Civil Revision No.4747 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4747 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 8, 2011 Prabhjit Singh .....Petitioner v. Navneet Kaur .....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.18848-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No. 4747 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 9.6.2011, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide which application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act') by respondent-wife was allowed and present petitioner-husband was directed to pay `5,000/- per month to respondent-wife as interim maintenance in proceedings initiated by petitioner-husband against respondent-wife for divorce under Section 13 of the Act. 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, Jalandhar. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that interim maintenance fixed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, Civil Revision No.4747 of 2011(O&M) -2- is on the higher side as petitioner is maintaining expenses of both the children, who are studying in boarding school and that respondent-wife is also residing in the house owned by petitioner and that he is also to maintain his parents and he is having only income of `20,000/- per month. There is no dispute that parties are living separate. There is also no dispute that petitioner-husband is a businessman. It has come on the record that he is having various bank accounts and he had been depositing and withdrawing the amount in lacs in the said accounts. He has with-held the necessary document, i.e., balance-sheet of his business concern to show his income. Though respondent-wife had alleged that he is having income of `2,50,000/- per month, however, learned Additional District Judge has taken his income @ `40,000/- per month for the purpose of decision of present application, as petitioner has with-held the necessary documents regarding his income. Respondent-wife is entitled to the same standard of living as she would have while residing with her husband. Hence, taking into consideration the status of the family and the income of petitioner-husband, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, 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 Civil Revision No.4747 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 8.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge