Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil vs Vaishali on 11 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32731
1 RP-1958-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 11th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 1958 of 2025
SUNIL
Versus
VAISHALI
Appearance:
Shri Nipun Choudhary - Advocate for the petitioner.
Reserved on 07.11.2025
Pronounced on 11.11.2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This review petition under section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of
the CPC is preferred for review of the order dated 15.10.2025 in
CRR No.793/2025 by this Court whereby maintenance under section
125 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 has been awarded in favour of
respondent/wife from the date of application i.e. 14.11.2018 to the
tune of Rs.15,000/- per month.
2. Office has raised objection regarding the maintainability
of the petition.
3. In the light of Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandna Kapoor -2020
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32731
2 RP-1958-2025
INSC 215 in which it is held that the embargo as contained in
section 362 of the CPC, 1973 is clearly relaxed in the proceedings
under section 125 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 (presently section 144 of the
BNSS, 2023), the objection of the office is over ruled.
4. Heard on admission.
5. The facts in brief are that the applicant was married to
non applicant on 20.02.2018 as per Hindu rituals at Ratlam, M.P.
The application claiming maintenance was preferred on 14.11.2018
alleging cruelty, neglect of maintenance, inability to maintain herself
and sufficiency of means of the respondent/husband and submitting
that she requires Rs.25,000/- per month month as maintenance. The
application was opposed and the trial court/Principal Judge, Family
Court, Ratlam dismissed the petition vide order dated 24.12.2024 in
MJCR No.351/2018. The order was challenged before this Court
and vide order dated 15.10.2025 in criminal revision no.793/2025
the criminal revision was allowed and the order of Principal Judge,
Family Court, Ratlam was set aside and the non applicant/wife was
awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/-per month from the
date of application i.e. 14.11.2018 except the period of one year for
which the revision petitioner was getting stipend and extending
liberty to the applicant/husband that after completing the post
graduation course of MD (Homeopathic) if the wife gets job or there
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32731
3 RP-1958-2025
is a change in the circumstances and there is no reconciliation
between the parties, the husband may file for modification of the
order as permissible under section 127 of the Cr.P.C (presently
section 146 of the BNSS, 2023).
6. Without waiting for the change of circumstances,
applicant/husband opted to approach this Court for review of the
order on the ground that this court committed error in reversing the
finding of the family Court, Ratlam despite the fact that respondent
had voluntarily deserted the petitioner without just cause attracting
the bar under section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C and this fact was not
considered by this Court while deciding the revision petition. This
Court has not passed a speaking order while reversing the finding of
the Family Court that wife has not given any reasonable explanation
for leaving the matrimonial home. This Court did not consider that
the scope of revision is very limited and the Court cannot appreciate
the evidence in revision. This court further committed illegality in
not considering the fact that salary of the petitioner/husband was not
Rs.74,000/- as mentioned in the order. Even if it is presumed that
the salary was Rs.74,000/- then also the same was not on the date of
application. The wife is a registered medical practitioner and she is
capable of earning up to Rs.45,000/- per month which is apparent
from the bank details of the wife and till date she is earning
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32731
4 RP-1958-2025
Rs.30,000/- per month which are being credited in her account.
Nowhere the wife mention that she needs any amount to maintain
herself. This Court failed to appreciate the financial constaints of
the husband as he has only one source and limited income and
residing with his aged parents. This court misinterpreted the fact
that respondent is unemployed by ignoring that she voluntarily chose
to pursue higher studies just to harass the petitioner at the time of
final hearing on 02.12.2023. Nowhere in her maintenance
application the fact of higher studies was mentioned. The quantum
of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month is excessive and arbitrary.
The order of maintenance should be effective from the date of order
unless special reasons are recorded to justify otherwise.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kamlesh Verma
Vs. Mayawati and Others- (2013) 8 SCC 320 has laid down the
following principles ''when review will be maintainable'':-
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which,
after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the
petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
8. Similarly, in the matter of Moran Mar Basselios
Catholicos Vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius- AIR 1954 SC
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32731
5 RP-1958-2025
526, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the following principles
''when review will not be maintainable'':-
"(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough
to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original
hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error,
manifest on the face of order,undermines its soundness or results in
miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent
error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be
a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be
an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within
the domain of the appellate Court, it cannot be permitted to be
advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Reviews is not maintainable when the same relief sought
at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32731
6 RP-1958-2025
9. It is well settled principle of law that under the guise of
review, rehearing is not permissible. In order to seek review, it has to
be demonstrated that the order suffers from error apparent on the
face of record. The court while deciding the application for review
cannot sit on appeal over the judgment or decree passed by it. The
review petitioner cannot be given liberty to readdress the Court on
merits because it is not an appeal in disguise where the judgment or
order is to be considered on merit.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the matter of State Of
West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612
has held that mistake or error apparent on the face of the record
means that mistake or error which is prima facie visible and does not
require any detail examination. Erroneous view of law is not a
ground for review and review cannot partake the category of the
appeal."
11. The income of the review petitioner working in a public
sector undertaking ONGC Ltd. was assessed as per his statement
recorded as NAW No.1 before the Family Court in para-2. The
finding that wife is not earning was based on the statement of the
review petitioner mentioned in para-14 where he has stated that so
called service of revision petitioner was temporary to address the
Covid-19 situation and came to an end on 01.04.2022. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32731
7 RP-1958-2025
argument that the order of maintenance should be made effective
from the date of order is totally against the dictum laid down in
para-93 of Rajnesh vs. Neha - 2021 (2) SCC 324 which is being
reproduced as below:
93. It has therefore become necessary to issue
directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in the
orders passed by all Court, by directing that maintenance
be awarded from the date on which the application was
made before the concerned Court. The right to claim
maintenance must date back to the date of filing the
application, since the period during which the
maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within
the control of the applicant.
12. The impugned order has been passed in the periphery of
limited jurisdiction of revision and there is no transgression of the
powers as mentioned in Pylamutyalamma @ Satyavati vs. Pyala Suri
Demudu & another - 2011 (12) SCC 189 . Accordingly, the quantum
of maintenance has been quantified by balancing the need of the wife
and the income of the husband. On the perusal of the record, no case
for review is made out, hence the petition for review is dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32731
8 RP-1958-2025
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
hk/
