1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No.36 of 2006. Date of Decision: December 2, 2008. ____________________________________________________________ Smt. Babita Sharma. …….. Petitioner. Versus Shri Kapil Sharma. …….. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Devender Ghosh, Advocate, vice Mr. Chander Paul Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Naresh Thakur, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J(oral). Heard and gone through the record. The petitioner herein had filed the maintenance petition against the respondent-husband, which was allowed by the learned trial court and the amount of Rs.2500/- was awarded from the date of application, which was reduced in the revision petition filed by the respondent-husband to the tune of Rs.1,000/- per month. The petitioner is M.A. B.Ed. and the respondent is a JBT Teacher. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, there is a change in circumstances, as the petitioner got the job as Teacher under the PTA scheme and is drawing the salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. Thus, an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved by the respondent which is Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner is employed, however she is not getting any salary for the moment because the Government has withdrawn the grant. Since the matter is pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba and involves the leading of evidence where both the parties can assert their claim but in the present petition, no interference is called for, for the reasons that the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a Court of appeal or a Court of Error. It can neither review nor reappreciate nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior Court or Tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate Courts and inferior Tribunals within the limits of law, as held by the Apex Court in Shamshad Ahmad & Ors. v. Tilak Raj Bajaj (Deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors. [ JT 2008(10) SC 56. Even the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can only be exercised in the rarest of rare case, that too where there is misuse of the process of the Court causing miscarriage of justice which is not the case of the petitioner. Since it is open to either of the parties in the proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C. to apply for the alteration 3 of the amount on proof of change in the circumstances, as such no interference. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. December 2, 2008. (Surinder Singh) ( Pds ) Judge.