Civil Revision No.2718 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.2718 of 2009 Decided on : May 14, 2009 Kunal Rao ... Petitioner VERSUS Anamika and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Charanjit Singh Bakhshi, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India are sought to be invoked for quashing the order dated 10.3.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide which, in the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein referred as `the Act'), the application filed by the respondent – wife Anamika under Section 24 of the Act for interim maintenance was allowed and she was awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.11,000/- and Rs.4000/- per month for the minor child, aged about one year. The petitioner hails from a rich family running a Company in the name and style of `Rahul Power and Trans Company' and they are said to be distributors of Myco and Bosche products for the entire State of Haryana. The Company does not consists of strangers, but the petitioner, his parents and brother, having a turn over of more than Rs.47 lacs. The petitioner has tried to show that he is earning only about Rs.90,000/- per Civil Revision No.2718 of 2009 [ 2 ] annum, which appears to be a camouflage to put the Court in confusion. It could not be denied that both the businesses i.e, 'Rahul Power and Trans Company' and the distributorship of Myco and Bosche products are owned by the family members of the petitioner. The Trial Court while keeping in view the income, status and the daily necessities of the respondent and the minor child, has granted interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.11,000/- per month for the respondent – wife and Rs.4000/- for the minor child. It also needs mention that the respondent – wife was just in her twenties when she was turned out of the house. The petitioner – husband appears to have prepared a rent-note in order to project that he is living separately, but in the given circumstances, the petitioner, who is just 24 years of age, cannot be said to be living separately from his family, when the entire family business is joint. Even otherwise, the Apex Court has time and again observed that the powers of this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction are very limited and need not be lightly invoked, unless the impugned order suffers from any perversity or arbitrariness. Merely because a different view of the matter is possible, is not a ground to interfere with the same. Under these circumstances, I do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the well-reasoned order dated 10.3.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal. Consequently, this petition stands dismissed. May 14, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE