- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11493 RP No. 100087 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REVIEW PETITION NO. 100087 OF 2025 BETWEEN: PRADEEP S/O. PRABHU VASTRAD AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O. C/O. SHREE SHIVAKUMAR C. AANEMATH, LIG I-6, SANTOSH NAGAR, KELGERI ROAD, TQ. DIST. DHARWAD-580008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHANDEKAR D. ANNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT POOJA W/O. PRADEEP VASTRAD AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. HOUSE NO.42, NEAR HANUMANT TEMPLE R.R.K.COLLEGE OF PHARMACY, ALIYABAD ROAD, TQ. DIST. BIDAR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. U.G. KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE (1) OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND REVIEW THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT ON 05.08.2025 IN CIVIL PETITION NO.100129/2025 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS 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 ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANABASAPPA K KALLUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.11 16:12:04 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11493 RP No. 100087 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) The respondent in Civil Petition No.100129 of 2025, has preferred this Review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking review of the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by this Court in the aforestated Civil Petition. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed statement of objections to the review petition. 3. The respondent-husband had filed Civil Petition under Section 24 of the CPC on 04.07.2025, and notice was issued on 19.06.2025. This Court, by order dated 04.07.2025, directed issuance of notice to the respondent, stating that within a period of 30 days from the date of service of notice, the respondent was required to appear before this Court. On 05.08.2025, this Court passed an order allowing the Civil Petition, and transferred the case on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court Dharwad to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bidar for disposal in accordance with law. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11493 RP No. 100087 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the review petitioner was suffering from a cardiac arrest and there was no one to look after him. In spite of this, the respondent knowingly misled this Court and obtained the order. Hence, the same is liable to be reconsidered in the facts and circumstances of the case. On all these grounds, he sought for allowing this review petition by restoring the Civil Petition to its file. 5. The respondent has filed written objections contending that the review petitioner at para no.5 of review petition has taken a ground that though the review petitioner has entrusted the case to a counsel to appear in the Civil Petition but he could file the vakalath in time and the review petition has been filed without affidavit, which is impermissible and is not in accordance with law. As such, the review petition is not maintainable. In the objections, it is further contended that the ground, as extracted regarding harassment of parents of husband-review petitioner, was taken by oversight and same may be taken as not pressed and the respondent-wife is also filing a separate memo to that effect. This contention though - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11493 RP No. 100087 of 2025 holds good but that does not mean the order of transfer has been passed only on that ground. The order was passed on the ground that the distance between the Bidar to Dharwad is around 443 kms. and the respondent, being a lady, is facing inconvenience to travel and contest the matter at Dharwad. Therefore the order came to be passed by this Court. 6. It is further submitted that the respondent-wife has denied all other averments made in the petition and submits that there are absolutely no grounds to allow this review petition and has sought for dismissal of the same. 7. The counsel for the review petitioner has produced the discharge summary issued by Apollo Specialty Hospitals, Madurai pertaining to the review petitioner in which it is stated that the petitioner was suffering from acute anterior wall MI not lysed, Mild LV dysfunction. The petitioner ought to have appeared before the Court on 04th August 2025, however, he could not appear before the Court and this Court has passed the order in question on 05th August, 2025. Considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the review petitioner, it is just and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11493 RP No. 100087 of 2025 proper to allow the petition. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Review petition is allowed; ii) Order dated 05th August 2025 passed in Civil Petition No.100129 of 2025 is recalled and the Civil Petition is restored to file; iii) The Review Petitioner is permitted to prosecute the Civil Petition. Registry to re-list the Civil Petition No.100129 of 2025 on 19th September, 2025. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE AC/LNN CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 47