IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH (14TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.1036 of 2010 Between: Trishla Alekhya Jain & another … Petitioners And: Dr. Kantilal Jain …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.1036 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 20.01.2010 in IA No.157 of 2009 in OP No.685 of 2006 on the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein under section 151 CPC seeking a direction to the respondent to pay Rs.94,000/- towards tuition fees and Rs.60,000/- for the educational expenses, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein is the father of the petitioners. OP No.685 of 2006 filed by him against his wife for divorce was already disposed of granting decree for dissolution of the marriage. The petitioners 1 and 2 are stated to be studying intermediate and 10th class, respectively. Earlier, the petitioners filed IA No.1001 of 2008 seeking direction to the respondent for payment of school fees of Rs.75,000/- for the academic year 2009-10 and the said application was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein filed CRP No.1704 of 2010. This Court by order dated 17.03.2011 allowed the revision in part and reduced the amount from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per year. In the said order, it was further observed that ‘this order will not preclude the respondents herein to file necessary application in case they incur more expenditure in future’. The petitioners thereafter filed IA No.157 of 2009 seeking a direction to the respondent to deposit Rs.94,000/- towards tuition fee and Rs.60,000/- towards educational expenses for the academic year 2009-10. By impugned order, the said application was dismissed on the ground that there is no documentary proof and there is no demand notices from the educational institutions to pay such higher amounts and so, there is no change of circumstances. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present revision. 4. When the matter came up for hearing, the petitioners herein filed CRP MP No.6970 of 2011 seeking permission to file certain documents, which are said to be the bills and receipts issued by various educational institutions towards payment of the tuition fee etc. by the mother of the petitioners herein. Learned counsel for the respondent disputes the correctness of the amounts and authenticity of those documents. Leaned counsel for the petitioners would submit that though the said documents filed before the trial Court, they were not however brought on record due to mistake and inadvertence. 5. As the impugned order was passed dismissing the application on the ground that no documentary evidence was adduced in support of the petitioners’ claim and since the petitioners have filed certain documents in the present revision purporting to be in proof of their claim, it is considered a fit case where the matter has to be remanded to the Additional Family Court, for fresh consideration and disposal of the matter, after duly giving an opportunity to the parties to file documents in support of their respective contention, if any. In the circumstances, the impugned order dismissing the application is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the civil revision is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 14.11.2011 bss