. It is trite law that the scope of review is very limited, every error cannot be a ground to review and the pleading on record should be understood in its proper perspective. Mere alleged expression of some suspicion by the respondent on the petitioner and clarification for such suspicion in the statement of objections cannot be termed as the allegation of illicit relationship which amounts to cruelty. 9. It would be useful to refer to paragraph 16 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANJEEV - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24124-DB R.P. No.217/2023 HC-KAR KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE TAX OFFICER1 which reads as under: "16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is that: 16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. 16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. 16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. 16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. 1 (2024) 2 SCC 362 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24124-DB R.P. No.217/2023 HC-KAR 16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review." 10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid enunciation of law and after considering the rival submissions and the material on record, we are of the considered view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record to call for the review of the judgment dated 05.04.2023 passed in MFA No.3407/2016. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. 12. In view of the dismissal of the petition, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1