IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5029 of 2009 Between: B.Ramamohan Raju. … Petitioner And Bellam Ananthalaxmi. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5029 OF 2009 ORDER:- Petitioner/husband filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the correctness of the maintenance awarded by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada in I.A.No.899 of 2009 in H.M.O.P.No.20 of 2009, dated 07.09.2009. It is not disputed that the petitioner filed the above O.P. before the Family Court, Secunderabad seeking a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, which was performed on 26.02.2001. Out of the wedlock, they were blessed with two children i.e., one son and one daughter. It is the contention of the respondent that at the time of the second delivery, when she went to her parents’ house, the petitioner and his parents demanded to dispose off the landed property given to her and since she has not acceded to the same, she was not allowed to enter into the house and she is always willing to join the petitioner/husband. She also filed M.C.No.164 of 2008 seeking maintenance, in which so far no maintenance is awarded. Hence, she filed the present I.A.No.899 of 2009 seeking maintenance of Rs.35,000/- towards monthly maintenance and Rs.20,000/- towards legal expenses. The trial court by the impugned order awarded maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month keeping in view, the inflation prevailing and the respondent has not only to maintain herself but also her two children. Questioning the correctness of the same, the present revision has been filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent. It is now represented that the conditional order passed by this Court on 13.11.2009 namely deposit of 50% of the maintenance granted and continues to deposit the same on every month has been complied, including deposit of the 50% of the arrears awarded. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that since she has to maintain her two children, the trial court rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.8,000/-, which will not require any interference. Whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that because of the litigation and as he has to attend all the courts, his services were terminated by the employer with effect from 11.04.2009 by R.M.K. Associates, where he was working earlier. To the said effect, a certificate has been produced, but the same has not been produced before the trial court to substantiate his plea. Only to overcome the adverse inference drawn by the trial court in awarding the maintenance, the above certificate has been produced. It is not disputed that the petitioner who was as a Civil Engineer was working with the R.M.K. Associates from 10.09.2007 to 11.04.2009, as per the certificate produced now. But the certificate is silent about the salary paid to the petitioner. Having regard to the prevailing inflation and the prices of the essential commodities, it is not sufficient for the petitioner to maintain herself and her two children with Rs.8,000/- per month. This Court is of the view that 50% of the maintenance directed to be deposited by this Court is not sufficient to maintain the petitioner and her children. The interim maintenance awarded by the trial court is fixed at Rs.6,000/- per month i.e., Rs.2,000/- each to the 1st respondent and her two children. Further, the trial court is directed to dispose of the H.M.O.P. as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months, if possible. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 19th February 2010 lmv Note: C.C. by one week. B/o.LMV