(1.) THIS civil revision is directed against order dated 27.08.2004 of learned Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases), Jammu, passed in petition under Section 30 of J&K; Hindu Marriage Act, 1980, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rupees Two Thousand per month as maintenance pendentelite and Rupees Six Thousand as litigation expenses.
(2.) MRS . Asha Koul, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, urges that the learned District Judge has fallen in serious error of law in allowing Rupees Two Thousand per month as maintenance pendentelite because the petitioner, having been rendered jobless due to the termination of his employment as PSO in police, is unable to pay the amount sanctioned by the learned District Judge. She further submits that the respondent has not been able to prove the facts as narrated in her petition and the evidence produced by the respondent is hearsay, which could not have been relied upon by the learned Trial Court. Learned Counsel has referred to the statements recorded by the learned Trial Court during the currency of petition under Section 30 of the J&K; Hindu Marriage Act, 1980.
(3.) I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. Jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Svt. 1997, is not a substitute of appellate jurisdiction. Whereas, the appellate jurisdiction, permits re -appreciation and re -appraisal of evidence, the revisional jurisdiction does not contemplate such an exercise. Section 115, as an exception to the general accepted jurisdiction of a revisional court, permits the exercise of revisional jurisdiction where the order impugned is said to have caused failure of justice. This is provided in Section 115 Clause (D) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Svt. 1997. In order to see whether the order impugned has occasioned failure of justice, I permitted the parties to refer to the evidence led during the currency of proceedings under Section 30 of the J&K; Hindu Marriage Act, 1980.