SMT PRIMA SHARALIN D SOUZA v. SRI SURAJ DOMINIC MONTERIO
RP/567/2022 · 2025-09-11
Jayant Banerji, Umesh M Adiga
Review Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 91953 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 91953 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36089-DB RP No. 567 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REVIEW PETITION NO. 567 OF 2022 BETWEEN:
SMT.PRIMA SHARALIN D’SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, D/O VICTOR D’SOUZA, W/O SURAJ DOMINIC MONTEIRO, R/AT: PARASHANTH BAGH, 2ND CROSS, ALAPE VILLAGE, PADIL POST, MANGALORE-575 007.
PRESENTLY R/AT:
P.O.BOX NO.18556, JABEL ALI FREE ONE, DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANUPAM AGARWAL, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND:
SRI.SURAJ DOMINIC MONTERIO, S/O LATE S.C.MONTERIO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, PERMANENT R/AT:
SYRAJ COTTAGE, KALPANE, KULSHEKAR MANGALURU-575 007.
Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location:
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36089-DB RP No. 567 of 2022
ALSO AT:
ARPAL GULF LIC, JEBEL ALI INDUSTRIAL AREA, NO.3, EASA SALEH AI GURG, WAREHOUSE, DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, P.O.BOX 123 053. …RESPONDENT
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO (I) CALL FOR RECORDS IN MFA.NO.5772/2019(IDA), (II) TO REVIEW THE
JUDGMENT PASSED IN MFA NO. 5772/2019(IDA) DATED 09.07.2021 AND THEREBY ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S WHICH ARE DEEMED TO BE FIT IN THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE SO FAR AS THE GROUNDS RAISED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
ORAL ORDER ON IA NO.1/2022 (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) This is an application seeking condonation of 82 days delay in filing this review petition.
Accepting the cause shown in the accompanying affidavit, the delay is condoned. The application is accordingly disposed of.
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36089-DB RP No. 567 of 2022
ORAL ORDER ON REVIEW PETITION NO.567/2022
None appeared on behalf of the petitioner even when the matter is called-up repeatedly.
This review petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 09.07.2021 passed in MFA No.5772/2019 (IDA). In the MFA, the appellant, who was the husband, had assailed the
judgment and decree passed in MC No.142/2018 by the Family Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, dated 28.07.2025. The appellant was ex- parte by means of the order dated 28.07.2018. Against the decree of divorce, the appeal was filed. However, it is contended before the Court that the appellant is aggrieved by the direction to pay a sum of Rs.12.00 Lakhs (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) towards the permanent alimony to the respondent/wife and her minor daughter, and also the direction of the family Court with regard to the appellant/husband not being entitled to have any visitation rights or claim any permanent custody of the child.
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36089-DB RP No. 567 of 2022
2. This Court noted that the parties were residents of Dubai and given the standards of living therein, awarded Rs.12.00 Lakhs (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) towards permanent alimony with the minor child being aged about seven years, was neither unreasonable nor exorbitant. As regards the visitorial rights, it was noted that permanent custody was
directed to be given to the respondent/mother by the Family Court. This Court held that the Family Court was not right in issuing the said directions ex parte in the absence of having any version on the said aspects of the case from the side of the appellant. Therefore, as regards the permanent custody including the education of the minor child and taking her along by the respondent/wife anywhere throughout the world and depriving the appellant/husband of any right to visit the child or claim permanent custody of the child, were set aside. The appeal was accordingly partly allowed.
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36089-DB RP No. 567 of 2022
3. We see no error apparent on the face of the record, that would warrant review of the aforesaid
judgment.
4. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE
Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE
KGR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4