Anil Verma vs Smt. Baby Verma
2025 Latest Caselaw 4099 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Anil Verma vs Smt. Baby Verma on 29 August, 2025

Author: Rajani Dubey

Bench: Rajani Dubey

                                                1




                                                             2025:CGHC:43943-DB
                                                                             NAFR

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                       MCC No.886 of 2025


            1 - Anil Verma S/o Dharam Verma currently Aged About 45 Years R/o
Digitally   Village Singhauri, Tehsil and District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
signed
by R                                                                  Applicant (s)
NIRALA
                                             versus

            1 - Smt. Baby Verma W/o Anil Verma Aged About 37 Years R/o Village
            Singhauri, Police Station, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh,
            Present Resident Of House Number 55 Near Garden, Atal Vihar Ward
            No.3, Bemetara, Police Station Tahsil Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
                                                                    Respondent(s)

For Applicant (s) : Ms. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan, Advocate

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Order on Board Per Rajani Dubey J.

29/08/2025

1. The present application has been filed seeking modification in the

judgment dated 21.08.2024 passed in FA(MAT) No.169/2022,

whereby the applicant husband was directed to pay permanent

alimony of Rs.3 Lakhs to the respondent wife.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent

wife is in adulterous relationship and is living separately by her

own volition and has voluntarily forfeited her claim for support

from the applicant. She has also not shown any dependence or

financial hardship. Therefore, the judgment dated 21.08.2024

directing the applicant husband to pay Rs.3 Lakhs as permanent

alimony to the respondent wife may kindly be modified.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the order under

challenge.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned

judgment under challenge.

5. It is well settled that scope of modification/review jurisdiction is

extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record

can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-

appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as

that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is

impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by

the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya

Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v.

Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC

170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others,

reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of

India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh

Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in

(2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan

Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692).

6. The grounds raised by the applicant in this application cannot be

permitted to be raised. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent

on the face of record in the impugned judgment under

modification warranting interference by this Court.

7. Accordingly, the MCC is dismissed as not maintainable.

                   Sd/-                                         Sd/-
              Rajani Dubey                              Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
                  Judge                                         Judge

Nirala