JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral).:- The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing judgment dated 17.8.2010, Annexure P1, passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, vide which application filed by respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’) has been allowed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad. 3. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act for decree of divorce was filed against petitioner-husband for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. During pendency of the petition, an application under Section 24 of the Act was filed by respondent-wife against the present petitioner-husband. Reply to the said application was filed by petitioner-husband. The same was decided vide impugned order vide which respondent-wife was held entitled to maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month besides Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses by taking income of present petitioner-husband as Rs.30,000/- per month. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-husband that he is only a truck driver and he is not having income of Rs.30,000/- per month. 5. Learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, while deciding the application has observed that petitioner-husband has taken different stands regarding his income. At one stage, he has given his income as a driver as Rs.4,500/- and at another stage he has given his income as a driver as Rs.3,500/-, without specifying as to with whom he is allegedly employed as a driver. It has also been observed that affidavit has been filed by respondent-wife stating specifically that her husband is a transporter and is having income of Rs.30,000/- per month. Affidavit filed by respondent-wife has not been rebutted by the husband on the point, as it has been observed that no counter affidavit has been filed by the husband controverting the plea of the wife that he is a transporter and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. 6. Parties are residing at Faridbad. Petitioner-husband is residing at H.No.433, Sector 7-B, Faridabad, whereas respondent-wife is residing at H.No.747, Jawahar Colony, NIT, Faridabad. 6. Parties are residing at Faridbad. Petitioner-husband is residing at H.No.433, Sector 7-B, Faridabad, whereas respondent-wife is residing at H.No.747, Jawahar Colony, NIT, Faridabad. In these days of high prices, it will be very difficult for the respondent-wife to maintain reasonable standard of living with a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, being wife of a transporter, who is having income of Rs.30,000/- per month. Law is well settled that wife is having a right to maintain the same standard of living as she used to maintain while living with her husband. 7. 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. 8. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, in passing the impugned order and that grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. 9. The present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. ------------0.S.L.0------------