IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5181 OF 2003 Between: K.Sreedhar Rao …Petitioner A n d Smt.H.Jyothi and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5181 OF 2003 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 05.08.2003 in I.A.No.472 of 2003 in O.S.No.4 of 2003, on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the respondents herein, seeking interim maintenance, was allowed, granting Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,500/- per month to the daughter. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents, though served with notices. Perused the record. 3. The respondents herein filed the suit for maintenance. Admittedly, the petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent. The respondents filed I.A.No.472 of 2003 for interim maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.4,000/- per month to the daughter, pending disposal of the suit. The trial Court granted interim maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,500/- per month to the daughter. 4. The relationship between the parties is not disputed. According to the respondents, the petitioner was working as data entry operator in State Bank of Hyderabad, Head Office, Hyderabad. The respondents filed the pay slips of the petitioner showing that he was drawing total salary of Rs.16,743.90 Ps for the month of April, 2003 and Rs.16,719.55 Ps for June, 2003. The trial Court, having considered the relative means of the parties and the basic needs and requirements of the respondents for a decent living thought it fit to grant interim maintenance as stated above, after recording a finding that the petitioner herein has got sufficient earning capacity to provide the interim maintenance. The amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,500/- to the child granted by the trail Court cannot be considered to be excessive or unreasonable, having regard to the circumstances of the case and ever increase in cost of living. The suit was filed in the year 2003. The impugned order was passed on 05.08.2003. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter at an early date, if not already disposed. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim suspension stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 13th July, 2011 Lrkm.