KANHAIYA NAMDEO Vs. RANI BHAWSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant has preferred the present review application to review the order dated 26.03.2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in F.A.11/2011 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent was disposed off by grant of permanent alimony under Sec. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) Facts of the case, in short, are that the applicant moved a petition of divorce before the concerned district court. The Second Additional District Judge [FTC], Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) in Civil Suit No. 17-A/2010 HMA vide judgment and decree dated 30.07.2010 granted the decree of divorce and the respondent filed an appeal. When the case was listed for settlement on 19.03.2014, learned counsel for the respondent expressed his view that if a permanent alimony is fixed then respondent has no objection to divorce-decree and thereafter the case was reserved for judgment. On 26.03.2014, the order was passed and the permanent alimony of Rs. 5,00,000.00 in lumpsum was granted under Sec. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act to respondent - Rani Bhawsar.

(3.) After considering the challenge made by the applicant and submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, it appears that there are some discrepancies between the pleadings and facts in the affidavit given by the applicant and his previous counsel Shri Pradeep Katare. There is a discrepancy as to whether the applicant took the case file back from Shri Pradeep Katare or he could know about the decree passed by the High Court when execution was started. There is also a discrepancy as to how the applicant got the knowledge of decree. If affidavit is filed in support of final decision then it is deprecated by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Bali Vs. State of U.P. [(2004) 10 SCC 598]. Para 9 of the said judgment may be reproduced which goes as under :