- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27536 RP No. 87 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA REVIEW PETITION NO. 87 OF 2026 BETWEEN: MAITRI SATAPATHY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS W/O PRASANJEET PADHY REPRESENTED BY GPA SRI SANTANU KUMAR SATAPATHY RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 015 SLV NIVAS WHITEFIELD BENGALURU – 560 066. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SANTANU KUMAR SATAPATHY, GPA HOLDER FOR THE PETITIONER-IN-PERSON) AND: SRI PRASANJEET PADHY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O SRI KRISHNA CHANDRA PADHY ABB LIMITED, BRIGED SOUTH FIELD EPIP INDUSTRIAL AREA MAHADEVPURA BENGALURU – 560 048. …RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO 1.ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION AND THE ORDER DATED 29/01/2026 PASSED IN W.P.24179 OF 2025 MAY KINDLY BE Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27536 RP No. 87 of 2026 REVIEWED FOR THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; 2. THE MONTHLY MAINTENANCE OF THE ORDER MAY BE RESTORED TO Rs.30,000/- FROM Rs.15,000/- EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE OF PETITION ON VACATION OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 4/09/2025 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 M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The review petitioner was the respondent in writ petition no.24179 of 2025 and a review of the order dated 29-01-2026 is sought in the case at hand. 2. Heard Sri Santanu Kumar Satapathy, General Power of Attorney holder of petitioner, as party-in-person. 3. The Writ Petition No.24179 of 2025 was disposed by the following order: “Heard the learned counsel, Sri. Anish Acharya, appearing for the petitioner and the respondent-in- person. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27536 RP No. 87 of 2026 2. There is no warrant of interference with the maintenance awarded at Rs.15,000/- though interim or otherwise. 3. The petitioner is at liberty to file necessary application before the concerned Court in the event of need 4. The concerned Court shall answer the issue on its merits and pass necessary orders thereon. With the aforesaid reasons, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly.” What was called in question in the said petition was the order of maintenance of ₹15,000/- directed to be paid by the petitioner to the present review petitioner. This Court found no warrant of interference and reserved liberty to the petitioner therein to file necessary application before the concerned court in the event of need. 4. In the light of the said order, there is no warrant of interference, that too by way of a review petition. Entertaining the review petition at the hands of the respondent in whose favour the order is passed is not the scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27536 RP No. 87 of 2026 Finding no warrant to interfere in the review jurisdiction, the petition stands disposed. Consequently, pending applications if any, also stand disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 39