NEERAJ CHOUDHARY Vs. SHAVETA CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through the medium of present petition has sought the review of judgment dated 25.02.2021 passed by this Court in case titled 'Shaveta Choudhary Vs. Neeraj Choudhary', by virtue of which the order dated 20.04.2018 was modified to the extent that the respondent was held to be entitled to maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application on the following grounds:

(2.) A perusal of the record reveals that the order that was impugned in judgment was passed on 20.04.2018 in a petition filed by the respondent and the petitioner never challenged the said order whereas the petition filed under Section 488 Cr.P.C. was finally disposed of vide order dated 22.12.2018 by virtue of which the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- in total to the respondent for herself as well as the minor daughter.

(3.) In a review petition, it is only error apparent on the face of record that can be considered. An error that is not self evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record. A review by no means is an appeal in disguise where by an erroneous decision is reheard. If the judgment is erroneous, the same can be assailed by availing appropriate remedy. The power of review cannot be confused with appellate power that enables a superior court to correct all the errors committed by subordinate court. The grounds raised by the petitioner do not fall within the purview of error apparent on the face of the record, as such, this is not the case in which the judgment is required to be reconsidered and reviewed. Law is well settled by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court on this issue in 'Thangabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh' reported in 1964 AIR 1372. For facility of reference, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant paragraph hereunder: