GURVEEN KAUR Vs. RANJIT SINGH SANDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE wife Mrs. Gurveen Kaur challenges in this revision order of the District Judge, Chandigarh, dated December 6, 1989, dismissing her application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite. Ranjit Singh Sandhu the husband initially filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') for restitution of conjugal rights against Mrs. Gurveen Kaur. Thereafter the same was amended and a petition under Section 13 of the Act was filed for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Subsequently, the petition was again amended and the ground of adultery was also included. After written statement was filed certain allegations were made in the written statement on the basis of which the original petition was again amended in order to include those allegations which also amounted to cruelty as alleged by the husband. Mrs. Gurveen Kaur--the wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for the grant of maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month and litigation expenses Rs. 5000/ -. She alleged that there was no source of income to her. On the other hand the husband owned immovable properties getting huge income. He was also practising as an Advocate and was earning from the profession. The husband while contesting the application inter alia pleaded that the wife was also a practising Advocate and was an earning hand. She had also money with her. Some details of Fixed Deposit Receipts and cash amount was given. Both the parties produced affidavits in support of their allegations and the District Judge, after considering the evidence produced, rejected the application.

(2.) ON behalf of the petitioner-wife it has been argued that the District Judge was wrong in accepting the affidavits of three Advocates who had deposed about the admission made by the petitioner-wife that she was earning about Rs. 7000/- per month from the profession. Secondly, it has been argued that sufficient evidence was produced on the record to indicate the income of the husband which was completely ignored by the District Judge. Without going into the merits of the allegations at this stage, the objection raised by the counsel for the respondent-husband is being dealt with.

(3.) IT has been argued on behalf of the respondent, Mr. Meja Singh Sandhu, Advocate, that the scope of revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is very limited. This Court should not interfere with the order of the trial Court even if it is erroneous on facts or in law. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court. In Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee and Ors. , AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1336, it was observed that it was not open to the High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, to question the findings of fact recorded by a sub ordinate Court. Section 115 applies to cases involving questions of jurisdiction, i. e. questions regarding irregular exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction or the illegal assumption of jurisdiction by a Court and is not directed against conclusion of law or fact in which questions of jurisdiction are not involved. In Pandurang Dhondi Chougule and Ors. v. Maruti Hari Jadhav and Ors. , AIR 1966 Supreme Court 153, it was observed that the High Court could not while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 115, correct errors of fact, however gross they may be, or even errors of law. It can only do so when the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. The ratio of the decision in Manindra Land Building Corporation s case (supra) was relied upon.