1 2025:CGHC:34879-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No.116 of 2025 1 - Santosh Kumar Suryavanshi S/o Kirtan Lal Suryavanshi Aged About 38 Years R/o Mudpar (Khisaur) Present Address Dhaivar City Lotus Tower E- Block 1 Floor E1/10 Bhatagaon Raipur (C.G.) (Non Applicant No.1 Before Family Court) 2 - Ramkuwar S/o Kirtan Lal Suryavanshi Aged About 55 Years Caste Suryavanshi R/o Mudpar (Khisaur) Police Station and Tahsil Navagarh District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) (Non Applicant No.2 Before Family Court ) 3 - Mina Bai W/o Gendram Suryavannshi Aged About 45 Years Caste - Suryavanshi R/o Mudpar (Khisaur) Police Station And Tahsil Navagarh District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) (Non Applicant No.3 Before Family Court ) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Vandana Suryavanshi W/o Santosh Suryavanshi Aged About 28 Years R/o Bhilauni Post Dogakoharaud Police Station and Tehsil Pamgarh, District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Juhi Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board Per Rajani Dubey J. 22/07/2025 1. The present review petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking review of the judgment/order passed by this Court dated 22.03.2025 in FA(MAT) No.274/2024, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners seeking custody of the children was dismissed by this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the son of petitioner No.1 namely Harsh is suffering from persistent jaundice and has gone through several treatments. Likewise, his daughter Jainsi is having similar disease and the custody of them has been given to the respondent wife, who is not able to provide them proper treatment and the said fact has emerged after passing of the judgment by this Court. Therefore, the petitioners pray for review of the order under challenge. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Mathew vs Rajesh Kumar, passed in Civil Appeal Nos.5395-5396/2024, decided on 15.07.2025. 3. No one appears on behalf of the respondent. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned judgment under review. 3 5. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 6. The grounds raised by the review petitioners in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the impugned judgment under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 7. The judgment cited by the petitioners has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court well after passing of the judgment by this Court in the appeal, hence the petitioners cannot have the privilege of the same. 4 8. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- Sd/- Rajani Dubey Sachin Singh Rajput Judge Judge Nirala