Satyen Vaidya, Judge:
1. Petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the set aside the order dated 9.1.2023, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kangra at Dharmshala in case Registration No. 214 of 2022 (RBT HMA No. 8-B/IV/2021.
2. Petitioner has filed a petition against the respondent for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce which is pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kangra at Dharmshala.
3. Respondent had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance pendent-lite, which was allowed by the learned Family Court vide order dated 27.6.2015. Petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance pendent-lite to the respondent.
4. Petitioner assailed the order dated 27.6.2015 before this Court in CMPMO no. 356 of 2015. The challenge of the petitioner was rejected and CMPMO No. 356 of 2015 was dismissed vide judgment 24.12.2015.
5. On 11.11.2021, the petitioner approached the learned Family Court with an application filed under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking review of the order dated 27.6.2015, whereby maintenance pendent-lite was granted to the respondent. Since the review petition was time barred, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed, seeking condonation of delay. The review application was subsequently got converted by the petitioner into the application under Section 25 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
6. During the pendency of the aforesaid application for review of order dated 27.6.2015, the petitioner once again approached this Court by way of CMPMO No. 607 of 2022 to assail the order dated 27.6.2015. His challenge again was dismissed.
7. Petitioner has sought review/modification of order dated 27.6.2015 on the ground that he had retired from service on 31.1.2019 and thereafter he is getting meager pension of Rs. 13,220/- which was not sufficient for the petitioner to discharge the liability as fastened upon him vide order dated 27.6.2015.
8. Learned Family Court vide impugned order has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for review/ modification of the order on the grounds, firstly that the contention of the petitioner with respect to drawl of pension to the tune of Rs. 13,220/- was incorrect and the gross pension received by him was Rs. 32,476/-, secondly the application of the petitioner was highly belated.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.
10. The fact that the petitioner was drawing gross pension to the tune of Rs. 32,476/- has not been denied or controverted by the petitioner. That being so, the rejection of his prayer by learned Family Court by holding that the petitioner had sufficient means to pay maintenance amount even after retirement cannot be faulted with.
11. Further as this Court has been called upon to exercise supervisory jurisdiction, it cannot ignore the fact that the petition/application of the petitioner by invoking the provision of Section 25 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act was not maintainable. Section 25 (2) of Hindu Marriage Act has application where the order has been passed for permanent alimony and maintenance by the Court at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto. In the facts of the case in hand, the petition for divorce filed by the petitioner is still pending. No decree has been passed till date. In such circumstances, Section 25 (2) could not have been applied. Learned Family Court Kangra at Dharmshala has thus, clearly erred in ignoring this aspect of the matter despite the fact that an objection had been raised on behalf of the respondent in this behalf and was noticed by the learned Family Court in initial part of the impugned order.
12. The petitioner otherwise was not entitled to any relief in the application for review/modification of order dated 27.6.2015 for the reasons that he had already tried his luck twice by assailing the same order before this Court and had remained unsuccessful. The bonafides in filing application were also questionable as the petitioner had allegedly retired on 31.1.2019 and he had approached the learned Family Court with application for modification after about two years.
13. In light of above discussion, the impugned order requires no interference and the petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
