IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.416 of 2010 BHUPESH KUMAR Versus MINAKSHI ----------- 4 17-3-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order dated 15-3-2010 passed by the court of Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Suit No. 4 of 2005 whereby review application filed by the appellant for review of order dated 6-1-2007 has been rejected. The order dated 6-1-2007 has been annexed as annexure-1 and the same has also been assailed by the appellant. It is admitted that order dated 6-1-07 whereby maintenance pendent lite in favour of the respondent wife has been fixed as Rs.11,000/- per month in place of earlier amount of Rs.3,500/-, was challenged by the appellant by preferring Civil Revision No. 469 of 2007. That revision application was dismissed as withdrawn on 2-7-2008 by order contained in annexure-4 which shows that appellant sought permission to withdraw the revision application for filing a review application and that permission/ liberty was granted. The review application, as noted earlier has been rejected by 2 the order under appeal dated 15-3-2010. The first contention advanced on behalf of appellant is that through the review application additional facts were brought to the notice of the learned court below to show that in a suit for guardianship over the two children filed in the year 2005, the respondent wife had claimed that she could maintain and take care of her two children and secondly, that on 3-3-2007 the respondent has submitted her joining as Panchayat Teacher before the Headmaster of Primary School, Sisoni. In order to appreciate the grounds taken in the review petition we were taken through a copy of the review application supplied by the learned counsel for the appellant. The petition shows that the main stand of the appellant was that since the respondent wife was already getting 3,500/- as a maintenance amount per month it should not have been enhanced to Rs.11,000/- by granting additional amount of Rs.7,500/- per month. It was further pleaded that now the respondent has got job as a teacher and therefore with that income and with income from property of her father she does not need any maintenance. 3 It is not in dispute that the claim of the respondent for guardianship was negatived long back and such facts were already in the knowledge of the appellant and hence this plea is not available for seeking review. So far as the job as Panchayat Teacher is concerned, selection letter and joining dated 2.3.07/3.3.07have been annexed with memorandum of present appeal but those are subsequent to order dated 6-1- 2007 and hence cannot furnish a valid ground for grant of review of order already passed on 6-1-07. Salary of such teacher has not been mentioned. The appellant has avoided to furnish his own income. Still, a submission on behalf of appellant which remains to be considered is that no maintenance under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act could have been given in favour of the respondent. This issue cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time as it is not a pure issue of law. As noticed above, the facts for seeking review were not sufficient to grant review. Hence, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed at the stage of Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Gopal Prasad,J) 4