[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harleen Kaur vs Dr. Charanjeet Singh on 1 April, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
FA No. 547 of 2020
(HARLEEN KAUR VS DR. CHARANJEET SINGH )
Shri Dilip Kshirsagar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Veer Kumar Jain - Sr. Advocate with Shri Vaibhav Jain -
Advocate for the respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 27/02/2026
Pronounced on : 01/04/2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per: Gajendra Singh, J:
Heard on I.A. No.1195/2025, which is an application under
Section 114 of the CPC, 1908 preferred for review of the order dated
08.01.2025 in FA No.547/2020, whereby applicant/respondent/husband
has been ordered to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month to the non-
applicant/appellant/wife from the date of application i.e 14.08.2024 to
be payable on 20th day of each month and the value of Rs.12,000/- for
the microwave oven, Rs.41,000/- for the furniture, Rs.5 Lakh for the
Hyundai Santro car, Rs.80,000/- for vessels and utensils, Rs.30,000/-
for the window A/c, Rs.8,000/- for the Desert Bajaj Cooler and
Rs.10,000/- for the washing machine and thus, a total of Rs.6,81,000/-
have been ordered to be paid by the applicant/respondent/husband to the
non-applicant/appellant/wife within sixty days from the date of that
order, failing which he shall pay 6% interest per annum on the said
amount on I.A. No.7852/2024 preferred by the non-
applicant/appellant/wife under Section 25 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The appellant/wife and respondent/husband were married on
28.11.2005 as per the rituals of the Sikh religion. The
respondent/husband filed a petition for divorce and vide judgment and
decree dated 03.03.2020 in H.M. Case No.1177/2015 by Ist Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, the marriage was dissolved on
the ground of desertion with a specific condition that parties will not
re-marry during the period of appeal and if an appeal is filed then
during the pendency of appeal. Wife filed the appeal under section 19
of the Family Courts Act, 1984 on 25.02.2021 during the outbreak of
Covid-19 epidemic and filed I.A.No.7852/24 on 14.08.2024 claiming
(1) an amount of Rs.1.25 crore towards permanent alimony (2) return
of Stridhan/jewellery etc. & (3) an amount of Rs.50 lakhs towards the
value of other items gifted at or about the time of marriage. The
description of Stridhan in the form of jewellery and other items was
given in para-6, 7 & 8 of the application. The application was
supported by the affidavit of the appellant/wife.
3. Respondent/husband was afforded an opportunity to file reply
vide order dated 06.09.2024 and thereafter, on 13.12.2024, the
respondent/husband was directed to file an affidavit in respect of his
all assets moveable and immovable within two weeks including the
income tax return of last three years but the respondent/husband did
not comply the direction within time and opted to submit the reply
only on 08.01.25 refuting the claims of the wife on the ground that
property of the father cannot be treated as his property and wife took
all her jewellery and other stuffs with her and the list of the items as
mentioned in the application is beyond imagination and also claimed
that they also given jewellery to the appellant and also referred to
para-7 of Vidya (DW/2) and para-12 of the appellant to the effect that
the appellant is working as physiotherapist whereas he is not getting
any salary and has only a small private practice. During the argument,
it was stated that no one approached to receive the car, and the wife
can take the car at any time.
4. Counsel for the appellant/wife specifically drawn attention of
the Court that the trial Court had awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- per
month under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide order
dated 27.08.2016 and the challenge to the order before the High Court
of M.P through Writ Petition no.6689/2016 was unsuccessful and
income tax returns filed do not represent the actual income of the
respondent/husband as he has deliberately tried to deprive the wife
from maintenance obligations. He is the only son of his parents. His
conduct is not bona fide because he performed a second marriage on
24.07.2020 when the limitation was extended by the apex Court in the
light of the Covid-19 epidemic.
5. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed, wherein this Court,
in paragraphs 6 and 7, observed that:-
6. The trial court granted the decree of divorce on 03.03.2020 but did
not grant any relief of permanent alimony, recording reasons as per
para-47 of the judgment. The ground of petition in para-4 & 5 was
that wife was suffering from mental illness and it was further stated
that she was not capable even to drive scooter but to avoid the claim
of permanent alimony he is taking the defence that wife is earning as
physiotherapist. His both stands are contradictory. It is not in dispute
that the respondent/husband is a Bachelor of Dental Surgery and he
runs a dental clinic. An amount of Rs.10,000/- per month was ordered
in favour of the appellant/wife vide order dated 27.08.2016 and the
husband was unsuccessful in challenge to that order in Writ Petition
no.6689/2016. After eight years the necessity certainly has mounted.
The appeal is pending and at this stage a total sum of Rs.1.25 crore as
claimed cannot be quantified. Instead an amount of Rs.20,000/- per
month is awarded in favour of the appellant/wife from the date of
application i.e. 14.08.2024. This amount per month shall be paid by
the respondent/husband on 20th day of each month. The first payment
shall be made along with the arrears.
7. The possession of jewellery is under dispute and that cannot be
decided on the basis of material available with the application but
microwave oven, furniture, Hyundai Santro car, vessels, window A/c,
desert Bajaj cooler, washing machine and suit cases are not the
articles that can be presumed to be taken by the appellant/wife and
there is no material to show that they were handed over to the wife
whereas as per section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 those
articles have to be handed over by the husband to the wife. Now after
a long time the husband cannot take the plea that the wife may take
those articles and it is proper to order to return the value of those
articles. Accordingly, the value of Rs.12,000/- for the microwave oven,
Rs.41,000/- for the furniture, Rs.5 lakhs for the Hyundai Santro car,
Rs.80,000/- for vessels and utensils, Rs.30,000/- for the window A/c,
Rs.8,000/- for the desert Bajaj cooler & Rs.10,000/- for the washing
machine and thus, a total of Rs.6,81,000/- shall be paid by the
respondent/husband to the wife within sixty days from the date of this
order, failing which he shall pay 6% interest per annum on the said
amount. The claim regarding rest of the articles shall be decided at
the time of final hearing of the appeal. Accordingly, IA No.7852//24
stands disposed of.
6. The review of the above order is sought on the ground that a
plain reading of Section 25 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
makes it clear that firstly, such application cannot be entertained for
the first time in an appeal and secondly, such application cannot be
decided at the interim stage of the case and thirdly, such applications
cannot be decided without any enquiry or recording of evidence.
7. Shri V K Jain, learned senior counsel for the husband, placed
reliance on the Apex Court judgments in the cases of Balkrishna
Ramchandra Kadam vs. Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam: (1997) 7 SCC
500, MANU/SC/0882/1997, Jalendra Padhiary Vs Pragati Chhotray
(2018) 16 SCC 773/ MANU/SC/0391/2018, Rajnesh Vs Neha, (2021)
2 SCC 324 & Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel (2024) SCC
Online SC 1724, Vinny Parmvir Parmar Vs. Parmvir Parmar:
(2011) 13 SCC 112, MANU/SC/0842/2011.
8. Shri Jain, learned senior counsel argued that while deciding the
application under section 25 and 27 of the HM Act, 1955, the amount
of maintenance had been increased from Rs.10,000/- per month to Rs.
20,000/- per month, even though, the respondent/husband has been
earning only Rs.35,000/- and has a liability to maintain his current
wife and his old parents. Husband has produced documents to prove
his income, but there is no disclosure of income by the wife. In the
absence of a claim of enhancement of maintenance, such maintenance
amount cannot be enhanced; interim relief has wrongly been granted
to the appellant. The ITRs of the husband have not been taken into
consideration. If they are considered for the first time by this Hon'ble
High Court at the stage of appeal, the right of the respondent/husband
to appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against
such order is lost, and the respondent/husband is left remediless. The
above mistakes are apparent on the face of the record and the order
deserves to be reviewed in the interest of justice.
9. The application has been opposed by the appellant/wife by
filing the reply through Document No.4253/2025 and raised the
preliminary objections that the appellant/wife did not want the divorce
and for the reasons she contested the petition for divorce filed by the
respondent/husband before the Family Court, therefore, she had not
filed application under Section 25 and 27 of the HM Act, 1955 before
the Family Court. Application under Section 25 of the HM Act may
be filed either at the time of passing of any decree or at any time
subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either
the wife or the husband, as the case may be, and the respondent shall
pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance. An application under
Section 27 of the HM Act, 1955 was not earlier preferred for the
reasons that the wife wanted to keep the wedlock alive.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
10. Before referring to the main contents of the application, we are
referring to the scope of review.
11. Now, we are considering the scope of review -
The scope of review before this Court is limited to the extent of
ground available under Order 47 rule 1 CPC, which is reproduced
below for ready reference and convenience:-
Order XLVII
1. Application for review of judgment.--
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved--
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from
which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and
who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his
knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the error
apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason,
desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against
him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed
the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for
a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by
some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common
to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can
present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the
review.
Explanation.--The fact that the decision on a question of law on
which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or
modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other
case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.
12. 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.
13. Similarly, in the matter of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs.
Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 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.‖
14. In the matter of Board of Control of Cricket India vs. Netaji
Cricket Club (AIR 2005 SC 592), it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court that the words ―sufficient reason‖ occurring in Rule 1 of Order
47 of CPC are wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law
by a court or even an advocate. An application for review may be
necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine 'actus curiae neminem
gravabit'‖ Similarly, in the matter of Union of India Vs. Harinagar
Sugar Mills Ltd., (AIR 2008 (Gau) 161, it is observed that the review
is not an appeal in disguise. The scope of review as well as the appeal
is completely different. While the review petition is limited, the
appellate jurisdiction is wide. In the matter of Akhilesh Yadav Vs.
Vishwanath Chaturvedi & Ors. (2013 AIR SCW 1316), the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that the scope of review petition is very limited and
submissions made on questions of fact cannot be a ground to review
the order. It was further observed that review of an order is
permissible only if some mistake or error is apparent on the fact of the
record, which has to be decided on the facts of each and every case. It
was further held that an erroneous decision, by itself, does not warrant
review of each decision.
15. The scope of review of an order by a Court of Civil Judicature
is circumscribed by Section 114 of the Code, which provides that a
review of an order is permissible upon a discovery of a new and
important matter of evidence. But in the present case, no new and
important matter has been brought before the Court by the review
petitioner. It is also well settled that only an error apparent on the face
of the record is liable to be reviewed, and such an error must be stated
in the face where no elaborate arguments are necessary to pin-point
the error.(See: Abhijit Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Terai Tea
Company Pvt.Ltd. (AIR 1995 Cal 316).
16. It is a well-settled principle of law that, in the guise of review,
rehearing is not permissible. In order to seek review, it has to be
demonstrated that the order suffers from an error apparent on the face
of the 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/order is to be considered on merits.[See: J.R. Raghupathy
Vs. State of A.P. (AIR 1988 SC1681), S. Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani
Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC 464 and State of West
Bengal and Others v. Kamal Sengupta and Another, (2008) 8 SCC
612 ].
17. 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 a 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."
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arun Dev Upadhyaya
(supra) in paragraph-15 has held as under:-
"15. From the above, it is evident that a power of review cannot
be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined
to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. An error on
the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at
the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn
process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably
be two opinions."
19. In view of the above limited scope of review jurisdiction, the
merit of the application is being examined now. As mentioned in para
6 of the impugned order, the wife was granted maintenance pendente
lite to the tune of Rs.10,000/- in W.P. No.6689/2016. Wife has
explained that she wanted to keep the wedlock alive; accordingly, she
did not move the application under Section 25 and 27 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court. The decree was passed
against the wife, and no order of permanent alimony could be passed
in favor of the wife. A wife cannot be put in a worse position after a
divorce. Compare to the position where the divorce petition was
pending.
20. Relief is granted to the tune of a reasonable amount of
Rs.20,000/- per month only considering the gap of more than eight
years from the earlier order of 27.08.2016. The order providing
monetary value of the items have been passed considering the
entitlement of the wife regarding the dowry and the obligations of the
persons holding such items to return to the wife and the order to pay
the monetary value has been passed regarding those items that were
not returned to the wife as per the obligations under Section 6 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
21. When the law is settled, that erroneous view of law is not a
ground for review, and review cannot partake the category of the
appeal; the grounds raised by the applicant/respondent/husband do not
constitute a mistake apparent on the face of the record. References to
Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam (supra), Jalendra Padhiary
(supra), Rajnesh (supra), Kiran Jyot Maini (supra) and Vinny
Parmvir Parmar (supra) do not support the case of the
applicant/husband within the limited scope of review jurisdiction.
Hence, no case for review is made out. This application for review is
nothing but an attempt to harass and take one chance to argue the
entire matter again by engaging senior counsel instead of paying the
legitimate claim of maintenance to the wife.
22. In view of the above, I.A. No.1195/2025 is hereby dismissed
with the cost of 5000/-payable to the appellant within 4 weeks.
23. List for final hearing in due course.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Vatan
