1 2026:CGHC:15927 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 395 of 2026 Ravishankar Vaishnav S/o Late Shri Ramdas Vaishnav Aged About 42 Years R/o Mahant Street Old Basti, Kharsiya, Tehsil- Kharsiya District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Smt. Deepti Vaishnav W/o Shri Ravishankar Vaishnav Aged About 37 Years (D/o Shri Kheerendra Kumar Bairagi), R/o Baikunthpur, Near Bawlikunwa, Raigarh, Tehsil- Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) ---Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Baghel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board 07/04/2026 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 26.11.2025, passed by learned Family Court, Raigarh, in Misc. Civil Case No. 38 of 2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 114 and 151 of CPC has been rejected and prayed for the following reliefs:- "10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Call for the records of Civil Suit No. F- 61A/2023 and Miss. Civil Suit no. F/38/2025, in VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.04.20 19:14:15 +0530 2 the matter of Ravishankar Vaishnav and Deepti Vaishanav from the learned Family Court, Raigarh (C.G.). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Raigarh in rejecting the application of the petitioner for review/ modification of maintenance from the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2023. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to modify the order of maintenance from the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2023 passed in Civil Suit No. F-61A/2023 by the learned Family Court, Raigarh, considering the status of the petitioner, that he may be exonerated to pay maintenance. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems-fit and appropriate to the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 27.01.2012 as per their rites and rituals. By the lapse of time, their marital not would become deteriorated and ultimately they decided to come out from the marital tie and ultimately they filed an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce on the basis of mutual consent. The said application was allowed on 10.04.2023 and their marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce. In the said decree dated 10.04.2023, an order of permanent alimony of Rs. 15,000/- per month payable by the petitioner to the respondent was also passed. Since, the petitioner was in service at Central 3 Reserve Police Force and posted at 365 Battalion, the memo was sent to his employer for deduction of the maintenance amount and to deposit the same in the bank account of the respondent. ******* It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner ownership presently retired from service on 31.08.2024 and depends upon his pension. He is having liability of his wife and old aged mother, and therefore, he is facing financial hardship and unable to pay the maintenance amount as ordered by the decree dated 10.04.2023. The respondent is a practicing advocate and is in regular practice at Raigarh and she is able to maintain herself and is not in need of any maintenance amount, therefore, he prayed for modification of the order of maintenance as has been granted by the decree dated 10.04.2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, earlier the petitioner was in service, and therefore, he was regularly paying the maintenance, but by now he is retired and receiving meager amount of pension. He is having liability of his wife and mother. He is not in a position to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent. The financial status of the petitioner is very weak, whereas the respondent is earning sufficient amount by her profession. Considering the income of the petitioner and the changed circumstances, the amount of alimony granted to the respondent may be reduced suitably. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 4 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has considered the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and simultaneously, considered the merits of the application of Sections 114, 151 of CPC and held that since the application for review is not maintainable, there is no need to pass separate order on the application of Section 5 of Limitation Act and has dismissed the review application on the ground of its maintainability. 6. It is not in dispute that, by a decree of divorce dated 10.04.2023, passed by learned Family Court, Raigarh in civil suit No. F-61-A/2023, the marriage between the parties have been dissolved on the basis of mutual consent. While passing the decree, an order of Rs. 15,000/- per month, as permanent alimony was also granted to the respondent/wife by the petitioner/husband till her lifetime. The said judgment and decree dated 10.04.2023 has not been challenged by any of the parties. Once the decree has been passed and it has not been challenged, the parties are required to obey the decree, particularly when it has been passed on mutual consent. At the time of passing the decree, the petitioner was well within the knowledge about grant of permanent alimony to the respondent/wife and his length of service and retiral status. At that time, he has not made any objection regarding payment of permanent alimony nor has challenged the said decree. In absence of any challenge, the terms of decree would become final. 7. Presently, the petitioner filed an application for review of the said order of permanent alimony passed in decree dated 10.04.2023 on the ground that, he is retired at present and having no sufficient 5 source of income to pay the permanent alimony to the respondent and the said amount may be reduced. The application for review is maintainable, when the remedy of appeal is available and the party concerned has not filed any appeal and there is error apparent on the face of record or discovery of any new fact, which was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time when the decree was passed. Change in financial capacity cannot be a ground to review the decree, which has been passed on the basis of mutual consent and has not been challenged by any of the parties. 8. Further, after passing the decree dated 10.04.2023, the petitioner obeyed the decree and was regularly paying the permanent alimony. The claim of the petitioner raised in the application filed under Sections 114 and 151 of CPC is out of the purview of review jurisdiction, as there is no error apparent on the face of record or a new fact, which after due diligence could not be produced before the learned trial Court at the time when the decree was passed. 9. The learned Family Court, after considering the scope of review in the present case and also considering the delay in filing the review application as also the nature of decree which has been passed on the basis of mutual consent and has not been challenged by any of the parties, rejected the application, in which this Court does not find any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved