IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.2497 of 2007 Between: Masabattula Vignan Kumar ..Petitioner AND Rokkala Sujatha .. Respondent ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.23 of 2004 in O.P.No.90 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, dated 20-04- 2006. The revision petitioner filed O.P.No.90 of 2003 for grant of divorce from the respondent, which clam was resisted by the respondent claiming to be belonging to Christian religion and to have been married in terms of the Christian Marriage Act. However, the respondent wife filed I.A.No.24 of 2004 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- and for legal expenses of Rs.10,000/- alleging the husband to be earning Rs.40,000/- per month in Kuwait from his job as an Agriculture Supervisor apart from his owning Acs.2.00 cents of agricultural land at Kapileswaram. The husband opposed the request claiming that the marriage was solemnized as per Hindu Rights and Customs and it was the wife who was responsible for estrangement of the couple. The wife’s father is an Assistant Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police and there are no reasons for granting any interim maintenance or legal expenses. The trial Court passed a common order in I.A.No.23 of 2004 and I.A.No.24 of 2004 filed questioning the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground of religion of the parties after marking Exs.A.1 to A.3 and B.1 to B.5 during the enquiry. Insofar as the payment of interim maintenance is concerned, the trial Court concluded that the petition for maintenance is maintainable as the petition for divorce was filed under the Hindu Marriage Act and the trial Court also concluded that the husband working in Kuwait as an Agriculture Supervisor has sufficient means and earnings to maintain the wife and therefore, awarded Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs.3,000/- towards legal expenses. The said order is under challenge in this revision by the husband contending that the wife, who claimed the parties to be Christian, could not have claimed interim maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act. There was no evidence to show the salary or means or earnings of the husband or the landed property of the husband. The grant of interim maintenance is only aimed at enabling a poor spouse, who is unable to maintain herself or himself, to be provided assistance, but not a person like the respondent herein. The husband is striving very hard to meet both ends in a foreign country, and therefore, the impugned order is requested to be reversed. While ordering notice before admission on 19-06-2007, this Court granted interim stay of the impugned order subject to the husband depositing Rs.1,500/- per month towards maintenance and also further subject to deposit of arrears of maintenance within four weeks from that day and it is claimed that the interim order has been complied with. Sri N. Satyanarayana. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner is heard and none appeared for the respondent though she was served with the notice of the revision. The point for consideration is whether the grant of interim maintenance and legal expenses by the trial Court has to be interfered with. The husband having filed O.P.No.90 of 2003 under the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage between him and the respondent and having claimed that the marriage was performed as per the Hindu Rights and Customs between them is not entitled to question the approach of the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of interim maintenance. The principle that a party cannot approbate and reprobate sought to be relied on by the revision petitioner in the grounds of revision applies to him as well and the defence of the respondent that the parties are Christians and the marriage was performed as per the Christian Marriage Act will not estoop her from taking advantage of the provisions under which she approached the trial Court for grant of relief against her husband. The husband himself admitted althrough and also by his description of himself in this revision petition that he is working as Agriculture Supervisor in U.A.P. Company at Sapat in Kuwait, while the respondent is only described as the daughter of an Assistant Reserve Sub-Inspector, but not as having any occupation or employment of her own to sustain herself. The material on record does not show the wife to have been alleged to be engaged in any gainful avocation or employment and irrespective of the ownership or otherwise of Acs.2.00 cents of land by the husband, the fact that he is an able bodided young person aged 35 years and is gainfully employed will undoubtedly make him liable to pay interim maintenance and legal expenses at a reasonable level to the wife. While it is true that there is no positive evidence to show the quantum of income of the husband from his employment, he is paying Rs.1,500/- per month according to his own version since 19-6-2007 to the wife as interim maintenance as per the directions of this Court in complying with which he obviously encountered no difficulty. If the same rate of interim maintenance were to be directed to continue to be paid during pendency of the main O.P., the same will meet the ends of justice, while the quantum of legal expenses need not be interfered with on facts. Therefore, the order in I.A.No.23 of 2004 in O.P.No.90 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, dated 20-04-2006 is modified granting Rs.1,500/- per month as interim maintenance during pendency of O.P.No.90 of 2003 in terms of interim directions of this Court in this revision petition on 19-06-2007, while confirming the grant of Rs.3,000/- as legal expenses. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 12-08-2010 Ksn