HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3684 of 2009 ORDER: The order under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is the order dated 19.06.2009 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam in I.A.No. 20 of 2009 in M.O.P.No. 88 of 2008. The petitioner herein filed M.O.P.No. 88 of 2008 seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. The respondent- wife filed the impugned I.A. claiming interim maintenance at Rs.5,000/- p.m. to her and Rs.3,000/- p.m. to her son from the date of the petition, pending disposal of the main petition, and to award Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Court below noted that the respondent was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein, and that there is no dispute regarding the fact that they were married. The Court below also noted that a child was born during their wedlock who was in the care and custody of the respondent herein. The Court below observed that the respondent had no source of livelihood; the petitioner was getting a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-; he had landed property of Ac.6.00; he was getting Rs.1.00 lakh from the said property; and, as he was not giving anything either to the respondent or to the child towards maintenance, the present I.A. was filed. Before the Court below, the petitioner denied that he had any landed property, and contended that the respondent had not filed any documentary evidence to show that he was having Ac.6.00 of land and was getting income each year therefrom. The Court below observed that, even if the petitioner herein was getting less than Rs.15,000/- p.m., it was his bounden duty to maintain the respondent-wife and his child. The petitioner was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- p.m. to the respondent-wife, and Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the child towards maintenance from the date of the petition till the disposal of the main petition; and Rs.3,000/- towards her legal expenses. Before this Court, Sri A.Rama Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the respondent-wife had earlier filed M.C.No.3 of 2006 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda and an order was passed therein granting maintenance of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the respondent-wife and Rs.500/- p.m. to the child. Learned counsel would contend that the Court below had failed to take note of this fact while directing that further amount be granted towards maintenance to the respondent-wife and the child. Sri T.Rajasekhar Rao, Learned Counsel for the respondent, would submit that, in the maintenance case, a meager sum of Rs.1,000/- p.m. was granted to the respondent-wife and Rs.500/- p.m. to the son, and that the amount granted by the Court below in I.A.No.20 of 2009 towards interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- p.m. to the respondent-wife and Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the child, even after it is clubbed with the amount earlier ordered in the maintenance case, would hardly be sufficient to them to take care of the basic necessities. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) provides that where in any proceedings under the Act, it appears to the Court that the wife had no independent income sufficient for her support and the necessary expenses of the proceedings, it may, on the application of the wife, order the husband to pay the petitioner the expenses of the proceedings, and monthly during the proceedings such sum as, having regard to the petitioner' s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable. Even accepting the contention of Sri A.Rama Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner-husband, that a sum of Rs.1,500/- (Rs.1,000/- to the respondent-wife and Rs.500/- to the child) was ordered in the maintenance case, the present sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rs.2,000/- to the respondent-wife and Rs.1,000/- to the child) would only come to Rs.4,500/- which is less than one-third of what the petitioner admittedly gets as monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- p.m. I see no reason, therefore, to exercise discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India since the petitioner can neither be said to have suffered manifest injustice nor the order to suffer from a patent illegality. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:30-07-2010 usd