IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE REVIEW PETITION NO.108/2019 BETWEEN:
VIMALANATHAN SIGAMANI S/O. LATE THIAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AT AS SUPPORT ESCALATION ENGINEER C/O. MICROSOFT INDIA R & D PVT. LTD. LEVEL IV PRESTIGE FERNS GALAXY OUTER RING ROAD BENGALURU. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.V. SHASTRI, ADV.) AND:
MELO KAMALAM W/O. VIMALANATHAN SIGAMANI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.19/1, 1ST FLOOR 2ND MAIN, IV CROSS GANGANAGAR EXTENSION R.T. NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 032. ... RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2019 PASSED IN W.P.NO.23167/2016 ON THE FILE OF THIS COURT, BENGALURU.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr.S.V.Shastri, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. In this review petition, petitioner, inter alia, seeks review of the order dated 19.02.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.23167/2016.
3. This Court by the aforesaid order has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month by way of maintenance from the date of application filed by the petitioner. This Court has further directed that since the proceeding seeking divorce are pending before the Family Court from 2011, the Family Court shall make an endeavour to decide the proceeding within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed in W.P.No.23167/2016.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that while passing the order dated 19.02.2019 has placed reliance on the affidavit which has been filed for the first time before this Court and was not filed before the Family Court.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. From perusal of the order, it does not transpire that this Court has taken note of the facts in the affidavit which has been filed by the petitioner for the first time before this Court. In paragraph 5 of the order reference has been made to the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Family Court. Similarly in paragraph 8, reference has been made to the affidavit filed by the petitioner himself before this Court on 26.07.2018.
6. The impugned order neither suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record nor jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of review jurisdiction. Even otherwise it is well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a Court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the orders is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. [See: ‘JAI SINGH AND OTHERS VS. M.C.D. AND OTHERS’, (2010) 9 SCC 385, ‘SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY VS. RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL’, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and ‘RADHE SHYAM AND ANOTHER VS. CHABBI NATH AND OTHERS’, (2015) 5 SCC 423].
Even otherwise, it is well settled in law that in the garb of review, the party cannot be permitted to denovo argue the matter.
In the result, I do not find any merit in the review petition and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/-