THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3138 & 3175 of 2011 Date:29.8.2011 Between: B. Umapathi Reddy ………...Petitioner. And Smt Bandi Sreelatha and another. …… Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3138 & 3175 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: 1. These two revisions are directed against the common order dated 12.7.2011 passed in I.A.No.122 of 2010 in I.A.No.65 of 2010 in M.O.P.No.40 of 2009 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa. 2. The 1st respondent is the wife and the 2nd respondent is the son of the petitioner. The wife and the son filed O.S.No.19 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- each. The said O.S came to be transferred to the file of the Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa and registered as M.O.P.No.40 of 2009. Consequent on failure of the petitioner to appear before the Family Court, an ex-parte decree came to be passed on 16.2.2010 granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- each. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.65 of 2010 to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 16.2.2010 passed in M.O.P.No.40 of 2009. He also moved I.A.No.122 of 2010 seeking stay of the execution of the order dated 16.2.2010 passed in M.O.P No.40 of 2009. The wife and the son filed counter resisting the application. 3. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 16.2.2010 passed in M.O.P.No.40 of 2009 subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.2,00,000/- towards arrears of maintenance besides paying regular maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each to the wife and the son, by order dated 12.7.2011. Hence these two revisions. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order which is as follows:- “As seen from the material, since 2009 in spite of passing exparte orders the husband did not come forward to make the payment of arrears of maintenance, forcing his wife and children to live on the pity of others. In the event the exparte orders of granting of maintenance in favour of the wife and children is set aside on the technicality of giving a fresh opportunity to the petitioner by awarding substantial amount of payment on a lump sum towards arrears of maintenance and substantial amount of maintenance to the wife from the husband it will suffice the purpose in the interest of justice. Therefore, the petition in I.A.No.65/10 itself may be conditionally ordered that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- part of the arrears of maintenance payable by him, besides paying the regular maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to each petitioner coming to total a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, which will be more appropriate by considering the status of the husband as a Engineer in RTPP and that in default making such payment by 8th of next month, the present petition I.A.No.65/10 shall stand dismissed.” 4. More precisely, CRP No.3138 of 2011 is directed against the order dated 12.7.2011 made in I.A.No.122 of 2011 in I.A.No.65 of 2010 and whereas CRP No.3175 of 2011 is directed against the order dated 12.7.2011 made in I.A.No.122 of 2010 in I.A.No.65 of 2011 in M.O.P.No.40 of 2009, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Kadapa. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the condition imposed by the Family Court is onerous and therefore, the said condition is to be modified. He would further submits that an interim maintenance has been granted to the respondents during the pendency of the O.P at the rate of Rs.4,000/- and if the quantum of amount awarded to the respondents towards interim maintenance considered, the lump sum amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, which the learned Judge of the Family Court directed the petitioner to deposit is on higher side and therefore, the same is required to be reduced considerably. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner is presently working as Divisional Engineer and he neglected the respondents (wife and son) to maintain and even not paid the maintenance regularly. He would also submit that the respondents have filed E.P for realization of the maintenance amount of about Rs.6 lakhs. 8. As seen from the material placed on record, the petitioner is an Engineer working in RTPP., Kalamalla Village, Kadapa District. He has been directed by the learned Judge of the Family Court to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards arrears of maintenance, besides paying regular maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each to the wife and son. In the given facts and circumstances, I am of the view that quantum of amount which the petitioner is directed to deposit appears to be on high side. Therefore, the quantum of amount, which the petitioner is required to deposit towards arrears of maintenance is reduced from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/-. 9. Accordingly, the common order dated 12.7.2011 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court is modified reducing the quantum of arrears of maintenance, which the petitioner is required to be deposited from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/- besides paying regular maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each. The petitioner shall deposit the arrears of maintenance Rs.1,25,000/- and the dues if any towards regular maintenance within a week from today. Failing which, the order impugned in the revisions shall stand restored. 10. Accordingly, both the revisions are disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:29.08.2011 Note:-Furnish CC in two days. B/O mrb