- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13864 RP No. 165 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO.165 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI. C.R.SURESH S/O. C N RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO. 10, 1ST B CROSS, HMT LAYOUT, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE – 560 054 …PETITIONER (PARTY IN PERSON) AND: 1. MRS. S VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O. C R SURESH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2. KUM. S. RUTHA D/O. C R SURESH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 R/AT NO. 45, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, HMT LAYOUT, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE – 560 054 …RESPONDENTS (BY MRS. BHUSHANI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THE REVIEW PETITION HAS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/03/2020 IN MFA NO. 1246/2011 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13864 RP No. 165 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL ORDER The review petition is filed by the party-in-person, who was respondent No.1 in MFA No.1246 of 2011 seeking review of the order dated 03.03.2020 passed in the above appeal by this Court. 2. The review petitioner submitted that this Court by the order dated 03.03.2020 has ordered to conduct an enquiry and complete the enquiry within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The respondents herein being wife and daughter have filed an appeal against rejection of application filed for grant of temporary injunction restraining the review petitioner from alienating the schedule property. 3. This Court has disposed of the appeal turning down the request made by the wife and daughter by observing that the wife and child have filed a petition - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13864 RP No. 165 of 2022 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the same is disposed on 04.07.2009, wherein maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month was granted. Further it is observed that there are ample opportunities for getting the order executed as stipulated in the Act. Therefore, without granting an order of temporary injunction directed to conduct an enquiry, if there is any violation of the order. 4. Now, the only grievance of the review petitioner is that enquiry is not completed within four months, though time is stipulated. Further review petitioner has submitted that the property is worth Rs.1 Crore and rent of Rs.15,000/- fetched out of said property was attached. Therefore, urged these are the grounds for reviewing the order. 5. Just because an enquiry is not concluded within 4 months, it is not a ground to review the order. Further, if any attachment is made attaching the rent amount as submitted by the review petitioner/party-in-person i.e., in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13864 RP No. 165 of 2022 consequence of in the process of making execution of the order passed by the Court granting maintenance and this is nothing to do with this order of seeking review of the order. Therefore, there is no good ground made out to review the order. As such, the review petition is found to be misconceived. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16