Udita Nabha v. Ranjeet Nabha

rpm-5.17.odt pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.5 OF 2017 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.78 OF 2017 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.216 OF 2015 IN M.J. PETITION NO.A 2400 OF 2011 Udita Nabha ... Petitioner Vs.

Ranjeet Nabha ... Respondent Ms. Sharon Patole for the Petitioner.

Mr. Jatin Sehgal a/w Kunal Vaishnav a/w Mr. Suraj Iyer a/w Debashree Mandpe i/by Ganesh & Co. for the Respondent.

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.K. MENON, JJ.

DATE : 6th JULY, 2017 [In Chamber at 2.40 pm] P.C.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Almost all grounds taken in this Review Petition are the grounds which can be taken in an Appeal for challenging the order. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. In ground O and some other grounds, it is suggested that there were certain documents on record of the Family Court which were not considered by the Court. The learned

rpm-5.17.odt counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner concedes that the said documents were not shown to the Court at the time of hearing of the application. A litigant cannot expect the Judges to go through the voluminous record of the trial Court while deciding an interim application in Family Court Appeal. It is unfortunate that the Petitioner has taken grounds based on documents on record though those documents were admittedly not shown to the Court. The Review Petitioner was represented by a learned Senior Advocate. There is no error on the face of the record. Even otherwise, there is no ground for review. Review Petition is rejected. (A.K. MENON, J) (A.S. OKA, J)