Civil Revision No.2354 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2354 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: April 28, 2011 Abhay Ram .....Petitioner v. Santosh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Jainainder Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.9568-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.2354 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of impugned order dated 12.1.2011, passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Hisar, vide which the petitioner-husband has been directed to pay `5,000/- as maintenance pendente lite besides `3,300/- as litigation expenses to respondent-wife. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Hisar. Marriage between the parties is not disputed. A petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter to be referred as `the Act') for divorce was filed by petitioner-husband against respondent-wife. During pendency of this petition, an application under Section 24 of the Act has been filed by respondent-wife. It has been averred by respondent-wife that petitioner-husband is an ex serviceman. Admittedly he is also getting `5,000/- as pension and now he is serving as Guard in Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, Bigarh Road, Fatehabad. Civil Revision No.2354 of 2011(O&M) -2- The petitioner has placed on record his salary slip for the month of May, 2010, according to which his total salary is `8684/- per month. There are some temporary deductions in the form of festival loan, personal loan and vehicle loan. Respondent-wife has also alleged that he has sold four acres of agricultural land and he is still owner of 4-1/2 acres of agricultural land. It has also been alleged that he is owner of a big house situated in village Dhansu and he is also owner of two houses in Sunder Nagar, Hisar, from which he is getting handsome income as rent. Prima facie, at this stage, there is no evidence that respondent- wife is having any income. Hence, she is entitled for the same standard of living as she used to have when she was residing with her husband. Hence, taking into consideration all these facts and the resources of petitioner-husband, granting of `5,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite alongwith `3,300/- as litigation expenses to the respondent-wife by learned District Judge, Family Court, Hisar, cannot be said to be on the higher side in these days of high prices. Rather it would be very difficult for respondent-wife to maintain herself with this meager amount. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Family Court, Hisar, 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 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 that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 28.4.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.2354 of 2011(O&M) -3-