Karnataka High Court
Sri. Nagaraj vs Smt. Nethravathi on 8 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45415-DB
RP No.525/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
REVIEW PETITION NO.525/2023
IN
M.F.A. No.6941/2013 (FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.NAGARAJ
S/O NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT YELLAMMA TEMPLE STREET
MELINAPETE, HOSKOTE,
HOSKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 562 114 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.D R RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.MANJUNATH S, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by K S AND:
RENUKAMBA
Location: SMT. NETHRAVATHI
High Court of
Karnataka D/O SRI NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NO.296, K. MUNIYAPPA GARDEN
HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 043 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.BINDU U, ADVOCATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1
OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
12.09.2022 PASSED IN MFA NO.6941/2013(FC) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45415-DB
RP No.525/2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)
Heard Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned senior counsel
appearing for Advocate on record for the review petitioner and
Smt.Bindu, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Under the above petition, the petitioner is seeking
review of the judgment in MFA No.6941/2013 (FC). By the said
judgment this Court on hearing the parties reversed the
judgment of the Trial Court granting decree of divorce and
allowed IA No.1/2020 filed by wife/respondent herein granting
permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/-. The said amount of
Rs.30 lakhs consisted of alimony of Rs.10,00,000/- to the wife
and Rs.10 lakhs each to two daughters.
3. The main ground for seeking review is that as per
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chand Dhawan
vs. Jawaharlal Dhawan1 it is held that after dismissing the
petition for divorce the Court has no jurisdiction to grant
alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
(1993)3 SCC 406
NC: 2024:KHC:45415-DB
4. Admittedly challenging the judgment sought to be
reviewed the petitioner filed SLP (C) No.21698/2022. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 27.01.2023 dismissed
the said petition as follows:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the
order impugned in this petition.
The Special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
Pending application(s) if any, shall stand disposed
of."
(Emphasis supplied)
5. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and ors vs. Sri
Mahadeshwara Sahakar Sakkare Karkhane Ltd, Kollegal2
Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned counsel submits that, if the
special leave petition is dismissed in limine without a speaking
order, review petition can be maintained. Absolutely there
cannot be any dispute about the same. Further in a
subsequent judgment in S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs.
V.Narayana Reddy and others3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court
relying on several of its earlier judgments, while summarizing
the law on review has held that the review is by no means an
(2019)4 SCC 376
2022 SCC Online 1034
NC: 2024:KHC:45415-DB
appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard
and corrected, but lies only for patent error.
6. First of all the point sought to be made out was not
argued in appeal. Sri D.R.Ravishankar concedes that he was
not the counsel who argued the matter in MFA No.6941/2013.
Apart from that in IA No.1/2020 this Court has granted
maintenance to two daughters and whatever is granted to the
wife is only Rs.10,00,000/-. Reading of the order in SLP (Civil)
No.21698/2022 shows that the Court on hearing the parties
and on examining the records came to the conclusion that there
were no grounds to interfere with the matter. Therefore, it is
difficult to say that the said order was in limine dismissal order
or non-speaking order. Under the circumstances, no purpose
would be served by condoning the delay. Therefore, the
application and the petition are dismissed.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
