IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6942 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 14, 2011. Manpreet Singh ...... PETITIONER. Versus Sarabjeet Kaur. ...... RESPONDENT. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M. No.27069-CII of 2011. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.6942 of 2011 Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 19.10.2011 (Annexure-P/6) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide which application filed by respondent-wife for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the ‘Act’) was allowed in a petition filed by the present petitioner- husband under Section 13 of the Act. CR No.6942 of 2011(O&M) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. The only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was a compromise between the parties and as per the said compromise (Annexure-P/1), permanent alimony was paid to respondent by petitioner and hence, she is not entitled to claim interim maintenance. However, perusal of alleged compromise (Annexure-P/1) shows that there is no mention regarding any payment on account of permanent alimony. Respondent-wife is having no income to maintain herself. It is the duty of the petitioner-husband to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself. Maintenance @ Rs.1500/- in these days of high prices cannot be said to be on higher side. Rather it would be very difficult for respondent-wife to make both ends meet with this meager amount of Rs.1500/- 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, Fatehgarh Sahib in passing the impugned order or 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:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of 2 CR No.6942 of 2011(O&M) 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. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 14, 2011. JUDGE Sachin M. 3