1 2025:CGHC:51021-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 329 of 2025 • Smt. Monika Tamrakar W/o Prashant Kumar Tamrakar, D/o Shri Kaushal Kumar Tamrakar Aged About 34 Years R/o H. No. - 19, Harshit Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus • Prashant Kumar Tamrakar S/o Shri S.K. Tamrakar Aged About 39 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Nagar, Tikarapara, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shrijita Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. J. A. Lohani, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Rajani Dubey, Judge Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge Order on Board Per Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge 14/10/2025 RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 1. By this review petition, the petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 3.9.2025 passed in FA(MAT) No. 10/2019 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to allow the instant review petition after re- calling the impugned order dt. 03/09/2025 (Annexure A/1) passed in FA[MAT] No. 10/2019, in the ends of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in which order dated 3.9.2025 passed in FA (MAT) No. 10/2019, the petitioner has submitted that the income of the husband is Rs. 35,000/- per month where as according to ITR filed in the affidavit by the respondent/husband the taxable income is Rs. 9,52,160/- for the assessment year 2023-2024 and now in the assessment year 2024-2025 it is more than Rs. 10,50,000/-. She further submits that the respondent was filed pay slip for the month of December, 2024 wherein his gross salary Rs. 1, 29,520/- per month and after mandatory deduction of PF and ITR, the net salary is Rs. 1,02,964/-. She further submits that vide para 15 in the judgment dated 3.9.2025 the earning of the respondent/husband is stated to be Rs. 35,000/- per month which has been incorrectly stated as such it is required to be rectified. She further submits that 3 looking to the income of the respondent/husband the amount of permanent alimony is also required to be enhanced by way of this review petition as such this review petition has been filed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under review. 6. Upon a careful examination of the affidavit submitted by the respondent/husband, it has been averred by him that his net monthly income, after accounting for all statutory and other applicable deductions, amounts to approximately Rs. 35,000/- per month. This declaration has been made by the respondent on oath in the context of the present proceedings, presumably to assist the Hon’ble Court in determining matters related to financial obligations, maintenance, or any other ancillary issues that may be under consideration. 7. 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 4 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). 8. The grounds raised by the review petitioner 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 order under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Raghu Jat