Arindam Chaudhuri v. Nanda Chaudhuri

D/L. 12.

May 23, 2025.

MNS.

RVW 121 of 2025 + CAN 1 of 2025 in C. O. No. 3746 of 2024 Shri Arindam Chaudhuri Vs.

Smt. Nanda Chaudhuri Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Ms. Sagnika Banerjee, Ms. Sarmistha Basak ... for the review applicant.

1. The review application has been filed in respect of an order dated April 4, 2025 passed in CO 3746 of 2024.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the review applicant submits that certain adverse observations were made against the applicant in the said order passed on the basis of inaccurate statements made in the affidavit-ofassets filed by the applicant-husband.

3. However, whereas the affidavit-of-assets was affirmed in the month of May 2022, the increment in school fees of the child of the parties took place in the year 2023-2024.

4. As such, although the matter might have been brought to the notice of the court by way of a further/supplementary affidavit-of-assets but was not so brought, the affidavit-of-assets, on the date on which it was affirmed, was not incorrect.

5. Learned counsel further submits that in the event the order is not reviewed, the petitioner would never have any opportunity to point out the current state of affairs in that regard to the trial Court.

6. However, upon hearing learned counsel, I am of the opinion that no case of error apparent on the face of the record has been made out, nor has any subsequent event been brought to the notice of the Court. The order under review was passed on the basis of the materials which were there on record on the date of passing of the order. Thus, no case of review within the contemplation of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made out.

7. In any event, it is always open to either of the parties in a matrimonial suit to bring to the notice of the trial court any subsequent development and seek any enhancement or

reduction in the alimony granted on the basis of such facts.

8. Thus, I do not find any scope of reviewing the order dated April 4, 2025.

9. Accordingly, RVW 121 of 2025 is dismissed without any order as to costs in the light of the observations made above.

10. Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2025 stands disposed of as well.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)