Civil Revision No.306 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.306 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 18, 2011 Preet Singh .....Petitioner v. Smt.Angrejo Devi .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.1280-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.306 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 1.12.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which application filed by respondent-wife has been wrongly and arbitrarily allowed and present petitioner-husband was directed to pay Rs.3,500/- per month as maintenance pendente lite for respondent-wife and Rs.1,500/- per month each for the three minor children, besides Rs.2,500/- as litigation expenses. 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, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent-wife is already getting interim maintenance in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Cr.P.C.') and hence, she is having no right to file the present petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be Civil Revision No.306 of 2011 (O&M) -2- referred as the `Act'). It is also contended that maintenance awarded by learned Additional District Judge is on the higher side. Admitted facts are that respondent-wife alongwith three minor children is living separately from petitioner-husband. Petitioner-husband has filed divorce petition against her. During pendency of divorce petition, application under Section 24 of the Act has been filed for ad interim maintenance for the wife and the minor children. It is not disputed that petitioner-husband is an employee of Electricity Department and is getting the salary of Rs.18,000/- per month. There is also no dispute that respondent-wife is having no income to maintain herself and the minor children. Nothing has come on the record, as is clear from the impugned order passed by learned trial Court, that petitioner-husband is having any other liability. It is his responsibility to maintain his wife and the minor children, who are unable to maintain themselves. 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. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that impugned order passed by learned trial Court is, in any way, illegal. It will be very difficult for the respondent-wife to maintain herself and the three minor children and to provide them education, even with this meager sum of Rs.8,000/- per month, in these days of high prices. So far as argument of learned counsel for the petitioner- husband that respondent-wife is getting interim maintenance in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it is ordered that if any amount by way of interim maintenance has been received by respondent-wife and the minor children for the period claimed in this petition during pendency of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the same shall be adjusted towards the amount of ad interim maintenance allowed in this petition by learned trial Court. Civil Revision No.306 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit except the modification as indicated above. 18.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge