Karnataka High Court
Smt G V Savitha vs Sri D Jayadev on 14 February, 2025
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6722-DB
RP No. 845 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
REVIEW PETITION NO. 845 OF 2022
IN
M.F.A.NO.3843 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. SMT G V SAVITHA
D/O G R MANJAPPA
AGED 33 YEARS
R/AT C/O G R MANJAPPA
AREKAL VILLAGE
MELPAL
BALEHONNUR POST 577112
N R PURA TALUK
DIST CHIKKAMAGALURU
Digitally
signed by ...PETITIONER
SUMATHY
KANNAN
Location:
(BY SHRI C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.
HIGH
COURT OF CHETAN JADHAV.,ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SRI D JAYADEV
S/O DEVARAJ
AGED 37 YEARS
R/AT NO 309
7TH CROSS
SBI MAIN ROAD
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6722-DB
RP No. 845 of 2022
HEBBAL
1ST STAGE
MYSORE 570016
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE.,ADVOCATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII
RULE 1 OF THE CPC, 1908 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC,
PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO I)
CALL FOR THE RECORDS II) REVIEW THE ORDER DATED
30/05/2022 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN MFA- 3843/2018(MFA-
FC) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE MISCELLANEOUS
FIRST APPEAL. III) GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER OR RELIEF
AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
and
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
Heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri C.H. Jadhav for the
review petitioner who is present before Court physically, and so
NC: 2025:KHC:6722-DB
also the learned counsel Shri Parameshwar N. Hegde for the
respondent, who appears through video conferencing.
2. This Review Petition is filed by the wife / Smt. G.V.
Savitha, seeking to review the order dated 30.05.2022 passed by
this Court in M.F.A.No.3843/2018 and consequently to allow the
Miscellaneous First Appeal.
3. The petitioner / Smt. G.V. Savitha is the legally wedded
wife of the respondent / Jayadev. The marriage of the petitioner
and the respondent was solemnized on 30.11.2003 at Balehonnur
as per the customs prevailing in their society. From the wedlock,
they have a daughter named Hamsa who is aged 13 years and a
son named Skanda aged 9 years. It is stated that their daughter
Hamsa is presently residing with the family of the respondent / D.
Jayadev in Mysore and the son Skanda is under the care and
custody of the petitioner / G.V. Savitha.
4. When things stood thus, now it is submitted by the learned
Senior Counsel Shri C.H. Jadhav for the petitioner that the
respondent namely Jayadev is no more. However, he seeks for
intervention of the order rendered by this Court in MFA
No.3843/2018.
NC: 2025:KHC:6722-DB
5. The issue in between the petitioner and the respondent
had gone up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered an order dated
23.09.2022 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.16032/2022 stating
that, "While we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
judgment, insofar as it affirms that the decree of divorce, we leave
it open to the petitioner to file an application for review, limited to
the aspect of grant of permanent alimony. If any, such application
for review is filed, the same would be considered in accordance
with law."
6. The aforesaid special leave petition was preferred by the
petitioner / G.V. Savitha. However, her husband Shri Jayadev /
respondent herein, has died during the pendency of the present
review petition.
7. Though it may be stated that the review petition against
the respondent stands abated, keeping in view certain provisions of
Section 151 CPC which indicates that there is no limit to exercise
inherent power either affecting or effecting any order under this
Code which is the first limb of the said provision. Whereas the
second limb relates to prevent the abuse of process of law and the
third limb relates to securing the ends of justice which is applicable
NC: 2025:KHC:6722-DB
to both the parties to the proceedings. However, the respondent
has died during the pendency of the present review petition.
Therefore, it would not arise to dwell in detail as regards the prayer
urged in this review petition seeking intervention relating to the
permanent alimony.
8. However, keeping in view the submission of the learned
Senior counsel inclusive of the learned counsel for the respondent,
it is deemed appropriate to refer to the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANJAY KUMAR
AGARWAL vs. STATE TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER (2023
SCC ONLINE SC 1406), wherein it has held thus:
9. In the words of Krishna Iyer J., (as His
Lordship then was) "a plea of review, unless the first
judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the
Moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an
invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of
flaws and reversal of result......... A review in the
Counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once
given. So, the law laid down must rest in peace."
10. It is also well settled that a party is not
entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this
Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh
NC: 2025:KHC:6722-DB
decision of the case. The normal principle is that 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.
9. In the case of PARSION DEVI AND OTHERS vs. SUMITRI
DEVI AND OTHERS ((1997) 8 SCC 715)), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court made very pivotal observations: -
"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be
open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error
apparent on the face of the record. An error which is
not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of
reasoning, can hardly be 2 (1980) 2 SCC 167, M/s.
Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of
Delhi (AIR 1965 SC 845), Sajjan Singh and Ors. vs.
State of Rajasthan and Ors. 4 (1997) 8 SCC 715 said
to be an error apparent on the face of the record
justifying the court to exercise its power of review under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction
under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an
erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A
review petition, it must be remembered has a limited
purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in
disguise."
NC: 2025:KHC:6722-DB
10. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid ratio of reliance
and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter, since
respondent is no more, the present review petition would not
survive for consideration, relating to the scope of permanent
alimony.
11. Further, keeping in view the submission of the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner inclusive of the learned counsel
Shri Parameshwar N. Hegde for the respondent, who have
submitted that the respondent has died during the pendency of this
review petition, but this review petition has been initiated in
pursuance of an order rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
SLP (C) No. No.16032/2022. The issue in between the petitioner
and the respondent is relating to grant of permanent alimony in
question. Now, the respondent who is the husband of the
petitioner, is no more. Therefore, it cannot arise for consideration
of this review petition.
12. Therefore, this Review Petition does not survive for
consideration. Though the respondent is no more, it cannot be
said that specifically the case stands abated against him in respect
of permanent alimony as it is civil in nature and as well as spousal
dispute in between the petitioner and the respondent who is no
NC: 2025:KHC:6722-DB
more. Even keeping in view Section 10 of the Hindu Succession
Act, the said provision also does not come in the way of assistance
to consider the grounds urged in this review petition. Therefore, it
does not arise for consideration of this review petition even though
various grounds have been urged in the matter.
Therefore, the review petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(J.M.KHAZI)
JUDGE
KS
