Order XLVII CPC | Isolated Factual Error Cannot Unsettle Finding of Desertion Based on Cumulative Conduct: Delhi High Court

“The finding of desertion is not predicated upon any isolated or minute factual detail, but rather rests upon an evaluation of the cumulative conduct of the parties and the totality of circumstances duly established on record.”— In a seminal ruling the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, disposed of a review petition, clarifying that while a factual error in a judgment may be corrected, it does not automatically warrant the reversal of a divorce decree if the core finding of desertion remains substantiated by the overall evidence.

The Factual Matrix: The "Doha Relocation" Controversy

The Court was seized of a Review Petition filed by the Appellant-wife against a judgment dated September 22, 2025, which had affirmed a decree of divorce in favor of the Respondent-husband on the ground of desertion under Section 10(1)(ix) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.

The crux of the review lay in a specific factual assertion made in Paragraph 50(c) of the original appellate judgment. The judgment had recorded that the wife moved to Doha in November 2012 "without even informing the Husband." The Appellant contended that this was an error apparent on the face of the record, relying on email communications dated September and October 2012, which indisputably proved that the husband had been duly informed prior to her relocation.

“A review cannot be invoked as a forum for re-agitating the matter on merits or for seeking a rehearing of issues already adjudicated.”

Judicial Reasoning: Correction vs. Reversal

The Division Bench, upon examining the email evidence, concurred with the Appellant that a factual inaccuracy existed regarding the intimation of relocation. Consequently, the Court agreed to modify Paragraph 50(c) to reflect that the parties simply lived abroad in different countries without reuniting.

However, the Bench firmly rejected the argument that this correction vitiated the ultimate finding of desertion. The Court elucidated that the decree of divorce was not anchored solely on the manner of the wife's departure to Doha. Instead, the finding of desertion was the result of a comprehensive evaluation of pleadings, depositions, and the cessation of communication between the parties after 2013-2014.

The Narrow Contours of Review Jurisdiction

Drawing reliance on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna & Anr. (2025), the High Court reiterated that the scope of review under Article 227 read with Section 114 and Order XLVII of the CPC is extremely circumscribed. The Court emphasized that a review is not an "appeal in disguise" and cannot be used to substitute one plausible view with another.

“A correction confined to a marginal factual aspect, therefore, cannot dislodge or unsettle the final conclusions arrived at in the said Judgments.”

The Bench held that for a review to succeed, the error must be patent and self-evident. In this case, while the factual error regarding the "intimation" was patent, it was not material enough to erode the overwhelming cumulative material establishing desertion. The Court noted that the correction did not dilute the fact that the parties never reunited under one roof and that all forms of communication had ceased.

The Court disposed of the petition by strictly limiting the relief to the modification of the specific paragraph in the judgment. The decree of divorce remained undisturbed, with the Court clarifying that the remaining grounds raised by the Appellant were generic and did not meet the threshold for review jurisdiction.

Date of Decision: 24/12/2025