^l IN THE HON'BLEHJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT . . BILASPUR (C.G.) REVIEW APPLICAflON No. 3 9 Ihisloo ^v^^ of2011 -^ APPLICANT/ %^ Sakha Das, aged about 40 years, S/o Parro Das, Occupation- Service, ( Clerk Forest Board ), Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) ^ VERSUS NON-APPL8CANT Appeilant Smt. Laxmi Das W/o Sakha Das Caste Panika, Occupation House Wife, R/o Village Gandhi Nagar, P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) ^^r^ REVIEW APPLICATSON UNDER ORDER 47 RULE_ READ WITH SECTION 151 OFCODE OF CIYIL PROCEDURE '4 @ HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR DB: HON»BLEI. M. QUDDUSI 8s HON»BLE G. MIKHAJUDDIN, JJ Review Petition No.99 /2Q11 APPLICAHT: RE8PONDENTS: Sakha Das Vs. Snit. Laxini Das REVIBW APPLICATION UNDER ORDBR 47 RULB 1 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDUEE Appearance: Mr. D.N. Prajapati, counselforfhe applicaat Per I.M. OUDDU8I. J, ORALPRDBR (13.10.2011) (1) This is an application for review of the order dated 30.08.2011 passed in P.A(M).No. 145/2010. After hearing the learaed couusel for fhe appUcant, no case for review is xaade out but the order dated 30.08,2011 reauires correction, (2) In fact, in F.A(M).No. 145/2010, an appUcation for mutiial divorce has been fUed on 11.08,2011 duly signed by fhe appeUant as also respondent aad bofh fhe parties have given tiieir rautual consent for divorce on fhe fotlowiag tenns : ft) etThat the respondent (Sakha Das) is ready and willing to pay the permanent alimony of Rs.1,20,000/- (One Lakh and Twenty Thousand) as enunierated in law under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for zuhich the appeallant is ready and wiiling io accept the swne. fii) That the parties havefinally dedded io resolve their difference by moving ajoint applicationfor mutizal divorce between the parties and dedaring all the previous peiiiions for dworce as modification into application for mutual divorce,v (31 However, subsequenfly aaother appUcation for inutual divorce has also been filed on 30.08,2011 dzily signed by fhe appellaat as weU as fh.e respondent, which is also on record. In ftiis appMcation^ apart froia fhe above conditions, aaofher condition has also been added to fhe extent that "fhe appeUaat has accepted tlie permacient atunony and she is not entiUed to get fhe benefit of niaintenance ia aay provision of law?\ But^ inadvertenfly due to typographical error, fhis condition has not been nientioned ia the order dated 30.8.2011 passed in P.A(M), No,145/2010. Therefore, it would be appropriate to add tlie coudition ia fhe said order vide Clause (3) of Para 8, which is quoted hereia below: "8(3) That fhe appeUaat has accepted fhe permaaent almiony aad she is not entitied to get the benefit of niamtenaace ia anv provision of laww (4|i In view of the above, we arc of fhe opiaion fhat tiie appUcation dated 30.08.2011 for mutual divorce shall also form part of fhe decree aad siace tlie above condition is not mentioned ia fhe order dated 30,08,2011 due to clerical error, it requires correction and accordingly fhe order dated 30.08/2011 staads inodified only to the above extent. (5) This rcview petition stands disposed of with the observations aforesaid, Sd/- ^.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao