Civil Revision No.7227 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7227 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: May 5, 2011 Virender Kumar .....Petitioner v. Mukhvinder Kaur .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sunil Panwar, Advocate for the respondent. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 22.9.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide which petitioner- husband has been directed to pay `7,500/- per month for maintenance to respondent-wife besides `11,000/- as litigation expenses. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act') was filed by present petitioner-husband against respondent-wife, which was contested by respondent-wife. During pendency of petition, respondent-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act claiming maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, which was contested by petitioner-husband. Learned trial Court passed the impugned order directing petitioner-husband to pay `7,500/- per month as maintenance pendente lite besides `11,000/- as litigation expenses. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Civil Revision No.7227 of 2010(O&M) -2- petitioner is having income of only `12,000/- per month from part time job while studying for M.Tech. It is also contended that respondent-wife is also equally qualified and she is also doing M.Tech. It is also contended that admittedly earlier, she was employed and, however, there is no evidence that at present she is not employed. On the other hand it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent-wife that petitioner-husband has misled learned trial Court by taking the plea that he is earning only `12,000/- per month. Further contends that rather as per copy of pay bill of the petitioner for the month of March 2011, issued by Haryana College of Technology and Management, Ambala Road, Kaithal, where he is employed as Senior Lecturer, his net salary per month is `29629/-. He has also filed photocopy of the said pay slip. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to deny the correctness of the photocopy of the pay bill for the month of March 2011 of the petitioner filed by learned counsel for the respondent-wife. Petitioner-husband has also failed to produce any evidence to show, prima facie, that respondent-wife is gainfully employed. It has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that respondent-wife is having right to live with the same standard of living as she would have if she would have been residing with her husband. Hence, taking into consideration the status of the familles of the parties and income of petitioner-husband, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, directing petitioner-husband to pay `7,500/- per month as maintenance pendente lite alongwith `11,000/- as litigation expenses to respondent-wife 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. Civil Revision No.7227 of 2010(O&M) -3- Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 5.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge