Case Note & Summary
The case involves a review petition filed by John Vergese (petitioner) seeking review of an order dated 5.11.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court at Goa. The order directed the petitioner 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 respondent, Gracy Vergese. The background of the dispute is a matrimonial matter where the respondent had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 216/1999/D for declaration and injunction. In that suit, she filed two miscellaneous applications: one seeking temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from dissipating company assets (Civil Misc. Application No.501/1999/D) and another seeking maintenance for herself and the two children (Civil Misc. Application No.650/2000/D). The trial Court dismissed both applications on 15th March, 2001. The respondent 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 order dated 5.11.2004, directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- for the children's education. The petitioner now seeks review of that order. The Court noted that the order was passed with the consent of parties and that the review petitioner had not pointed out any error apparent on the face of the record. The Court held that the review petition is not maintainable as the order was a consent order and no mistake or error was shown. The Court also observed that the order refusing maintenance had become final and was not challenged. The review petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Maintainability - Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Review petition against consent order directing deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- for children's education - Held that review is not maintainable as no error apparent on record and order was passed with consent of parties (Paras 2-6).
B) Family Law - Maintenance - Children's Education - Order directing father to deposit amount for children's education - Held that such order is in the interest of children and cannot be reviewed without showing any mistake or error (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petition is maintainable against an order passed with consent of parties and whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record.
Final Decision
The review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- Error apparent on face of record
- Consent order
- Maintenance for children
- Section 114 CPC
- Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (08) 127
Civil Application (Review) No.1/2005
Mr. Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar for petitioner, Mr. D. Pangam for respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Review petition against an order directing deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- for children's education in a matrimonial dispute.
Remedy Sought
Review of the order dated 5.11.2004 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- for educational expenses of his children.
Filing Reason
The petitioner sought review on the ground that the order was erroneous and required reconsideration.
Previous Decisions
The trial Court dismissed both applications for injunction and maintenance on 15.3.2001. The appeal against the dismissal of injunction was dismissed. The writ petition challenging the orders was disposed of by the order dated 5.11.2004 directing deposit of Rs.15,00,000/-.
Issues
Whether the review petition is maintainable against an order passed with consent of parties?
Whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the order dated 5.11.2004 was erroneous and required review.
The respondent contended that the order was passed with consent and no error was apparent.
Ratio Decidendi
A review petition is not maintainable against a consent order unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner failed to show any mistake or error in the order directing deposit for children's education.
Judgment Excerpts
The review petitioner is seeking review of the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 5.11.2004 directing the applicant No.1 to deposit an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with the Registry of this Court to meet the educational expenses of his two children.
Undisputed facts of the case narrated above, makes it clear that the present writ petition is directed only against one order i.e. order refusing to grant injunction to prevent alienation of the properties of the company.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 216/1999/D for declaration and injunction. She filed two miscellaneous applications: one for injunction (Civil Misc. Application No.501/1999/D) and one for maintenance (Civil Misc. Application No.650/2000/D). The trial Court dismissed both on 15.3.2001. The respondent appealed only against the dismissal of the injunction application, but the appeal was dismissed. She then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, which was disposed of by order dated 5.11.2004 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- for children's education. The petitioner filed the present review petition against that order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
