C.R. No. 4690 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4690 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.03.2009 Sanjay Narain ....Petitioner Versus Monika ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Deepak Thapar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.7.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, accepting the appeal filed by the respondent-wife against the order dated 6.12.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh. The respondent-wife filed a petition for maintenance against the petitioner-husband under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Along with petition, an application for interim maintenance was moved. By way of interim measure, the respondent- wife claimed maintenance of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) per month. However, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), C.R. No. 4690 of 2005 (O&M) -2- Chandigarh, granted maintenance of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) per month from the date of passing of order. The respondent-wife preferred an appeal against the order, which was partly accepted and the maintenance was enhanced to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) per month, keeping in view the fact that admitted salary of husband was Rs.48,282/- (Rupees fourty eight thousand two hundred and eighty two only) per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order only on the ground that the order is without jurisdiction, as no appeal was competent against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, on an interim application. This contention could not be controverted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, that the order passed by the learned Additional District, Chandigarh, is just and fair which cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary, thus, this Court should decline to interfere in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that in any case, once the Court is seized of the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution, an order can also be passed in favour of the respondent- wife, to uphold maintenance of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) per month. On consideration of matter, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The appeal is creation of a statute and in absence of power of appeal with a Court or authority, it has no jurisdiction to C.R. No. 4690 of 2005 (O&M) -3- interfere with an order appealed against, therefore, the order being without jurisdiction cannot be sustained, even though the maintenance granted cannot be said to be excessive. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner shall not be entitled to refund of any amount which may have been paid under the impugned order. The order passed shall not be a bar to the respondent-wife to challenge the order passed by the learned trial Court granting maintenance at Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) in accordance with law. Revision allowed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 26, 2009 R.S.