- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6722-DB RP No. 845 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI REVIEW PETITION NO. 845 OF 2022 IN M.F.A.NO.3843 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. SMT G V SAVITHA D/O G R MANJAPPA AGED 33 YEARS R/AT C/O G R MANJAPPA AREKAL VILLAGE MELPAL BALEHONNUR POST 577112 N R PURA TALUK DIST CHIKKAMAGALURU …PETITIONER (BY SHRI C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHETAN JADHAV.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI D JAYADEV S/O DEVARAJ AGED 37 YEARS R/AT NO 309 7TH CROSS SBI MAIN ROAD Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6722-DB RP No. 845 of 2022 HEBBAL 1ST STAGE MYSORE 570016 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE.,ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CPC, 1908 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO I) CALL FOR THE RECORDS II) REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 30/05/2022 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN MFA- 3843/2018(MFA- FC) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL. III) GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER OR RELIEF AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) Heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri C.H. Jadhav for the review petitioner who is present before Court physically, and so - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6722-DB RP No. 845 of 2022 also the learned counsel Shri Parameshwar N. Hegde for the respondent, who appears through video conferencing. 2. This Review Petition is filed by the wife / Smt. G.V. Savitha, seeking to review the order dated 30.05.2022 passed by this Court in M.F.A.No.3843/2018 and consequently to allow the Miscellaneous First Appeal. 3. The petitioner / Smt. G.V. Savitha is the legally wedded wife of the respondent / Jayadev. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 30.11.2003 at Balehonnur as per the customs prevailing in their society. From the wedlock, they have a daughter named Hamsa who is aged 13 years and a son named Skanda aged 9 years. It is stated that their daughter Hamsa is presently residing with the family of the respondent / D. Jayadev in Mysore and the son Skanda is under the care and custody of the petitioner / G.V. Savitha. 4. When things stood thus, now it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Shri C.H. Jadhav for the petitioner that the respondent namely Jayadev is no more. However, he seeks for intervention of the order rendered by this Court in MFA No.3843/2018. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6722-DB RP No. 845 of 2022 5. The issue in between the petitioner and the respondent had gone up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered an order dated 23.09.2022 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.16032/2022 stating that, “While we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment, insofar as it affirms that the decree of divorce, we leave it open to the petitioner to file an application for review, limited to the aspect of grant of permanent alimony. If any, such application for review is filed, the same would be considered in accordance with law.” 6. The aforesaid special leave petition was preferred by the petitioner / G.V. Savitha. However, her husband Shri Jayadev / respondent herein, has died during the pendency of the present review petition. 7. Though it may be stated that the review petition against the respondent stands abated, keeping in view certain provisions of Section 151 CPC which indicates that there is no limit to exercise inherent power either affecting or effecting any order under this Code which is the first limb of the said provision. Whereas the second limb relates to prevent the abuse of process of law and the third limb relates to securing the ends of justice which is applicable - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6722-DB RP No. 845 of 2022 to both the parties to the proceedings. However, the respondent has died during the pendency of the present review petition. Therefore, it would not arise to dwell in detail as regards the prayer urged in this review petition seeking intervention relating to the permanent alimony. 8. However, keeping in view the submission of the learned Senior counsel inclusive of the learned counsel for the respondent, it is deemed appropriate to refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL vs. STATE TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER (2023 SCC ONLINE SC 1406), wherein it has held thus: 9. In the words of Krishna Iyer J., (as His Lordship then was) “a plea of review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the Moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result……… A review in the Counsel’s mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest in peace.” 10. It is also well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6722-DB RP No. 845 of 2022 decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 9. In the case of PARSION DEVI AND OTHERS vs. SUMITRI DEVI AND OTHERS ((1997) 8 SCC 715)), the Hon’ble Supreme Court made very pivotal observations: - “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be 2 (1980) 2 SCC 167, M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi (AIR 1965 SC 845), Sajjan Singh and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 4 (1997) 8 SCC 715 said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.” - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6722-DB RP No. 845 of 2022 10. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid ratio of reliance and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter, since respondent is no more, the present review petition would not survive for consideration, relating to the scope of permanent alimony. 11. Further, keeping in view the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner inclusive of the learned counsel Shri Parameshwar N. Hegde for the respondent, who have submitted that the respondent has died during the pendency of this review petition, but this review petition has been initiated in pursuance of an order rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. No.16032/2022. The issue in between the petitioner and the respondent is relating to grant of permanent alimony in question. Now, the respondent who is the husband of the petitioner, is no more. Therefore, it cannot arise for consideration of this review petition. 12. Therefore, this Review Petition does not survive for consideration. Though the respondent is no more, it cannot be said that specifically the case stands abated against him in respect of permanent alimony as it is civil in nature and as well as spousal dispute in between the petitioner and the respondent who is no - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6722-DB RP No. 845 of 2022 more. Even keeping in view Section 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, the said provision also does not come in the way of assistance to consider the grounds urged in this review petition. Therefore, it does not arise for consideration of this review petition even though various grounds have been urged in the matter. Therefore, the review petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE KS List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1