IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.4631 of 2007 Between: P. Srinivas Rao ..Petitioner AND P. Vara Lakshmi .. Respondent ORDER: Heard Smt.S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and none appeared for the respondent in spite of service of notice of this revision. Pending determination of the Original Petition filed by the respondent herein for grant of divorce from the revision petitioner, she applied for grant of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 at Rs.2,000/- per month, apart from Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses. She claimed that the revision petitioner is earning Rs.5,000/- per month by working in a Bar and Restaurant, apart from having a house and landed property, while she has no independent income for her sustenance being dependent on her parents and brothers since her desertion by her husband. The revision petitioner resisted the request claiming that he has no source of income of his own and he is living with his parents and other family members in a joint family. He also claimed to be having no assets either movable or immovable and expressed his inability to pay any sum as requested by the respondent herein. The trial Court in the impugned order dated 21-08-2007 in I.A.No.469 of 2007 in O.P.No.409 of 2006 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, passed the order on the basis of the rival contentions of the parties and the absence of any plea by the revision petitioner that the respondent herein has any source of income. Holding the respondent to be entitled to interim maintenance, the revision petitioner was directed to pay Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of order, while negativing the rest of the claim. The revision petitioner contended herein that the respondent herein deserted him on her own in spite of willingness of the revision petitioner to live with her and in the absence of any evidence to prove the means of the revision petitioner, the impugned order is unsustainable. In C.R.P.M.P.No.6113 of 2007, the learned Judge passed an order, while admitting the revision petition on 12-10-2007, granting interim stay of the impugned order subject to the revision petitioner paying a sum of Rs.500/- per month every month and also the arrears of interim maintenance awarded by the trial Court to the respondent herein. The interim stay was directed to automatically stand vacated in case of default and Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel, submitted that the said interim order is being complied with faithfully during the pendency of the Original Petition. The point for consideration is whether the respondent herein is entitled to any relief under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and if so, to what extent? It is true that in the counter filed by the revision petitioner, he did not claim that the respondent herein has any means to maintain herself and irrespective of the conflicting claims about the causes leading to the separation of the couple, prima facie, the wife living alone may have to be extended the liberality of the benefit of the interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to the extent that can be afforded by the revision petitioner. The affidavit of the respondent herein in support of the petition did not specify in which Bar and Restaurant the revision petitioner is working and in what capacity nor did the affidavit give any details of the house or landed property said to be owned by the revision petitioner giving him an annual income of Rs.1,00,000/-. The alleged employment or ownership of properties are also not substantiated during the enquiry into the petition through any oral or documentary evidence. While the revision petitioner specifically denied having such means, he positively contended that he is living with his parents and other family members in the joint family without any assets or source of income and if so, affording the quantum of interim maintenance claimed or the legal expenses sought for would be a difficult proposition for the revision petitioner. However, as an able bodied and healthy person of an age of about 35 years, the revision petitioner cannot also be totally absolved from paying interim maintenance and he has to make his efforts to earn his livelihood and to maintain his wife so long as the liability to pay such maintenance subsists. Taking a balanced view of the facts and circumstances and the description of the revision petitioner as a private employee even in the cause title of the proceedings, the interests of justice will be best served by confirming the quantum of amount directed to be paid in the interim orders of this Court in C.R.P.M.P.No.6113 of 2007 as the interim maintenance payable during the pendency of the main Original Petition. Accordingly, the order in I.A.No.469 of 2007 in O.P.No.409 of 2006 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, dated 21-08-2007 is modified directing the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) per month to the respondent herein towards interim maintenance from 21-08- 2007, the date of the impugned order during the pendency of O.P.No.409 of 2006. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 08-07-2010 Ksn