Kerala High Court
RP/273/2025 of SOUMYA Vs SANIL KUMAR on 10 April 2025
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RP NO. 273 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.12.2024 IN Mat.Appeal NO.1036 OF 2014 OF HIGH COURT OF
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1947
RP NO. 273 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.12.2024 IN Mat.Appeal NO.1036
OF 2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS IN MAT APPEAL:
SOUMYA
AGED 30 YEARS
D/O.PANKAJAKSHAN, GURUKULAM VEEDU, KOTTAKKAKOM, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691001
HARSH (MINOR)
AGED 10 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SOUMYA, GURUKULAM VEEDU, KOTTAKKAKOM, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691001
BY ADV N.VIMALAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN MAT APPEAL:
SANIL KUMAR
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.SUNDARESAN, SANIL BHAVAN, TRA -88,
MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM DIST, PIN - 691010
-: 2 :-
SUNDARESAN
S/O.PAPPU, SANIL BHAVAN, TRA -88, MUNDAKKAL
WEST, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691010
ADV.P.SIVANAD
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:31355
SATHISH NINAN & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.P. No.273 of 2025
in
Mat.Appeal No.1036 of 2014
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Sathish Ninan, J. The appeal was disposed of by this Court as per judgment dated 13.12.2024. The appellant seeks for review of the judgment stating that, the deposition of the 1st respondent-husband that the gold ornaments were kept in his house was not taken note of by this Court while passing the impugned judgment. On such admission, the claim of the husband that, the wife was in possession of the ornaments, is improbable, it is contended.
-: 2 :-
2. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.
3. The relevant portion of the deposition reads thus; "ഹർജ കകക ഉണ
യരന എന നങൾ പറയന സർണ ഹർജ കക നങളട വ ടൽ തടന ആയരനല%
സ&കചരനത ? എന ടറ വ ടൽ ആയരന എങല ഹർജ കകയട കകവശ ആയരന. ഞ
ൻ Gulf ൽ ലപ
കന സമയ ഹർജ കകതടന കകവശ വയ കകയ കകക
ര/ ട0യകയ ആയരന." As is evident therefrom, the husband maintained that, though the ornaments were kept in his house, it was under the custody of the wife. At paragraph 8 of the judgment, we have found the circumstances indicated that the ornaments were with wife. While arriving at such conclusion, this Court had also taken note of Ext.B1 photograph in relation to the betrothal function of
-: 3 :- husband's brother.
4. The Apex Court has repeatedly cautioned that a review is not to be an appeal in disguise or an attempted rehearing of the matter. At any rate, we do not find any merit in the contention.
5. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. The review petition fails and is dismissed. No cost.
Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE yd