Civil Revision No.4458 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4458 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 26, 2011 Vikash .....Petitioner v. Pooja .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.17620-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.4458 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside order dated 21.5.2011, Annexure P2, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat 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, Panipat. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that in a petition pending under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter to be called as the `Act'), respondent-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for grant of interim maintenance and has been granted `1,500/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of Civil Revision No.4458 of 2011(O&M) -2- application. Marriage between the parties is not disputed. There is also no dispute that they are living separate. Prima facie there is no evidence that respondent-wife is in a position to maintain herself. Hence, even if it is taken that petitioner is a labourer and an able bodied person, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, in passing the impugned order or 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:- “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. 26.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.4458 of 2011(O&M) -3-