2025:KER:32030 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947 RP NO. 210 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.01.2025 IN Mat.Appeal NO.377 OF 2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: SULABHA DEVI.C.C. AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NISTULA, P.O.KANNAVAM, KANNAVAM AMSOM, KANNAVAM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, NEAR THODIKALAM TEMPLE, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670001 BY ADVS. M.SASINDRAN SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN MURALI PALLATH P.M.UNNI NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: ANAND.P.K.V. AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHANDRIKA, KADAMBUR AMSOM, KADAMBUR DESOM, P.O.KADAMBUR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670001 ADV.K.N. ABHILASH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 11.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:32030 SATHISH NINAN & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. No.210 of 2025 in Mat.Appeal No.377 of 2014 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of April, 2025 ORDER Sathish Ninan, J. The Mat Appeal was disposed of as per the judgment dated 07.01.2025. The review petition is by the respondent in the appeal. 2. The judgment sought to be reviewed was passed after a full-fledged hearing of the learned counsel on either side and on the facts as were projected. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that a review is not to be an attempted rehearing of the appeal in disguise. The Apex Court has also deprecated the practice of moving review petitions through a different counsel. 2025:KER:32030 R.P. No.210 of 2025 -: 2 :- 3. At paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment, it has been stated thus; “Admittedly, at least since 2002, the parties are living separately.” The Family Court had, on the evidence, entered into a finding thus; “So, the cumulative effect of this version would show that till 20.08.2009, they lived together and there is no separation. ….....” Even if the year of separation is considered as '2009' there is no reason to differ from the conclusions arrived at in the judgment sought to be reviewed. 4. In the impugned judgment it is noted that, on 07.01.2025, when the matter was being considered, an amount of Rs.1,57,600/- was paid to the respondent-wife towards the amount claimed in an execution proceedings for arrears of maintenance/educational expenses. The 2025:KER:32030 R.P. No.210 of 2025 -: 3 :- undertaking of the husband that he shall pay a further amount of Rs.50,000/- within one month, was also recorded. So also, his undertaking that he shall share the marriage expenses of the child, was also recorded. Today, a joint memo has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent acknowledging the payment of Rs.50,000/- in terms of the undertaking. The memo is recorded. We do not find any reason to review the judgment. The review petition is dismissed. Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE yd