Civil Revision No.1349 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1349 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: February 25, 2011 Harpreet Singh .....Petitioner v. Kamalpreet Kaur .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.J.S.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.5401-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.1349 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order dated 13.1.2011, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Moga, vide which an application filed by respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act') has been allowed and petitioner was directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as ad interim maintenance to respondent-wife and the minor child during pendency of the petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Act filed by present petitioner. 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, Moga. As per averments made in the application for ad interim maintenance filed by respondent-wife, she got her minor son admitted in Shivalik Public School, Jagraon. It has also been mentioned in the order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Moga, that she also produced receipt of Rs.3,700/- for making payment of fee of the child in the said Civil Revision No.1349 of 2011(O&M) -2- school at the time of admission. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that date of birth of the child is 21.2.2008. However, even if it is taken to be correct, it cannot be said that child, at this stage, cannot be sent to a play school. Though assertion of respondent-wife is that petitioner is running two sanitary shops, one furniture shop and also owns 15/20 killas of the agricultural land and his income is more than Rs.50,000/- per month, and though in the absence of any evidence, the same may not be taken as correct at this stage, however, plea of petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage that he is only a daily wage earner. In these days of high prices, it would be very difficult for respondent-wife to maintain herself and her minor child with this meager sum of Rs.4,000/- per month. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Moga, in awarding Rs.4,000/- ad interim maintenance to respondent-wife and to her minor son and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law is well settled 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 a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. The present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 25.2.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge