C.R.No.7417 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.7417 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 2, 2011 Kauldeep Kumar Choudhary .....petitioner v. Mrs.Suman Lata .....Respondent Present: Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) C.M.No.28755-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.R.No.7417 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside order dated 19.10.2011 passed by Family Court, Faridabad, vide which petitioner-husband was ordered to pay maintenance pendente lite to respondent-wife to the tune of `10,000/- per month, while deciding application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short `the Act') in proceedings under Sections 12 and 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 trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is only an employee in the factories being run by his father and that his gross income as per income tax return for the assessment year 2009- C.R.No.7417 of 2011(O&M) -2- 10, Annexure P6, was `1,65,100/- and as per assessment year 2010-11, Annexure P7, is `2,09,775/-. It is further contended that respondent-wife is also qualified as MBA and that earlier she was teaching in a school and hence, she is also in a position to maintain herself and, hence, it is contended that interim maintenance granted @ `10,000/- per month is on the higher side. Admitted facts are that father of present petitioner is running two factories in the same name and style, i.e., Kuldeep Engineering Works, one situated at 9, DSIDC, Shed Computer Complex, Phase-II, Scheme -I, New Delhi and the another at A-16/3 DLF Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Faridabad. Plea of petitioner is that he is employee in the said factories owned by his father on monthly salary of `15,000/- per month. However, the plea has been disbelieved by learned trial Court on the ground that on the one hand petitioner is taking the plea that he was debarred from the property by his parents and, however, at the same time he is taking the plea that he has been employed by his father in his factory. When as per case of petitioner, relations between him and his parents are not cordial, it cannot be said that he is an employee in the factory of his father. The accounts and income of the factories and the income tax returns of the factories being run by father of present petitioner have been with-held. It has also not come on record as to whether his father is sole proprietor of the said factories or as to whether earlier petitioner was also a partner in the same. It has also not been disclosed as to whether he is having any other brother to run the factory alongwith his father. At this stage, prima facie version of respondent-wife that she is not earning anything has been rightly believed by learned trial Court. C.R.No.7417 of 2011(O&M) -3- Hence, in view of the concealment of material facts regarding his profession and income by petitioner, I am of the view that it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order. Moreover, after taking into consideration the status of the parties, the interim maintenance @ `10,000/- awarded to respondent-wife by learned trial Court cannot be said to be on the higher side. 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. 2.12.2011 ( Ram Chand Gupta ) meenu Judge