Civil Revision No. 2432 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2432 of 2009 Date of decision: 31.07.2009 Ashur Banpal Singh Gill ....Petitioner Versus Smt. Kuljit Kaur ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. S.S. Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.11.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, vide which the application moved by the petitioner herein for correction of order, under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner herein filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights. Respondent-wife appeared and filed petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. Though in the application, it was averred that the appellant owns 15 acres of land and is also running a shop, from which he is Civil Revision No. 2432 of 2009 -2- earning more than Rs.18,000 (Rupees eighteen thousand only) per month. The averments were denied by the appellant, and a stand was taken that he is also maintaining a child, besides that, neither he owns agricultural land nor running any shop. The reading of the order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act shows, that pleas of the appellant-husband were accepted, and it was held that in absence of any evidence or document, the averments made by the respondent-wife could not be accepted. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner-husband was legally bound to maintain the respondent-wife, the application was allowed, by granting maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per month with litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand). However, on receipt of order, it was noticed that the maintenance granted was fixed as Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) per month. The petitioner immediately moved application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for correction of the typographical error, in awarding Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) per month as maintenance pendente lite. The petitioner placed reliance on the note written by the Judge on the application moved under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, to assert his plea that the word “Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) per month” was outcome of typographical error. The learned Court without going into merits of the case, rejected the application moved under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Civil Revision No. 2432 of 2009 -3- by observing, that the Court did not feel any need to interfere with the order passed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, states that in the certified copy of the order, maintenance was correctly fixed and there is no ground to challenge it. On consideration, I find that impugned order cannot be sustained, firstly for the reason, that the Court has given no reason whatsoever with regard to the plea, that there was a typographical error in granting Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) per month, which was required to be corrected in exercise of powers under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned order is also liable to be set aside, as the certified copy of the application moved under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act shows that learned Judge, while granting maintenance, had mentioned that the maintenance granted as Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per month, with litigation expenses of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) For the reasons stated, revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the application moved by the petitioner under Section 152 of the Code is allowed, but with no order as to costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 31, 2009 rs