Bombay High Court
Shri. Pravin S/O Shripatrao ... vs Smt. Alka D/O Namdeo Khedkar on 17 December, 2021
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
mca 516.21 judg.docx 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Misc. Civil Application (MCA) No. 516/2021
In
Family Court Appeal No.44/2018 and in Family Court Appeal
No.45/2017
Praveen Shripatrao Sheware,
Aged about 46 years, occ.-Service,
R/o.-199 Panday Lay Out, Khamla, Nagpur. ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
Alka d/o Namdeo Khedkar,
Aged about 44 years, Occ- Service,
District Mining, Chandrapur,
Collector of Chandrapur. ... Respondent.
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. P.S. Sheware, petitioner in person.
None for the respondent.
_____________________________________________________________
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR &
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
Date : 17-12-2021.
JUDGMENT : (Per: Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.)
Heard Mr. P.S. Sheware, petitioner in person. None
appeared for the respondent.
2. By way of this application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), the petitioner has sought a review
of the order dated 09-03-2021 passed in Family Court Appeal
No.44/2018 and Family Court Appeal No.45/2017.
3. In Family Court Appeal No.45/2017, the petitioner had
challenged the order dated 24-05-2017 passed in M.C.A.No.11/2016
by the Family Court, Nagpur whereby the Family Court, Nagpur,
rejected the petitioner's prayer for interim relief of visitation rights of
his minor daughter Bhumika during vacations and directed the parties
to resolve the issue of access to their minor daughter through the
process of mediation.
4. Family Court Appeal No.44/2018 was directed against the
order dated 24-10-2016 passed in Petition No.D-13/2016 before the
Family Court, Nagpur, whereby the learned Judge of the Family Court
dismissed the petition for want of territorial jurisdiction.
5. We did allow the Family Court Appeal No.44/2018 by
restoring the Petition No.D-13/2016 to the file of Family Court, Nagpur
to decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period of one year from the date of communication
of that order. We further observed that since the issues involved in
both these appeals were the same i.e. custody/access of the minor
daughter Bhumika and since the relief sought in M.C.A. No.11/2016
before the Family Court, Nagpur was for interim custody of minor
daughter Bhumika during Diwali Vacation, which was rendered
infructuous, we, while disposing of the Family Court Appeal
No.45/2017 against that order granted liberty to the petitioner to
move a fresh application, if so advised in the Petition No.D-13/2016
for interim custody of his daughter.
6. The petitioner now states that as per the liberty granted by
this Court the petitioner moved fresh application below Exhibit-49 for
the custody/access of his minor daughter in Petition No.D-13/2016.
The learned Judge of the Family Court, Nagpur also granted him
interim relief. However, the conduct of the respondent wife was as
usual adamant and she deliberately avoided to obey the order of the
Family Court and failed to present the minor daughter. The petitioner
further states that the Judge who was knowing all the facts of the case
of the petitioner was transferred and the new Judge of the Family
Court adjourned the matter to 19-06-2021 and thereafter referred the
matter for mediation. However, the respondent-wife did not appear
before the mediator alongwith minor daughter. Thereafter, matter
came to be adjourned from time to time. Hoping that the petitioner
will not get justice before the Family Court, he approached this Court
in this review petition on the following grounds (as per synopsis in the
petition) :-
"1. Whether the respondent hampered the
due procedure of law ?
2. Whether the conduct of respondent clearly
tentamounted to playing fraud upon the Court?
3. Whether the respondent has abused the process
of the Court?
4. Whether the respondent had made a mockery of
the judicial process that undermines the dignity
of the Court and the Majesty of law?"
7. In the body of petition, the petitioner has raised the
following grounds :-
"1. Whether the points raised by party in person are
properly addressed to by this Hon'ble Court?
2. Whether the minor daughter can be left
unsupervised for more than 10 to 12 hours at the
mercy of neighbours in a new city, where no
immediate help available in case of emergency
under such scenario of society where minor girl
childs are being abused?
3. Whether the safety and security of minor child
were taken into consideration while deciding the
issue of custody?
4. Whether the respondent still entitled for the
custody of daughter who has no regards for the
rule of law?
5. Whether respondent can be beneficiary of her
own wrong?
6. Whether respondent permitted to keep the
Appellant father and his daughter engaged in
litigation ?"
8. A perusal of the contents in petition itself, at the outset,
we are of the firm opinion that the petitioner could not make out a
case for review of our order dated 09-03-2021 on the principles as
contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. Firstly, the petitioner
could not point out any discovery of new matter or evidence which
after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could
not be produced by him at the time of the aforesaid order was made by
this Court. So also the petitioner could not point out any mistake or
error apparent on the face of the aforesaid order.
9. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of review Court is
limited and under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC a judgment or order may be
open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on
the face of the record. The petitioner could not point out any different
material for consideration which according to him he could not
produce the same at the time of passing of the aforesaid order.
10. Apart from the above, the petitioner could not convince
this Court any other sufficient reasons. Whatsoever grounds raised by
the petitioner are the grounds to be raised in the appellate jurisdiction.
11. In this view of the matter, the petitioner has failed to make
out a case for review of our earlier order dated 09-03-2021 passed in
Family Court Appeal No.44/2018 and Family Court Appeal No.45 of
2017. Hence, the Misc. Civil Application stands rejected with costs.
(Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.) (A.S. Chandurkar, J.)
Deshmukh
