THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2839 and 3438 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: Civil Revision Petition No.2839 of 2011 is directed against the order dated 15.03.2011 in I.A.No.49 of 2010 in M.O.P.No.13 of 2010, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC for stoppage of further proceedings for non-payment of arrears of maintenance by the petitioner, was allowed. Civil Revision Petition No.3438 of 2011 is directed against the order dated 15.03.2011 in I.A.No.50 of 2010 in M.O.P.No.13 of 2010, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC for cancellation of interim maintenance granted in I.A.No.410 of 2006, was dismissed. Heard both sides. The petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent and he filed M.O.P.No.13 of 2010 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. The respondent herein filed I.A.No.410 of 2006 seeking interim maintenance, pending disposal of the M.O.P. The said application was allowed on 15.11.2006, granting interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month. Five years thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present application seeking cancellation of the order on the ground that subsequently, M.C.No.27 of 2005 was disposed of awarding maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has not complied with the order of interim maintenance for a period of five years, and did not pay the arrears of nearly Rs.42,000/-, but filed the present application seeking cancellation of the order granting interim maintenance. As seen from the salary certificate issued by the Director, NSTL, Visakhapatnam, the petitioner is working as Administrative Assistant in the said laboratory, and is getting a gross salary of Rs.18,188/-. After deductions, he is getting a net salary of Rs.5,275/-. A substantial portion of the deductions is towards GPF subscription and GPF loan recovery and CCS deduction. It is not as though the petitioner is not having sufficient income to pay the maintenance. The fact that Rs.2,000/- per month was awarded in M.C.No.27 of 2005 does not come in the way of the respondent seeking to enforce the order of interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/-. Having regard to the income of the petitioner, it is considered that the total amount of Rs.3,000/- awarded by the Courts (Rs.2,000/- towards interim maintenance in M.C.No.27 of 2005 and Rs.1,000/- towards monthly maintenance), cannot be considered to be excessive or unreasonable. Further, the fact that the petitioner has filed the present application five years after the order was passed granting interim maintenance and that too, after the respondent has filed an application for stoppage of further proceedings due to non-compliance of the order of the Court, would expose lack of bonafides on the part of the petitioner. In the circumstances, it is held that there are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for cancellation of the order of interim maintenance. Having regard to the fact that the M.O.P. was originally filed in the year 2006 as O.P.No.342 of 2006, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, is directed to dispose of the O.P. at an early date, preferably within six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is granted four weeks time for payment of the arrears of interim maintenance. In the event of non-compliance, the order passed by trial Court stopping further proceedings shall remain undisturbed. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are disposed of as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J 15th November, 2011 KSM