MGM COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT BILA$PUR Diviaion Bench: Honbie $hri Justice T.P.Sharma & - ’ Honbm $hri Ju5fice R.N.Chandrakar g , JJ 2 Sm’t. Suman Mishra, aged about 35 years, wife of Arjun Pra5ad Mishra C/o Gyandatt Mishra, Pratapganjpara, Jagciatpur, now resident of Badhghai C0!ony, Jagdalpur, Distt. Ba$tar (C.G.) : Arjun Prasad Mishra, S/o Ramji Mishra, aged about 36 years, Ramaiya Ward, Moiitalbpara, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) ‘ edure, Appmmion undev $emiun Wi of ma Cade 0f CiviE Pros 1&08. Presen‘t:— Shri R.N.Jha, counsel for the appiicant. Shri PrafuH N. Bharat, oounse! for the respondent. (Passed on 30th August, 201 1) Heard. 1. By this review petition, paitioner has prayed for review of order dated 19.01.2009 passed by Singie Bench in F.A.No.489/2000 whereby appeal fired on behaif of appellant has been dismissed. 2. The review petition hae been filed after O4 daye 0f its limitation. 3. Heard on l,/-\.Nor1/2009 for oondonation of delay in filing ihe review petition. 4. On due consideration l.A.No.i/2OOQ is allowed. Delay in fiiing the review petition ie hereby condoned. . Learned counsel for the petitioner eubmite that originally petitioner has filed the appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act for setting aside the decree oi divorce and enhancement of permanent alimony from Re.1000/- to Rer5,000./— during pendency Review Petition (QM!) N0. 92 of 2mm Appkicam Vemus Nan-Appiimnt Ora! Omar k) C', Q of appeal but after filing of appeal, petiticner has also fHed LA.No.12Q4/2006 for enhancement of permanent alimeny on 10.04.2006. He also submits that counsel for the petitioner has argued before Hon’ble Single Bench for enhancement of permanent alimony awarded by the decree and also argued on l.A.No. 1294/2006 but the judgment does not reflect such enhancement order on l.A.No.t294/2006 or for enhancement of permanent alimony. On the aforesaid ground, the order requires to be modified. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition and submit that submieeion of learned counsel for the petitioner has been mentioned in para 8 oi the judgment in detail wherein it does not find any eubmiseion relating to enhancement of the permanent aiimony or argument on l.A.No.t294/2006‘ Consequently, there is no ground for review of order passed by teamed Single Bench. 4. Para 8 of judgment dated 19‘01 .2009 read as follows: “Shn' RN. Jha, learned counse! for the appellant argued that the ma! Court erred in drawing a presumption of crueity on the ground that the criminal prosecution lodged against the respondent/husband and his family members under Section 498-A of the IPC had resulted in acquittal. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the reepondenh’huebano’ and his family members were acquitted of the charge under Section 498—A of IPC after giving them the benefit of doubt. Title would ehow that a eemblanoe of truth existed in the report lodged by the appellant and the acquittal reeulled due to inabilin/ of the prosecution to prove the guilt beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. it was further submitted that oral evidence was led by the appellant to show that no efforts were made by the respondent/husband to take the appellant/wife from her maternal home to the matrimonial house. It was also urged that the respondent/husband had got the application for divorce by mutual consent signed by the appellant per force and therefore, the appellant/wife had declined before the Court to separate from her husband. it was also urged that the dissolution of marriage by the tn’al Court was upon a misreading of the evidence led by the parties. 5. Para 8 of the judgment reveals thw counsel for the petitioner has $peéifioany argued for setting aside the decree of divarce and in para 8 of the judgment it doe$ not reflect any submiosion reiating to enhancement of permanent aiimony 1n theee circumetanaes, we are unabie to cite Submissn of counsel for the petitioner that ground taken for enhancement of permanent alimony has been argued in l‘A.No.l294/2006 and not considered 6. Consequently, we do not find any ground for review. The review petition is liable to be dismissed, and ie hereby diemiesed. 7. No order aeto costs. Sd/h Wumm,E mewuwwmtmmw Sd/‘ IR Sharma Rangnath Chandrakar Judge Judge o io