IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2225 of 2009 BETWEEN Behara Ravindra Kumar. ... PETITIONER AND Smt. Behara Manjula and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. C. RAGHU Counsel for the Respondents: --NONE APPEARED-- The Court made the following: ORDER: The respondents herein filed an application being I.A.No.78 of 2008 for interim maintenance pending O.P.No.330 of 2008 filed for grant of past and future maintenance and other reliefs. In the said application, the respondents herein sought maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. The said application was contested by the petitioner herein on the ground that the respondents’ claim is exorbitant. Considering the contentions on behalf of both sides, the Court below by impugned order dated 24.02.2009 had awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the first respondent and at the rate of Rs.2,000/- to the second respondent totaling to Rs.7,000/- per month. The said order is questioned in this revision petition. 2. This Court while issuing notice on 20.05.2009 granted interim order on prima facie satisfaction that the rate at which maintenance is granted by the Court below is exorbitant and thereby, 70% of the interim maintenance awarded was stayed and the petitioner was directed to pay the remaining 30% maintenance every month apart from paying all arrears within a period of four weeks and liberty was given to the respondents to withdraw the same. Thereafter, on 15.11.2010 notice sent to the first respondent was served but nobody appeared for the first respondent. The second respondent is a minor represented by the first respondent and as such, notice to the first respondent was treated sufficient. Today also nobody appears for the respondents. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the interim maintenance has to be in conformity with the salary of the petitioner. It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner is working in Hindustan Construction Company Limited, as Assistant Foreman and drawing salary of Rs.7,200/- per month out of which Rs.1,543/- is being deducted towards EPF. Learned counsel, therefore, states that the direction to pay Rs.7,000/- towards interim maintenance is wholly disproportionate to the earnings of the petitioner. 5. Considering the above facts, this Court had directed that the petitioner should pay 30% of the interim maintenance awarded together with arrears and the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said order is being complied with. 6. In that view of the matter, since the OP is of the year 2008, I deem it appropriate to direct that, pending OP, the petitioner shall continue to pay the interim maintenance at 30% of Rs.7,000/- fixed by the Court below and the arrears, if not already paid, shall be paid within four (4) weeks from today. The respondents shall have the liberty to withdraw the arrears as well as monthly deposit towards interim maintenance. The trial Court shall proceed to hear and dispose of the OP expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J March 24, 2011 DSK