Smt. Richa Sahgal vs Chetan Sahgal
2023 Latest Caselaw 20188 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Richa Sahgal vs Chetan Sahgal on 1 December, 2023

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Pranay Verma

                                                            1
                           IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                  BEFORE
                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                                     &
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                                             ON THE 1 st OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                           REVIEW PETITION No. 1222 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SMT. RICHA SAHGAL W/O CHETAN SAHGAL, AGED
                          ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRACTICE AS A
                          JUNIOR ADVOCATE AND STUDENT 14 JOY BUILDERS
                          COLONY OLD PALASIA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                          (MS ANAMIKA SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER )

                          AND
                          CHETAN SAHGAL S/O MR. VINOD SAHGAL, AGED
                          ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT. DOCTOR
                          SAHGAL BUILDING IN FROUNT OF SARASWATI
                          MANDIR BEHIND OF POLICE CHOKI SHUJALPUR
                          MAND   TAHSIL SHUJALPUR   (DIST. SHAJAPUR)
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS


                                This petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
                          Dharmadhikari passed the following:
                                                             ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 03.10.2023 passed in F.A. No. 1699/2019 [Chetan Sehgal Vs. Richa Sehgal], which was allowed by this Court granting decree of divorce in favour of the respondent/husband herein.

2. The respondent herein filed first appeal against the judgement and

decree by which the Court below has dismissed the application filed by him for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

3 . Petitioner and respondent solemnized marriage as per Hindu rights and customs in Arya Samaj Mandir. However, petitioner has never lived at her matrimonial house and whenever respondent requested the petitioner to come and live at his house, she refused on the pretext that she has not disclosed the factum of marriage to her father and when her father came to know about their marriage, he had lodged a false report against the respondent and his family members regarding dowry demand. Even, the petitioner also lodged other cases under Domestic Violence Act, u/S 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance

and even civil suit. As a result respondent filed application before the Court below which was also dismissed on various grounds. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal, he has approached this Court by filing first appeal seeking decree of divorce. This Court after issuance of notice to the petitioner had sent the case for mediation to explore the possibility of settlement however, respondent completely denied for amicable settlement. Under such circumstances, the Division Bench allowed the first appeal filed by the respondent holding that since marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, there is a long separation with multiple Court cases between the parties, the continuation of such a marriage would lead to infliction of cruelty on either of the parties to each other and granted decree of divorce in favour of the respondent/husband relying upon various judgments passed by the Apex Court.

4. Now, review of the aforesaid order has been sought inter alia on the ground that this Court has only dealt with the issue of cruelty and not discussed or given any finding on the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Shujalpur Court. As per Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act the Shujalpur

Court has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the respondent's divorce application. Moreso, the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Court was an ex-parte judgment.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6 . In our considered opinion, none of the grounds available for successfully seeking review as recognized by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are made out in the present case. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bairathi Amaal Vs. Palani Roman (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held that in order to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous. In another case, the Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612 has held that "a party cannot be permitted to argue de novo in the garb of review."

7. On perusal of the record and in the light of the judgments passed in the case of S. Bairathi Amaal and State of West Bengal (supra), there is no error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the order impugned.

8. The review petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

                               (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)                                  (PRANAY VERMA)
                                        JUDGE                                             JUDGE
                          sh