Madras High Court
D.Selvakumar vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum on 21 June, 2023
REV.APLC(MD)No.39 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.06.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
REV.APLC(MD)No.39 of 2023
and
CMP(MD)No.7190 of 2023
D.Selvakumar ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thanjavur.
2. D.Devasena
3. Ananthakumar ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Order 47, Rules 1 and 2 and
Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment made
in W.A(MD)No.752 of 2014 dated 26.07.2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sathiamoorthy
For R1 : Mr.A.Baskaran
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.A.Sivasubramanian
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
REV.APLC(MD)No.39 of 2023
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The petitioner wants to re-argue the case in the review
application. His mother/2nd respondent sought for maintenance
before the authority constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare
of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The authority under the
Act found that the review petitioner has neglected to maintain his
mother and directed him to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month. The
order also contained a default clause. This was challenged by the
petitioner in W.P(MD)No.9730 of 2013 which came to be dismissed
by the Writ Court on 10.04.2014. The main contention before the
Writ Court was that the order was passed without giving any notice.
The Writ Court rejected the said submission and recorded a factual
finding that except one hearing, the petitioner had not appeared
before the authority though he had notice of the proceedings. This
order of the Writ Court was challenged in W.A(MD)No.752 of 2014.
The Division Bench by its judgment dated 26.07.2017 confirmed the
order of the Writ Court. The only contention that was raised before
the Division Bench was that the Writ Court has not considered the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)No.39 of 2023
non furnishing of documents relied upon and the factual error has
been committed directing the appellant to pay Rs.2,000/- to the 2nd
respondent. Finding that the relationship between the parties is not
in dispute and the order of the authority granting maintenance at Rs.
2,000/- per month is just and reasonable, the appeal was dismissed.
The petitioner has filed this review petition to review that judgment.
2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the
respondent that the petitioner has not paid even a single pie.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
he has paid a part amount.
4. A perusal of the review grounds shows that what is
sought to be done by the petitioner in the guise of review is to re-
agitate the entire issue. Though the petitioner wants to rely upon
certain proceedings to show that the mother is capable of
maintaining herself, such a contention we find was not raised either
before the Writ Court or before the appellate Bench. The petitioner
cannot be allowed to raise a completely new ground in the review
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)No.39 of 2023
proceedings. Hence, we do not see any error apparent on the face
of the record in order to enable us to entertain the review
application.
5. The Review Application is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) & (N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
21.06.2023
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To
The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thanjavur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)No.39 of 2023
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
bala
ORDER MADE IN
REV.APLC(MD)No.39 of 2023
DATED : 21.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
