1 2025:CGHC:37119-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 85 of 2024 1 - Kulbir Chhabra S/o Shri Gurucharan Chhabra Aged About 40 Years R/o Deewan Para, Ward No. 22, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Rainpreet Kaur W/o Kulbir Singh Chhabra Aged About 34 Years R/o Darshan Singh Chawla, Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu & Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ Order on Board (30/07/2025) Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Heard on IA No.1/2024, application for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition. 2. On due consideration, the Application is allowed and delay in filing of Review Petition is condoned. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.07.31 18:40:49 +0530 2 3. By this review petition, the petitioner has prayed for review of the Judgment dated 16-10-2023 passed in FAM No.219/2017 whereby the Appeal preferred by the respondent herein (appellant in the Appeal) was allowed and it was held that the wife (respondent herein) is entitled to get Rs.45,000/- per month from the respondent (review petitioner) towards maintenance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the Appeal filed by the respondent/wife was allowed and despite no application being preferred by the respondent/wife in terms of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of permanent alimony and maintenance, an amount of Rs.45,000/- per month was allowed in favour of the wife as maintenance and, therefore, the finding with regard to grant of permanent alimony and maintenance is erroneous. 5. After close examination of the record of the Appeal and the order under review, we find no factual ground as urged in the review petition. So far as other ground for reviewing the order under review is concerned, that aspect has already been considered and rejected by this Court and the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue the same ground in the garb of review petition. 6. Moreover, the scope of interference in review petition is well settled. The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC. The petitioner prays for review on account of mistake or error apparent on the face of record. Mistake or error apparent signifies an error which is evident per 3 se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC {Reliance is placed in State of West Bengal and others Versus Kamal Sengupta and another, [(2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 612]. 7. For the aforesaid reason, we do not find any substance in this Review Petition, the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Judge Barve