1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Family Court Appeal No.165 of 2008 With Civil Application No.235 of 2008 Mrs.Anupam Anand Appellant Vs. Mr.Vivek Anand Respondent Ms.Seema Sarnaik for appellant. Mrs.Madhubala Shetty for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. August 12, 2008 P.C. . Heard Ms.Sarnaik, the learned counsel for the appellant - wife. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2/5/2008 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court in Civil Misc. Application No.49 of 2008 and thereby granting the respondent - father access to his daughter for Christmas holidays and mid term holidays on every day between 9.30 a.m. to 7.30 p.m. . In Petition NO.D-28 of 2000 filed by the husband, the Family Court was pleased to pass an order 2 on 3/4/2006 thereby granting access to the petitioner to meet his daughter - Siya on every Tuesday and Friday, on every first and third Saturday as well as Diwali vacation and summer vacation. On or about 5th January 2008 the husband filed Misc. Application No.49 of 2008 and prayed for modification of the order dated 3/4/2006 so as to provide for the additional access during the Christmas and mid term vacations. Wife filed reply to the said application or or about 7/4/2008 and opposed it. The Review Petition filed by the husband stated that the facility of access during Christmas vacation and mid term vacation which was enjoyed by the father as per the orders passed by the very same Court during the pendency of the petition were inadvertently overlooked and, therefore, he sought correction. In the impugned order the learned Judge of the Family Court on perusal of the interim orders passed on 4/11/2003, 29/10/2004, 6/12/2004, 11/2/2005, 11/8/2005, 29/10/2005 and 10/2/2006, granted access to the father during the mid term and Christmas holidays and the same was inadvertently left out in the order dated 3/4/2006. . Ms.Sarnaik, the learned counsel for the appellant - wife submitted that the review petition 3 was filed belatedly and even otherwise the delay caused was not explained. She further submitted that the powers of review are not available to the Family court and on both these counts the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. She also submitted that daughter - Siya was not interviewed by the learned Judge of the Family Court before the review petition was allowed. We are not impressed by any of these submissions and Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC empowers the trial Court to review its own orders if there is an error apparent on the face of the record and to correct such errors. So far as the issue of delay is concerned, in the matrimonial disputes and more particularly when it comes to the facility of access being prayed for, the Family Court need not proceed on the technicalities and we are satisfied that in the instant case the learned Judge acted fairly and properly in correcting her own order. Though daughter - Siya is about 12 years of age, there was no material in the reply filed by the wife opposing the review petition on the ground that the daughter had any complaints against the father or that she was not inclined to meet the father during the Christmas and mid term vacations. No other grounds have been urged while challenging the impugned order 4 and, therefore, this appeal must fail at the threshold. . The appeal is dismissed in limine. . Civil Application No.235 of 2008 does not survive and the same stands disposed. (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)