2025:KER:31355 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RP NO. 273 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.12.2024 IN Mat.Appeal NO.1036 OF 2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS IN MAT APPEAL: 1 SOUMYA AGED 30 YEARS D/O.PANKAJAKSHAN, GURUKULAM VEEDU, KOTTAKKAKOM, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691001 2 HARSH (MINOR) AGED 10 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SOUMYA, GURUKULAM VEEDU, KOTTAKKAKOM, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691001 BY ADV N.VIMALAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN MAT APPEAL: 1 SANIL KUMAR AGED 35 YEARS S/O.SUNDARESAN, SANIL BHAVAN, TRA -88, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM DIST, PIN - 691010 2025:KER:31355 R.P. No.273 of 2025 -: 2 :- 2 SUNDARESAN S/O.PAPPU, SANIL BHAVAN, TRA -88, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691010 ADV.P.SIVANAD THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:31355 SATHISH NINAN & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. No.273 of 2025 in Mat.Appeal No.1036 of 2014 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of April, 2025 ORDER Sathish Ninan, J. The appeal was disposed of by this Court as per judgment dated 13.12.2024. The appellant seeks for review of the judgment stating that, the deposition of the 1st respondent-husband that the gold ornaments were kept in his house was not taken note of by this Court while passing the impugned judgment. On such admission, the claim of the husband that, the wife was in possession of the ornaments, is improbable, it is contended. 2025:KER:31355 R.P. No.273 of 2025 -: 2 :- 2. We have heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. The relevant portion of the deposition reads thus; "ഹർജ കകക ഉണയരന എന നങൾ പറയന സർണ ഹർജ കക നങളട വടൽ തടന ആയരനല% സ&കചരനത ? എന ടറ വടൽ ആയരന എങല ഹർജ കകയട കകവശ ആയരന. ഞൻ Gulf ൽ ലപകന സമയ ഹർജ കകതടന കകവശ വയ കകയ കകകര/ ട0യകയ ആയരന." As is evident therefrom, the husband maintained that, though the ornaments were kept in his house, it was under the custody of the wife. At paragraph 8 of the judgment, we have found the circumstances indicated that the ornaments were with wife. While arriving at such conclusion, this Court had also taken note of Ext.B1 photograph in relation to the betrothal function of 2025:KER:31355 R.P. No.273 of 2025 -: 3 :- husband's brother. 4. The Apex Court has repeatedly cautioned that a review is not to be an appeal in disguise or an attempted rehearing of the matter. At any rate, we do not find any merit in the contention. 5. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. The review petition fails and is dismissed. No cost. Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE yd