IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1124 OF 2010 Between : Mohd.Asadullah Khan …PETITIONER A N D 1. Ziya Begum (Previous name Jayasri) 2. State of A.P.Rep.by P.P. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1124 OF 2010 ORDER: Husband of the first respondent is the petitioner. The first respondent was a Hindu originally before marriage with the petitioner, and she embraced Muslim religion and married the petitioner. Alleging harassment and cruelty towards her, the first respondent filed D.V.C.No.5719 of 2008, in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Pending the case, she filed D.V.C.Crl.M.P.No.1062 of 2009, for interim maintenance. The Magistrate after considering entire contentions of both the parties granted interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to her. It is stated that minor child is also with the first respondent. The said order of interim maintenance was confirmed in Crl.A.No.389 of 2009 by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, by order dated 24.02.2010. The petitioner / husband questioned the said appellate court order before this Court in this revision. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner gave divorce to the first respondent and that it is evidenced by certificate issued by Government Quazi of the Wakf Board and that thereafter, the first respondent is not entitled for any maintenance except under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection Of Rights On Divorce) Act, 1986, during iddat period. Both the Courts below held that divorce is liable to be proved by the petitioner during enquiry of the petition. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner is working as police constable in C.R.P.F and is getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per month, and that the first respondent is occupying the Government quarter allotted to him and that in those circumstances amount of maintenance granted by the Courts below to the first respondent is excessive. It is further contended that the first respondent is working as teacher and getting income of Rs.15,000/- per month. Both the courts below held that the petitioner could not prove her separate income. As police constable, the petitioner gets more than Rs.15,000/- per month as salary. Therefore, interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month is not in any way excessive. 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is directed to expedite enquiry of D.V.C.No.5719 of 2008, and dispose of the same. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J JUNE 18, 2010 YVL