CM Nos.19045-46 CII of 2011 in/and CR No. 1633 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos.19045-46 CII of 2011 in/and CR No. 1633 of 2011 Date of decision: 11.8.2011 Jaswant Singh ...Petitioner Versus Sunita ...Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.SS Momi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.RS Mamli, Advocate for the respondent Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) CM No.19045 C II of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No.19046 CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record Annexures R-1 and R-2. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. CR No. 1633 of 2011 CM Nos.19045-46 CII of 2011 in/and CR No. 1633 of 2011 -2- The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.1.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide which the petitioner-husband has been ordered to pay Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to respondent-wife during the pendency of petition for divorce filed by the petitioner-husband against the respondent-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties 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 only one acre of land in his cultivating possession and that he is also maintaining both the children. Hence, it is contended that maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month fixed by learned trial court is on the higher side. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent-wife that the petitioner-husband has concealed his income and that in fact, he is running a poultry farm besides cultivating the entire land, which might be entered in the name of his father in the revenue record. Further contends that other brother of the petitioner is a JBT Teacher and hence not depending upon agriculture and that poultry business is being done by the petitioner only. It has further been contended that as per the entry made in the Jamabandi Annexure P-2, loan of Rs.5,70,000/- was taken by the petitioner by mortgaging the land, for running poultry farm. Law is well settled that petitioner husband is under obligation to maintain his wife as she is unable to maintain herself. Nothing is on CM Nos.19045-46 CII of 2011 in/and CR No. 1633 of 2011 -3- record that respondent -wife is having any income. There is no dispute that petitioner-husband is living separately and divorce petition has been filed by the petitioner against respondent-wife. Respondent-wife is entitled to the same standard of living as of her husband and as per the status of the family of the petitioner. At this stage, prima facie, it has been shown that petitioner- husband is running a poultry farm and he is also an agriculturist cultivating seven acres of land. Some land has also been recently purchased in the name of his mother. His plea that he is cultivating only one acre of land, cannot be accepted at this stage. His brother is a Government employee. He has concealed his income from the business of poultry farm. Necessary documents have not been produced, which are of his possession. In these days of high prices, it would be very difficult for the respondent-wife to maintain herself with this meager amount of Rs.5000/- per month. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, in awarding Rs.5,000/- per month as ad interim maintenance to respondent-wife and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- CM Nos.19045-46 CII of 2011 in/and CR No. 1633 of 2011 -4- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 11.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) gsv Judge