Civil Revision No.608 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.608 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 28, 2011 Rajneesh Sharma .....Petitioner v. Smt.Kamlesh Sharma .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.2436-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.608 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 20.10.2010, Annexure P5, passed by learned District Judge, Panchkula, vide which application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite filed by respondent-wife for herself and the minor child has been partly accepted by allowing ad interim maintenance to minor daughter-Meghna, @ Rs.5,000/- per month, while dismissing the similar application for maintenance filed by petitioner-husband. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is having no income, whereas respondent-wife is employed as Principal and getting handsome salary and hence, it is contended that directing petitioner to make payment of an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to minor daughter is highly excessive. Admitted facts are that both the parties are highly qualified. Civil Revision No.608 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Petitioner-husband admittedly earlier used to work as State Consultant for inclusive education for disabled children under Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, Chandigarh and used to get salary of Rs.17,000/- per month till 31.3.2008. However, later on he left the job. It is also admitted that at present he is working with N.G.O. It has been rightly observed by learned District Judge, Panchkula, while deciding the application filed by both the parties that he is having capability and qualification to earn sufficient income and it is his duty to maintain his minor daughter and to meet expenses of her education. As per affidavit filed by respondent-wife, Annexure P4, her minor daughter is studying in a public school, i.e., Hallmark School, Panchkula. She is paying Rs.8,000/- per annum as her fee. She has also stated that she is also paying fee of Rs.700/- per month for her hobby class, i.e., Choi Kwang Do Martial Art School, where her daughter is going. She has also attached receipts to this effect. She has also stated that her daughter also participated in Air Rifle for which she is getting coaching and for that she is paying fee of Rs.500/- per month. She has also stated that she has to spend Rs.1500/- per month on transportation for taking her daughter from one hobby class to another and for her participation in different competitions, besides meeting her day-to-day expenses, for which she has to spend Rs.1000/- per month. She has also stated that she deposited Rs.5000/- for her daughter to participate in skating and also purchased skates for Rs.4,000/- and hence, she has stated that she is spending Rs.15,000/- per month for brining up her daughter. Learned District Judge, Panchkula, vide impugned order declined the request of respondent-wife to get maintenance from her husband on the plea that she is working as Principal and getting handsome salary of Rs.35,000/- per month and hence capable of maintaining herself. Similar application filed by petitioner-husband was also declined on the plea that he is highly qualified and earlier used to earn Rs.17,000/- per month and hence, he is having capability and qualification to earn sufficient income. However, taking into consideration all these facts, learned District Judge, Panchkula, in its discretion allowed ad interim maintenance to minor daughter @ Rs.5,000/- per month. Law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot Civil Revision No.608 of 2011 (O&M) -3- be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order and that grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. The present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 28.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge