Rajasthan High Court
Sunil Kumar S/O Mr. Krishna Kumar vs Dr. Chanchal Pal D/O Ramendra Pal on 22 October, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 112/2020
Sunil Kumar S/o Mr. Krishna Kumar, Aged About 42 Years,
Resident Of 140 Krishna Kunj Society, Shekhawat Marg, Kalwar
Road, Jhotwara Jaipur 302012 (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Chanchal Pal D/o Ramendra Pal, Aged About 43 Years,
Resident Of 232 C Vishnu Marg, Officers Campus Extension, Sirsi
Road Jaipur 302021 (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hans Kumar Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
22/10/2021
For the reasons stated in the application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, the delay in filing the review petition is
condoned.
The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is
allowed.
This review petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India read with Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC has
been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated
22.07.2020 passed by this Court whereby the writ petition
preferred by him against the order dated 10.10.2019 passed by
the learned Family Court No.1, Jaipur, was dismissed.
Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that while passing the order impugned, this Court did
(2 of 4) [WRW-112/2020]
not appreciate that appeal against decree of divorce granted by
the learned Family Court in favour of the applicant-respondent was
subjudice before this Court and hence, her marriage with the
petitioner was null and void. He further submitted that being law
of the land, the learned Family Court ought to have taken
cognizance of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.363/2013 (Shilpa Vs. Kuldeep
Singh Gehlot) reported in (2015) 3 DNJ 1190. He further
submitted that this Court erred in not adverting to his other
prayers made in the writ petition. He, therefore, prays for recalling
the order dated 22.07.2020 and allowing the review petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out error
apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 22.07.2020
warranting its review and recall. All the submissions raised herein
were raised and considered by this Court while dismissing the writ
petition. The writ petition was preferred by the petitioner against
the order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the learned Family Court
No.1, Jaipur whereby, the divorce petition filed by the respondent
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity, 'the
Act of 1955') against the petitioner, was registered having been
found not suffering from any formal defect warranting its rejection
at the threshold and its notice was issued to him. It was
specifically contended in the divorce petition that she has entered
into marriage with the petitioner after her divorce from ex-
husband. As observed in the order impugned dated 22.07.2020,
there was no material before the learned Family Court to have
(3 of 4) [WRW-112/2020]
doubted the genuineness of the aforesaid averment. It was
observed in the order impugned that the petitioner was always at
liberty to raise his objections before the learned Family Court
against the maintainability of the divorce petition filed by the
respondent. Submission of the learned counsel qua judgment of
this Court in case of Shilpa (supra) is wholly misconceived. In that
case, scope and effect of Section 15 of the Act of 1955 has been
discussed and elaborated. As already observed, there was no
material before the learned Family Court at the time of passing of
the order dated 10.10.2019 to show that an appeal against the
decree of divorce granted in favour of the respondent against her
ex-husband was subjudice before this Court and consequently,
there was to question of examining the applicability of Section 15
of the Act of 1955. Insofar as contention qua other reliefs in the
writ petition are concerned, the same were not pressed at the
time of decision of the writ petition, hence the same cannot be
entertained at the stage of review petition. However, there is one
typographical error in the order dated 22.07.2020 which is
required to be corrected. On page 4 of the order, it has been
observed that "he can be permitted to assail the order dated
10.10.2019 issuing notice by placing altogether new/fresh
material before this Court ................", which is required to be
corrected as "he can't be permitted to assail the order dated
10.10.2019 issuing notice by placing altogether new/fresh
material before this Court in the writ petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India which was not available with the learned
Family Court at the relevant time".
(4 of 4) [WRW-112/2020]
With the aforesaid correction, this review petition is
dismissed being devoid of merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
MADAN/70
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
