Repetition of arguments and disagreement with alimony quantum do not constitute an error apparent on the face of record for review jurisdiction.

The review petitioner (wife) filed this petition seeking a review of the order dated 28-10-2025 passed in First Appeal No. 666/2023.

In the original appeal, the Court had allowed the respondent’s (husband) plea, granting a decree of divorce and awarding the petitioner Rs. 5 lakhs as permanent alimony.

The petitioner contended that the Court failed to consider material aspects, specifically alleging that the husband has sufficient means for higher alimony and that no cruelty was committed by her.

The respondent opposed the petition, stating the alimony was sufficient and the order required no interference.

1. Whether there exists any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record that warrants the exercise of review jurisdiction.

2. Whether a review petition is maintainable when the grounds raised are a repetition of arguments previously advanced in the main appeal.

The Court applied the principles of review jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, guided by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others (2013), which stipulates that a review is maintainable only upon the discovery of new evidence, a mistake/error apparent on the face of the record, or other analogous sufficient reasons.

It relied on Chhajju Ram v. Neki (1921-22) and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius (1954) to interpret "sufficient reason".

Furthermore, it applied State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Kamal Sengupta & Anr. (2008), which clarifies that an "error apparent" must be prima facie visible without detailed examination and that a review cannot be treated as an "appeal in disguise".

The Court examined the petitioner’s grievances regarding the quantum of alimony and the findings on cruelty against the established legal benchmarks for review. It noted that the petitioner failed to raise any new grounds, instead merely repeating arguments that had already been extensively considered during the previous proceedings.

The Court reasoned that the appreciation of evidence falls within the domain of the appellate court and cannot be re-agitated in a review petition.

Since the alleged errors were not "prima facie visible" and would require a re-hearing of the entire case, they did not constitute an "error apparent on the face of the record".

It answered the issues in the negative, reiterating that the scope of review is limited and cannot be used to correct an allegedly erroneous decision through a rehearing. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.