Review Powers Limited, Says Madhya Pradesh High Court While Upholding Custody Direction

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to interfere with its earlier direction concerning the custody and care of a minor girl, reiterating the narrow scope of review jurisdiction and emphasizing that such powers cannot be invoked as a substitute for an appeal.

In a recent order, a Division Bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi dismissed a review petition filed by the mother, holding that no “error apparent on the face of record” had been demonstrated to justify reconsideration of the earlier decision.

The case arose from an earlier writ petition where the Court had directed that the minor girl be produced before the Child Welfare Committee, Dhar. The Committee was then tasked with determining appropriate arrangements for the child, including placement in a Nari Niketan or a similar institution, preferably a hostel run by an NGO, until she attained majority. This direction was issued after it emerged that the minor did not wish to reside with her parents, a factor the Court had considered significant while prioritizing her welfare.

In the present review proceedings, counsel appearing for the petitioner-mother argued that she was the natural guardian and expressed her willingness to keep the child with her. The submission sought to persuade the Court that the earlier order warranted reconsideration in light of maternal rights and the desirability of familial care. However, the Bench remained unconvinced, noting that the relevant facts, including the child’s unwillingness to live with her parents, had already been taken into account at the time of passing the original order.

The Court underscored that the review jurisdiction is not an avenue for re-arguing the case on merits. Quoting settled legal principles, the Bench observed that “cases are heard and decided only once,” and any departure from this rule must strictly fall within well-defined parameters. It further clarified that a review petition can succeed only where there is a manifest error apparent on the face of the record, and not merely because another view is possible or because the petitioner seeks a rehearing.

In a pointed observation, the Court stated, “Even after elaborate arguments, no error apparent on the face of record could be pointed out.” This finding effectively closed the door on the petitioner’s attempt to reopen the matter. The Bench reiterated that its powers in review are “very limited” and “circumscribed by definitive limits,” thereby reinforcing the principle of finality in judicial decisions.

With no demonstrable legal infirmity in the original judgment, the Bench concluded that the review petition lacked “merit and substance,” and accordingly dismissed it

Case Title: Manju v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: March 26, 2026

Bench: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi