Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J
REVIEW PET. 624/2025 (Seeking review in judgment dt. 22.09.2025 filed by Petitioner) CM APPL. 78637/2025 (Stay) & CM APPL. 78638/2025 (Delay of 2 days in Re-filing the review petition)
1. The present Review Petition instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, read with Section 114 and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeks review of the final Judgment dated 22.09.2025 Impugned Judgement passed by this Court in MAT.APP. (F.C.) No. 160/2022, whereby this Court affirmed the Judgement and Decree dated 31.05.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Tis Hazari Courts (Central), Delhi, in IDA No. 13/2017, granting a decree of divorce in favour of the Respondent-husband on the ground of desertion under Section 10(1)(ix) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.
2. During the course of arguments in the Review Petition, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-wife contended that Paragraph 50(c) of the Impugned Judgment suffers from a material error apparent on the face of the record. In order to examine the said submission, we consider it appropriate to reproduce Paragraph 50(c) of the Impugned Judgment, which reads as follows:
50. Upon a scrutiny of the pleadings, depositions, and documents placed on record, the learned Family Court, arrived at the following, though not exhaustive, material conclusions:
*****
(c) After 2013-2014, all forms of communication between the parties came to an end. Importantly, the Wife moved to Doha in November 2012 without even informing the Husband, while the Husband relocated to Nigeria in December 2012. The parties thereafter lived abroad in different countries and never reunited under one roof.
*****
.
3. It was contended that while the said paragraph records that the Appellant-wife left for Doha without informing the husband, the admitted factual position, as borne out from the record, is that the Petitioner-wife had relocated to Doha in November 2012 after duly informing the Respondent-husband. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the e-mail communications dated 28.09.2012, 03.10.2012, and 11.10.2012.
4. Having considered the submission advanced on behalf of the Appellant-wife, we concur that the factual aspect highlighted by her, namely, that she had informed the Respondent-husband prior to relocating to Doha, stands clarified from the e-mail communications placed on record.
5. However, in our considered opinion, the factual correction sought by the Appellant-wife, even if accepted in her favour, does not materially alter, dilute, or undermine the overall appreciation of evidence on record. Nor does it have any meaningful bearing on the ultimate finding of desertion as recorded by the learned Family Court or reaffirmed by this Court in its Judgment dated 22.09.2025. The finding of desertion is not predicated upon any isolated or minute factual detail, but rather rests upon an evaluation of the cumulative conduct of the parties and the totality of circumstances duly established on record. A correction confined to a marginal factual aspect, therefore, cannot dislodge or unsettle the final conclusions arrived at in the said Judgments.
6. While rendering the Judgment under review, all material aspects, pleadings, evidence, and surrounding circumstances were examined and considered in extensive detail. During the course of arguments in the present Review Petition, learned counsel for the Appellant-wife endeavoured to advance additional submissions; however, none of those submissions can be said to fall within the well-settled and narrow contours of review jurisdiction.
7. It is a trite law that the scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and circumscribed. A review cannot be invoked as a forum for re-agitating the matter on merits or for seeking a rehearing of issues already adjudicated. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Anr. 2025 SCC OnLine 1927, has authoritatively reiterated that a review is maintainable only where there exists an error apparent on the face of the record, and not for correcting an allegedly erroneous decision or for substituting one plausible view with another. The relevant paragraphs of the said Judgment read as under:
17. . Review grounds are summed up as follows:
17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed.
17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record. Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
17.3 Lastly, the phrase for any other sufficient reason‟ means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories.
18. Courts ought not mix up or overlap one jurisdiction with another jurisdiction. Having noted the appellate and review jurisdiction of the Court, we will apply these principles to the impugned order to determine whether the High Court was within its power of review jurisdiction or had exceeded it by reversing the findings, as if the High Court were sitting in appeal against the order dated 23.09.2022. We appreciate the above tabulated summary of the view taken in the impugned order while doing so.
8. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid settled principles, even though a factual clarification has been noticed in the present case, the same does not disclose any error of such a nature which can be characterised as an error apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant interference in review. Importantly, the said clarification does not in any manner erode or weaken the final conclusion on desertion arrived at on the basis of overwhelming and cumulative material on record. Nevertheless, to the limited extent that a factual inaccuracy has been identified, we deem it appropriate to modify Paragraph 50(c) of the Impugned Judgment, which shall now read as under:
50. Upon a scrutiny of the pleadings, depositions, and documents placed on record, the learned Family Court, arrived at the following, though not exhaustive, material conclusions:
*****
(c) After 2013-2014, all forms of communication between the parties came to an end. The parties thereafter lived abroad in different countries and never reunited under one roof.
*****
.
9. Needless to state, any reference to identical factual aspect appearing at any other place in the Judgment dated 22.09.2025 shall be read, construed, and understood strictly in accordance with the clarification recorded hereinabove. No such reference shall be interpreted or applied in a manner inconsistent with the said clarification.
10. We further clarify that the principal ground, as noted above and orally urged on behalf of the Appellant, pertained to an alleged error of fact, which was asserted to constitute an error apparent on the face of the record and to vitiate the reasoning of the Judgment. The said contention has been specifically examined and addressed hereinabove. As regards the remaining grounds raised in the pleadings of the Review Petition, the same were not pressed during oral submissions and are, in any event, generic in nature. Such grounds do not disclose any circumstance warranting interference in the exercise of this Court‟s review jurisdiction.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Review Petition, along with pending application(s), if any, is disposed of.
12. No order as to costs.
