Dismissed

Bhupinder Handa v. Sushma

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Sept 2011CR/5381/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition under Article 227, the High Court refused to interfere with an order upholding interim maintenance liability on the petitioner-husband, holding that no grave injustice was occasioned and supervisory jurisdiction does not permit re-appreciation of evidence.

What did the court decide?

The application for setting aside the interim maintenance order was dismissed.

Bhupinder Handa Vs Sushma — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Revision No.5381 of 2011(O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Civil Revision No.5381 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 5, 2011

Bhupinder Handa

.....Petitioner

Sushma

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.Munish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

.....

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

C.M.No.21502-CII of 2011

¶15

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

Civil Revision No.5381 of 2011

¶17

Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 26.7.2011, Annexure P7, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, at Jagadhri, vide which application filed by respondentwife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act') in proceedings under Section 13 of the Act was allowed and present petitioner -husband was directed to pay interim maintenance @ 3,000/- per month besides litigation expenses of `3,300/-.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-husband and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

¶19

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-

¶20

-2-

¶21

Civil Revision No.5381 of 2011(O&M)

¶22

husband that there is no relationship of husband and wife between the parties and that even earlier petition filed by respondent-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was also dismissed.

¶23

However, admittedly a petition under Section 9 of the Act was filed by respondent-wife against the present petitioner and the same was decided vide judgment and decree dated 1.11.2003, Annexure P1. Though the said decree was passed ex parte, and however, the same has become final as the same has not been challenged by present petitioner-husband. In the said decree relationship of husband and wife between the parties has been held and on the basis of that judgment, the present petition for divorce has also been filed by respondent-wife. Hence, for the purpose of decision of application filed under Section 24 of the Act for interim maintenance, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned trial Court in placing reliance upon the said judgment.

¶24

Insofar as the income of petitioner-husband is concerned, admittedly he is a government employee and is drawing a salary of `12,000/- per month. It is his duty to keep and maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself.

¶25

In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court.

¶26

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

¶27

Civil Revision No.5381 of 2011(O&M)

¶28

-3-

¶29

evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:-

¶30

“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.”

¶31

Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶32

5.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge

Bhupinder Handa v. Sushma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupinder Handa v. Sushma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahinder Vs Sunder & Ors.

Dalbir Singh Vs Ramandeep Singh and Anr.

State of Haryana and Ors. Vs Bhajan Lal

Bikramjit Singh Vs Mahabir Singh

Jagtar Singh Vs Jagdev Singh

Kulwinder Kaur Vs Savinder Kaur and Ors.