IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.2969 of 2014 Between:
Majji Murali Krishna And Majji Aruna Jyothi and others … Petitioner … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.2969 of 2014 ORDER:
This revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner/husband aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2014 passed in I.A. No.402 of 2011 in O.P. No.889 of 2011 by the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam wherein the learned Judge while partly allowing and partly dismissing the application granted interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the 1st respondent herein with effect from 17.06.2014.
Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3 are the husband and wife, son and daughter, respectively. Respondents 2 and 3 are the minor children of petitioner and the 1st respondent. Marriage of the petitioner and the 1st respondent was performed on 16.08.2000 and they were blessed with the respondents 2 and 3. The 1st respondent alleged that the petitioner developed illegal intimacy with one lady and demanding her to give divorce and filed O.P. No.539 of 2011. The respondents unable to maintain themselves therefore, seeking maintenance filed an application in I.A. No.402 of 2011 in O.P. No.889 of 2011.
Per contra, the petitioner alleged that the 1st respondent harassed him and unable to bear the harassment therefore, he filed the petition for divorce. Further, it is also alleged that the 1st respondent voluntarily deserted the petitioner as such, she is not entitled to maintenance.
The Court below determined the issue whether the respondents are entitled to interim maintenance and came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent alone is entitled to monthly maintenance at Rs.3,000/- per month and dismissed the maintenance as against the respondents 2 and 3 holding that they are with the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision petition.
As could be seen from the impugned order, it is clear that the Court below held that whether the 1st respondent voluntarily deserted the petitioner would be decided in the main O.P., after full-fledged trial. Though the 1st respondent failed to adduce any documentary evidence substantiating her contention that the petitioner is earning an amount of Rs.7,000/- per day the Court below observed that now-a-days even a daily wage earner would get Rs.300/- to 350/- per day, which comes to Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioner being the document writer, his income would certainly be more than a daily wage earner. Taking into consideration his income, the Court below had rightly granted monthly maintenance at Rs.3,000/- per month to the 1st respondent. Since the respondents 2 and 3, minor children, are with the petitioner, no maintenance was awarded.
In that view of the matter, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order and therefore, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 10.10.2014 LSK