IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.2307 of 2014 Between:
Boddapati Venkata Ramanamurthy And Boddapati Lalitha … Petitioner … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.2307 of 2014 ORDER:
This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 30.04.2014 made in I.A. No.481 of 2013 in O.P. No.1105 of 2013 on the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam wherein and whereunder the petitioner was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- p.m., to the respondent from 05.12.2013.
The revision petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife.
The respondent/wife filed I.A. No.481 of 2013 in O.P. No.1105 of 2013 under Section 22 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. The Court below while allowing the said application awarded interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of petition i.e. 05.12.2013 and directed that monthly maintenance shall be paid on or before 10th of every succeeding month and the first of such payment shall be made on or before 10.05.2014. The arrears shall be cleared in four monthly equal instalments.
Aggrieved by the said order, present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/husband.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court below erred in granting the interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/-.
He further submitted that the petitioner’s salary is meagre i.e. Rs.7,900/- and he is the only person to look after his old age parents.
It is also submitted that the respondent/wife is working in Harsha Motors and earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. Without proper appreciation of the said contentions, the Court below passed the impugned order.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that after proper appreciation of the evidence made available before the Court below it came to the conclusion that the petitioner’s salary is Rs.7,900/- and taking into consideration the salary of the petitioner, directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/-.
Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner categorically averred that the respondent/wife is working in a private organisation and that fact was not properly appreciated by the Court below. As could be seen, the said fact was raised before the Court below and the Court below opined that the petitioner did not make any efforts to secure the alleged employment and salary particulars of the respondent/wife under Right to Information Act. In this regard, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is given an opportunity to make an appropriate application before the alleged private organisation where the respondent/wife stated to have been working seeking salary particulars of the respondent/wife, if so advised.
In view of the above, observation made by the Court below in respect of securing pay particulars of the respondent/wife is set aside and if the petitioner is so advised, the petitioner is at liberty to make an appropriate application before the private organisation where the respondent/wife stated to have been working.
With the above, this revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 14.08.2014 LSK