THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1286 of 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 04.02.2011 in I.A.No.45 of 2006 in O.P.No.198 of 2005, on the file of I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner herein under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking interim maintenance, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed O.P.No.198 of 2005 for dissolution of marriage with the petitioner by a decree of divorce inter alia on the ground that the petitioner is living in adultery with one Sivaiah. In the said O.P., the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.45 of 2006, seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month for herself and her two minor children. During pendency of the O.P., the respondent herein filed a counter opposing the said application. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by the impugned order, dismissed the said application, in view of the order dated 16.04.2010 in CRP No.9 of 2010 on the file of District and Sessions Court, Nellore. 4. It is not disputed that the petitioner herein filed D.V.C. No.9 of 2009, seeking certain reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, DVC Act). In the said DVC, she filed Criminal M.P.No.3630 of 2009, seeking interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month for herself and her two children. The learned Magistrate granted interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to each of the three petitioners i.e. wife and two children. Aggrieved by the same, the husband filed CRP No.9 of 2010 on the file of District and Sessions Court. By order dated 16.04.2010, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the said revision in part, setting aside the interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month granted to the wife and, reducing the interim maintenance granted to the two children from Rs.2,000/- per month to Rs.1,500/- per month. It is not disputed that the said order dated 16.04.2010 in CRP No.9 of 2010 has become final and the same was not challenged by the petitioner herein. In the above said order, the learned Sessions Judge refused to grant interim maintenance to the wife on the ground that one Sivaiah, with whom the petitioner is alleged to be living in adultery, was convicted in C.C.No.56 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 448 and 497 IPC, and the matter is pending before the High Court. As the DNA test results in respect of the paternity of the children was still awaited and the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is subsisting, the learned Sessions Judge, in view of the presumption about the paternity of the children and, in the absence of any evidence to the contra, while rejecting the claim of the wife for maintenance, directed payment of maintenance only to the children at reduced rate of Rs.1,500/- per month. In the impugned order, the learned Senior Civil Judge also refused to grant maintenance to the petitioner herein in view of the orders dated 16.04.2010 in CRP No.9 of 2010, which orders have become final. 5. Thus, as matters stand, the claim of the petitioner herein for interim maintenance made in the DVC filed by her, has been rejected and the said order has become final. On the self-same grounds, the petitioner sought to claim interim maintenance again in the O.P. No.198 of 2005 filed by her husband for divorce. The learned Senior Civil judge has, therefore, rightly refused to grant interim maintenance to the petitioner in view of the orders in CRP No.9 of 2010. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in fact seeking only litigation expenses, though not maintenance. The affidavit filed in support of the petition, however, would go to show that the petitioner is claiming interim maintenance but not any amount towards litigation expenses. The prayer in the petition is also for grant of interim maintenance of Rs.4,500/- per month for herself and her two minor children. It is open to the petitioner to file a separate application claiming amount towards litigation expenses and, in the event of such application being filed, the learned Senior Civil Judge shall dispose of the same on its own merits, without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made herein above. 7. In the result, the CRP is dismissed, with liberty as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J 21st October, 2011 KSM