Patna High Court
Rohit Kumar Singh vs Supriya Kumari on 28 August, 2025
Author: Shailendra Singh
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.19 of 2025
In
Miscellaneous Appeal No.70 of 2024
======================================================
Rohit Kumar Singh S/o Vinod Kumar Singh, resident of Village and Post
Office- Basaniya, Police Station-Laukaha, District-Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Supriya Kumari wife of Rohit Kumar Singh and daughter of Sri Arvind
Kumar Singh, resident of Village-Bokatha, Police Station and Block-Suppi,
District-Sitamadhi.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Murlidhar Mishra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv. (Amicus Curiae)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH)
Date : 28-08-2025
In this civil review application, initially a question
has arisen regarding the maintainability of the review
application, wherein a prayer has been made to review/modify
the judgment dated 26.11.2024 passed by this Court in
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 70 of 2024, which was preferred
under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act against the
judgment dated 03.11.2023 passed by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Madhubani in M.M. Case No. 190 of
2022. Accordingly, we shall first decide whether the instant civil
review application is maintainable against the judgment dated
Patna High Court C. REV. No.19 of 2025
2/5
26.11.2024
passed in M.A. No. 70 of 2024 preferred under
Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
2. Vide order dated 30.06.2025, Mr. Devendra Kumar
Sinha, learned senior counsel, was requested to assist this Court
on the said issue as an amicus curiae.
3. Heard Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned amicus
curiae, and Mr. Murlidhar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner.
4. Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned amicus curiae,
while detailing the provisions of Section 114 read with Order
XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short 'CPC'),
which deal with the scope of review, has referred to several
judgments of the Hon'ble Courts, which are as under:-
(i) Smt. Hukma Dading vs. Jitendra Dading
in Review Petition No. 782 of 2024 decided
by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court at
Indore.
(ii) Anjana Taggarse Motupalli and others
vs. Sri Sreenivas Motupalli and others in
Review F.C.A.M.P No. 285 of 2012 decided
by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court at
Hyderabad.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.19 of 2025
(iii) Raj Kumar Sah vs. The State of Bihar &
Anr. in Criminal Revision No. 321 of 2008
decided by this Court.
(iv) Sri Rajesh Kumar vs. Smt. Pushpa Rani
in Civil Review No. 4 of 2016 decided by this
Court.
5. The petitioner challenged the judgment dated
03.11.2023 passed in M.M. Case No. 190 of 2022 by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani, by way of M.A. No.
70 of 2024. The petitioner's appeal was decided on merits by
this Court vide judgment dated 26.11.2024.
5.1. As the petitioner challenged the judgment and
decree passed in a matrimonial case lodged under the Hindu
Marriage Act, hence the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act
shall apply to all the proceedings of the suit and appeal relating
to the said matrimonial issue. In this regard, Section 21 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'HM Act') is relevant,
which states as follows:-
"21. Application of Act 5 of 1908.--
Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act
and to such rules as the High Court may make in this
behalf, all proceedings under this Act shall be
regulated, as far as may be, by the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908."
Patna High Court C. REV. No.19 of 2025
6. From the aforesaid provision of Section 21 of the
HM Act, it is clearly evident that all proceedings under the
Hindu Marriage Act shall be regulated by the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, subject to the other provisions contained in the
Hindu Marriage Act and the rules framed by the High Court in
this regard. Accordingly, either party in an appeal preferred
under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act against a
judgment passed under the Hindu Marriage Act has the right to
file a review application for reviewing an order or judgment
passed in the appeal, if such party has sufficient grounds for
review under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the
CPC.
7. A review is generally considered when the
petitioner demonstrates new and important matter or evidence
that have been discovered and were not within the applicant's
knowledge or could not be produced when the order/judgment
sought to be reviewed was passed, or when there is a mistake or
error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other
sufficient reason. However, a review is not to be treated as a
routine remedy and should not be used to rehear the case. The
court will entertain a review application only if it is satisfied
that there is a material error apparent on the face of the order or
Patna High Court C. REV. No.19 of 2025
judgment which would result in a miscarriage of justice or
undermine the soundness of the decision.
7.1. Accordingly, the question regarding the
maintainability of this review application is answered in the
affirmative, that every final order or judgment passed by the
appellate court while exercising its power under Section 19(1)
of the Family Courts Act is reviewable under the provisions of
Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, if the applicant's case comes
within the scope of the same.
8. Put up this review application after four weeks for
final hearing under the heading 'For Hearing', treating it as tied
up with the concerned Bench.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
I agree. (P. B. Bajanthri, J)
annu/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 25.08.2025
Uploading Date 29.08.2025
Transmission Date NA
