Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reargue a case absent apparent error or new evidence.

The petitioner-husband had instituted matrimonial proceedings under Sections 11, 12 and 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, initially before the Family Court, Jabalpur, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.

On the wife’s transfer application before the Supreme Court, the proceeding was transferred to the Family Court, Rourkela and renumbered as CP No. 115 of 2018.

In that proceeding, the wife sought pendente lite maintenance under Section 24 of the Act.

The Family Court directed the husband to pay ₹15,000 per month towards maintenance of the wife and daughter from 22 April 2017, along with ₹10,000 as litigation expenses.

The husband challenged that order in W.P.(C) No. 4283 of 2024, which was dismissed by the High Court on 04 March 2025.

He thereafter filed the present review petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, alleging an error apparent on the face of the record and discovery of new facts.

The Court applied Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, under which review is permissible only on the grounds of: (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced earlier; (ii) an error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) any other sufficient reason.

An error apparent must be self-evident and apparent on a mere inspection of the judgment; it cannot be an error requiring a long-drawn process of reasoning.

The Court further applied the settled distinction between review and appeal: review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reargue the case or correct alleged errors that properly constitute grounds of appeal.

The underlying matrimonial proceedings and maintenance order arose under Sections 11, 12, 13(1)(ia) and 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Court examined the petitioner’s prayer, which sought review, clarification or modification of the earlier judgment and a fresh decision on the quantum and effective date of maintenance.

It found that the petitioner had not identified any specific new evidence or material that was unavailable despite due diligence when the writ petition was decided.

Nor had he demonstrated any self-evident error in the earlier judgment.

The grounds raised amounted to an attempt to reopen the merits of the maintenance determination and challenge the earlier dismissal, which would require reconsideration rather than correction of an apparent error.

The Court therefore held that the petition sought to use review proceedings as a disguised appeal, contrary to the limited scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

The review petition was found unmeritorious and was dismissed.

No order was made as to costs.