Civil Revision No.813 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.813 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: February 3, 2011 Smt.Ruchi Sharma .....Petitioner v. Har Narayan Sharma .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) 1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 13.10.2010, (wrongly mentioned in petition as 29.11.2010) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Palwal, vide which application filed by present petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act') for grant of interim maintenance and litigation expenses has been dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Palwal. 3. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that petitioner married with respondent in the year 1996 at Meerut and however, no child was born out of the wedlock. Respondent-husband was a widower and having three children from previous marriage. Petitioner-wife filed divorce petition against respondent-husband. During pendency of the said divorce petition, application under Section 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance and litigation expenses was also filed by the petitioner-wife, which was dismissed by learned trial Court by observing as under:- “ After hearing arguments of both the counsel for the parties and going through the record, I have come to the conclusion that in view of aforesaid circumstances, it is clear Civil Revision No.813 of 2011(O&M) -2- that petitioner was earning Rs.4214/- per month while impersonating herself as Vandana Sharma whereas respondent Har Narain was earning Rs.36,360/- per month. The respondent has to support his family including his mother, his son Deepak, his daughter-in-law Kusum, another son Manoj and one daughter named Babli and he had to incur the expenses for their studies and contrary to it, the petitioner was earning Rs.4200/- per month as she has given statement in the court. Therefore, in these circumstances, keeping in view of the aforesaid facts, I have come to the conclusion that the petitioner when came to the Court, has suppressed the material facts from the Court to extract maintenance allowance from the respondent. Therefore, she is to be non-suited, on this account. The contention of respondent that she has left the services could not be considered because in view of the fact that the petitioner is changing her stand one after the other. It is also clear that petitioner Ruchi Sharma is getting maintenance allowance of Rs.1000/- per month in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pending in the Court of Shri Amit Sehrawat, JMIC, Palwal. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any maintenance allowance. Hence, her application is hereby dismissed. The case is posted to 29.11.10 for evidence of the petitioner.” 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that now petitioner is having no income and, on the other hand, respondent is having sufficient income. It is further contended that maintenance @ Rs.1000/- per month, which petitioner-wife is getting in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is too less. 5. Learned Additional District Judge, Palwal, has given cogent reasons, as detailed above, while dismissing the application filed by petitioner-wife for ad interim injunction. Petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. She has tried to mislead the Court. She was working by impersonating herself as Vandana Sharma, whereas respondent-husband has to support a big family, i.e., his mother and three children and has to incur the expenses on their studies as well. Civil Revision No.813 of 2011(O&M) -3- 6. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Palwal, in passing the impugned order and that grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. 7. Moreover, 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 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. 8. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 3.2.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge