Case Note & Summary
The case involves a review petition filed by John Vergese (the husband) against an order dated 5.11.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court at Goa. The original order directed the husband to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- with the Registry of the Court to meet the educational expenses of his two children, who were under the care of the wife, Gracy Vergese. The background of the dispute is a matrimonial discord leading to the wife filing Regular Civil Suit No. 216/1999/D for declaration and injunction. In that suit, she filed two miscellaneous applications: one for temporary injunction restraining the husband from dissipating company assets (Civil Misc. Application No.501/1999/D) and another for maintenance for herself and the children (Civil Misc. Application No.650/2000/D). The trial Court dismissed both applications on 15th March 2001. The wife appealed only against the order dismissing the injunction application, but the appeal was dismissed. She then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the orders of the court below. The learned Single Judge, by the order dated 5.11.2004, directed the husband to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- for the children's education. The husband now seeks review of that order. The Court noted that the order refusing maintenance was not challenged in the writ petition or any other proceedings and thus became final. The review petitioner argued that the order was passed without considering his financial capacity and that the amount was excessive. However, the Court observed that the order was passed with the consent of the parties and that the review petitioner had not pointed out any error apparent on the face of the record. The Court held that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to re-argue the merits of the case. The review petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Order XLVI Rule 1 CPC - Error Apparent on Record - Review petition against consent order directing deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- for children's education - Held that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-argue the case on merits when no error apparent on the face of the record is pointed out (Paras 6-8). B) Family Law - Maintenance - Finality of Orders - Order refusing maintenance not challenged in writ petition or appeal - Held that such order becomes final and cannot be reopened in review proceedings (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petition against the order directing deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- for children's education is maintainable when the original order was passed with consent of parties and no error apparent on record is shown.
Final Decision
The review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record
- not re-argument of merits
- Consent order cannot be reviewed unless obtained by fraud or misrepresentation
- Order refusing maintenance not challenged becomes final
