Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M) 680/2019
AJAI VATAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
Through: Mr. Vijay Kasana and Mr.Ankit Siwach, Advs.
Date of Decision: 18th November, 2022
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11th March, 2019 whereby the application seeking modification and the judgment and decree dated 28th April, 2017 was dismissed.
2. Vide order dated 28th April, 2017 while deciding the petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1983 (“the Act”) the learned Family Court inter alia held as under;
3. The petitioner herein, sought the modification of the order to the effect that the liability to share the educational expenses of the children be apportioned between him and the non-applicant not in the ratio of 2:1 but in the ratio of 1:2.
4. The plea taken by the petitioner is that the salary of the non-applicantex-wife was around Rs.51,000/- per month whereas he was getting a meager pension from Delhi Government @ Rs.35,678/- per month. The petitioner had also taken a plea that the non-applicant-ex-wife was also having a rental income of Rs.9,000/-per month and also have a FD of 15,00,000/-on which she was deriving annual income of Rs.14,000/- per month @ 10% interest on the FD. The petitioner took a plea that on the contrary, he has a meager income from the pension and a small piece of agricultural land in Saharanpur measuring 4½ bigas.
5. Today also, the petitioner who appears in person submits that he was enrolled only in 2013 and prior to that he was merely surviving on the pension for the period of 10th April, 2007 to 31st March, 2013. The petitioner states that a wrong assumption has been drawn that he was practicing during the relevant time. The petitioner further states that the burden of sharing the educational expenses should have been stipulated as 1:2 between him and his ex-wife.
6. In the impugned order, learned Principal Judge, Family Court considered VERMA the jurisdiction to be exercised under Order 47 CPC and inter alia held that the power of review cannot be exercised so as to re-appreciate the evidence.
7. The power of review cannot be converted into power of appeal. The review Court cannot rightly sit as an Appellate Court. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is though wide but has to be exercised in circumspection. The Court can interfere in the order of the learned Trial Court only if there is some manifest illegality or perversity in the order.
8. This Court cannot substitute its opinion with the opinion of the Court which has passed the order. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court has rightly taken a view that the Court exercising the power of review cannot blow/plot itself with the power of entertaining an appeal instead of review. The Court could not have re-assessed or re-appreciated the evidence.
9. In view of the above observations, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order of the learned trial court. Hence the present petition is dismissed.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J NOVEMBER 18, 2022 VERMA