The Gauhati High Court in the case Heramba Kumar Das v. Archana Das observed and has refused for entertaining the review petition against a maintenance order filed under Order 47 Rules 1, 2 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, wherein stating that there being no such grounds mentioned in the petition on which a review can be allowed.
The Single judge bench headed by Justice Parthiv Jyoti Saikia observed and has stated in guise of a review petition, the court allowed nobody for filing an appeal.
It has also been directed by the Additional District Judge to petitioner-husband to pay a maintenance for an amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the respondent-wife after considering that the petitioner earns monthly salary for an amount of Rs.49,881/-.
Therefore, the petitioner approached the High Court wherein challenging the order of maintenance of the Additional District Judge on the ground that the said maintenance order was being exorbitant for him.
However, the court after perusal of materials on record, the High Court vide order dated 17.01.2022 observed and has directed the petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.12,000/-.
The plea has been filed by the petition under Order 47 Rules 1, 2 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for the review of an impugned order of the High Court, wherein the court contended that the said amount of Rs. 12000/- is being exorbitant for him to pay.
The Supreme Court after giving due consideration to the abovementioned provisions and the court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Union of India v. Sandur Manganese And Iron Ores Ltd, it has been observed by the court that a review petition is not being maintainable only on the following grounds:
The new matter or evidence have been discovered which was not being in knowledge of the petitioner in spite of due diligence;
Although such kind of matter or evidence was in the knowledge but the same could not be produced before the court when the judgment under review was passed or ordered;
There being some mistake or an error being apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason
It has also been held by the court that the abovementioned grounds on which a review can be allowed do not exist.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea for being devoid of merit.