Review jurisdiction cannot reappreciate evidence or correct an allegedly erroneous appellate decision.

The petitioner-husband and respondent-wife were married according to Hindu rites on 8 March 2019. The husband alleged physical and mental cruelty, denial of matrimonial relations, abusive conduct, threats of false criminal cases, and failure to discharge matrimonial responsibilities. A male child was born on 17 June 2020.

The husband instituted a divorce proceeding under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, initially before the Family Court at Surajpur/Greater Noida. On the wife’s transfer petition, the matter was transferred to the Family Court, Deoghar, and renumbered as Original Suit No. 16 of 2023.

The Family Court dismissed the divorce suit on 22 October 2024, holding that cruelty had not been proved. The husband’s First Appeal No. 50 of 2025 was dismissed by the High Court on 4 August 2025.

The husband thereafter sought review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, alleging non-consideration of several cases filed by the wife, chat messages marked as Ext. X, her alleged forcible occupation of his house, and the alleged non-calling of the trial court record.

The Court applied Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, under which review is permissible only upon discovery of new and important matter or evidence despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason analogous to the specified grounds.

Relying on Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526; Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India, (1980) Supp. SCC 562; Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320; Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650; S. Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC 464; Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715; Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC 753; and Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer (1), (2024) 2 SCC 362, the Court reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise, cannot be used to reargue matters already decided, and is unavailable for an error requiring a lengthy process of reasoning or merely because another view is possible.

On cruelty, the Court relied on Dastane v. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326; Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCC 105; V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337; Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334; Vidhya Viswanathan v. Kartik Balakrishnan, (2014) 15 SCC 21; and Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742, which establish that matrimonial cruelty is assessed contextually and must be grave and weighty rather than consisting of ordinary wear and tear of marriage.

The Court held that the principal grounds in the review petition had already been considered in the judgment under review.

The first appeal had expressly noted the wife’s admission that she had filed five cases and had found that those proceedings were instituted after the husband’s divorce case; therefore, the assertion that this aspect was overlooked could not be sustained.

The allegations concerning Ext. X, the wife’s conduct in occupying the house, and the broader allegations of cruelty sought a fresh appreciation of evidence, which was impermissible in review jurisdiction.

As to the trial court record, the petitioner had not objected when the first appeal was decided and failed to identify any specific prejudice or material evidence that was omitted because the record was not physically called for.

Mere non-calling of the record, without demonstrated detriment to the petitioner’s legal rights or the outcome, did not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record.

Since no patent error, newly discovered evidence, or sufficient analogous ground was shown, the requirements of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC were not met.

It held that the review petition merely sought reconsideration of factual findings and reargument of matters already addressed in the first appeal, without establishing any reviewable error under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

Civil Review No. 63 of 2026 was accordingly dismissed, and any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.