JUDGMENT Shiva Kirti Singh; J.-We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Manoj Ambastha and also the respondent-Smt. Lakshmy Rani Kapoor, who has appeared in person. 2. A perusal of the judgment and order under review shows that the present dispute is only in respect of permanent alimony to the respondent under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3. The matrimonial case was initially filed by the husband in the year 1996 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna seeking divorce on various allegations, which were denied by the respondent-wife but she also levelled counter allegations and a decree of divorce granted on 28.9.2000 attained finality. The issue of permanent alimony was reconsidered by the court below after remand and resulted in grant of alimony by way of monthly payment of Rs. 10,000/-. The wife was dissatisfied and wanted lump sum permanent alimony of Rs. 30 lakhs. Both the parties preferred appeals which have been disposed of by order under review dated 3rd September, 2010. After noticing the pay-slip of the petitioner for the month of March, 2010 which shows that after deducting Rs. 2,000/- toward G.P.F. Rs.2,000/-towards Income Tax and Rs. 120/for Group Insurance, the petitioner's net monthly salary was Rs. 40,813/-, this Court has held that instead of Rs. 10,000/monthly amount of Rs. 14,000/- would be appropriate for the present, but considering the hardship faced by her as per discussions in paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of the judgment. under review, this Court ordered for payment of a lump sum permanent alimony of Rs. 14 lakhs to the respondent-wife in installments or in a lump sum within a period of nine months. 50% of the said amount was to be paid within four months and the rest within remaining period of five months. The liability to pay interim maintenance. at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month was to continue till the entire amount of Rs. 14 lakhs is paid to the appellant as, per judgment and order dated 3rd September, 2010. 4. This review application was preferred on 5.10.2010. Nothing has been paid by way of lump sum alimony and only Rs.10,000/- per month is being paid by the petitioner-husband. 5. The only ground raised on behalf of petitioner for seeking review is plea of incapacity to pay Rs. 4. This review application was preferred on 5.10.2010. Nothing has been paid by way of lump sum alimony and only Rs.10,000/- per month is being paid by the petitioner-husband. 5. The only ground raised on behalf of petitioner for seeking review is plea of incapacity to pay Rs. 14 lakh either in installments or in a lump sum within the period of nine months granted on 3rd September, 2010. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, if the permanent alimony is made payable in monthly installments, even at a higher rate, the petitioner may be able to pay the same but he cannot pay Rs. 14 lakhs as a lump sum alimony because he does not have lump sum money in his bank account and cannot dispose of his flat or other properties at home to pay such a huge amount. When this Court referred' to petitioner's offer of Rs. 18 lakhs as permanent alimony for compromise of all the differences including the criminal cases, the stand taken was that at that time there was a conviction in one of the criminal cases under Section 498A of the I.P.C. but now the petitioner and his family members have obtained acquittal from the appellate court. Further stand was that since criminal case under Section 494 and other sections of the I.P.C. is still pending, a possibility of conviction can affect petitioner's service with the State Government and in such a' state of apprehension he cannot think to arrange lump sum amount by loan etc. because he may not be able to repay the same. 6. Paragraph-21 of the judgment and order under review is as follows:- "Although the effort for amicable settlement has failed but before parting with this judgment we wish -and hope for the wife to agree for amicable settlement of all the pending litigations on the terms offered and if that happens within a reasonable time, we grant liberty to the parties to file a joint application for modification of this order and for incorporating the terms of compromise in larger interest of both the parties." The said observation and liberty for filing joint application was under a hope that the parties may settle all pending litigations in mutual interest, instead the matter has fallen for reconsideration by way of the review petition preferred by the husband. 7. 7. In order to explore the possibility of compromise once again,' an opportunity was given to the parties for holding talks for amicable settlement but the effort did not yield any positive results. The stand of the petitioner appears to have hardened to the extent that he is not keen for compromise even on condition of settlement of the pending criminal case whereas the respondent wants a lump sum amount so as to settle for a peaceful life without following repeated execution proceedings for the realization of monthly maintenance amount. She has argued that as a good student she would have established herself in a good career but the love marriage followed by acrimonious divorce proceeding which lasted for about 15 years, has left her devastated and she deserves higher permanent alimony than Rs.14 lakhs awarded earlier. 8. In our considered view, there is no material brought on record which may warrant for exercise of review jurisdiction. It would not be appropriate for us to take a different view on the basis of materials already existing on record and considered in the judgment and order under review. Hence, we find no merit in this review application, it is accordingly dismissed. 9. Since the period of nine months fixed for paying the lump sum alimony of Rs. 14 lakhs is already over but the amount has not been paid, in the interest of justice; it is observed that if so advised, the respondent may pray through proper application for award of appropriate interest or for enhancement of the monthly alimony presently fixed at Rs. 10,000/per month in the light of subsequent events. 10. The review application is dismissed but without costs.