IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5001 of 2009 Between: Sri Pilla Govinda Patrudu S/o. Papayya, Aged 40 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No. 12-106, Krishnanagar, RRV Puram, Visakhapatnam. … Petitioner And Smt. Pilla Sandhya Rani, W/o. Govinda Patrudu Aged 25 yrs, Occ: Tailor, R/o.D.No.30-92-19/A, Appikonda, RS Colony, Kurmannapalem Post, Visakhapatnam. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5001 of 2009 ORDER:- This civil revision petition has been filed against order dated 25.09.2009 in I.A.No.496 of 2008 in O.S.No.995 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. He filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce against the respondent. While the said application is pending, the respondent filed I.A.No.496 of 2008 for interim maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month. The Family Court, having considered the status of the petitioner and the respondent and other relevant factors, partly allowed the application by directing the petitioner to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as interim maintenance apart from paying Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that when the Court below itself has given the finding that neither of the parties have adduced any evidence with regard to the income of the petitioner, the Court below has committed an error in directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month. I have carefully considered the material available on records. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the respondent submitted that she came to know that the petitioner has been earning an income of Rs.20,000/- and that he is having movable and immovable properties worth Rs.30 lakhs. The petitioner, however, denied these averments and has taken the plea that he is depending upon his father’s pension and that he is involved in sale of two wheeler tyres at Pendurti Village. While the respondent was unable to prove that the petitioner was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, interestingly, the petitioner has not come out with the plea regarding the actual income he is earning. Obviously, the petitioner withheld this material fact from which it is reasonable to presume that he must be earning considerable income. I agree with the reasoning of the Court below that in the present day circumstances it is not possible for any person to make a decent living without having at least Rs.2,000/- per month. Under these circumstances, I find no illegality in the order passed by the Court below. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the revision petition, CRPMP.No.6861 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 06.11.2009 ES