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.5469 of 2007 Between: N. Yellesh .. Petitioner AND N. Vijaya Lakshmi .. Respondent Petition against the order dated 19-09-2007 in I.A. No.607 of 2007 in O.P. No.868 of 2006 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. M. Rajashree, Advocate representing Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner, the Court made the following ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order in I.A. No.607 of 2007 in O.P. No.868 of 2006 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, dated 19-09-2007, by which the revision petitioner was directed to pay Rs.1,200/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent herein from 01-08-2006 during pendency of the petition for divorce. The application in I.A. No.607 of 2007 was filed by the respondent herein for grant of interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses pending a decision on the request for divorce on the ground of the revision petitioner herein earning a monthly salary of Rs.7,000/- as an employee of Sri Ram Chit Funds apart from his having a house with shops and rooms in Gandhinagar, fetching a monthly income of Rs.10,000/- for him. The respondent herein claimed to be not well educated and to be unemployed depending on her mother. The request was resisted by the revision petitioner herein contending that he is working as Special Badili Worker with Techmesh Products India Private Limited, Balanagar, Hyderabad for a salary of Rs.100/- per day and his work is only for a period of six months in a calendar year on shift basis as a temporary worker. He claims to be having no other assets or means and the trial Court after marking Exs.P.1 and R.1 during the enquiry, took into account the salary mentioned in Ex.P.1 and not in Ex.R.1 and awarded a monthly maintenance of Rs.1,200/- per month from 01- 08-2006. The revision petitioner contends herein that the family Court ought to have accepted his contentions of fact and in the absence of proof of absence of independent income for the respondent herein, her request should have been negatived. Pending the civil revision petition, this Court directed in C.R.P.M.P. No.1285 of 2008 on 02-04-2008 that the revision petitioner should deposit Rs.600/- per month from 01-08-2007 within four weeks from the date of the order. The said order continues to be in force. Smt. M. Rajashree, learned counsel representing Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner is heard and none appeared for the respondent. The only point for consideration is the justification for grant of interim maintenance and the justified quantum of such maintenance. Point: The original petition being for grant of divorce and the relationship between the parties are not in dispute and the reasons for the estrangement of the couple are not much germane for consideration of the request for grant of interim maintenance. The respondent herein is admittedly living separately from the revision petitioner and her claim to be a household lady and to be unemployed is not seriously in dispute or at least is not disproved. The revision petitioner, who is an able bodied and healthy person in his middle age, himself claims to be employed in a private industry on a daily wage basis and on his own admission, his monthly emoluments are Rs.3,000/-. Even assuming that he works only for six months in a year, he cannot escape from the responsibility of providing maintenance to his wife pending finality to the divorce petition and the amount of Rs.600/- per month fixed by this Court in its interim order on 02-04-2008 continues to be paid by the revision petitioner showing that such a quantum of interim maintenance is affordable by him. While paying of Rs.1,200/- per month from out of the earnings from an indefinite and temporary engagement as a daily wage worker may be a burdensome proposition, the amount fixed by the learned Judge, while granting interim orders, cannot be said to be low and can be directed to be continued to be paid during the pendency of O.P. No.868 of 2006 modifying the impugned order accordingly. Such modification in tune with the means of the revision petitioner and the facts and circumstances of the case will be justified and reasonable. Therefore, the order in I.A. No.607 of 2007 in O.P. No.868 of 2006 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, dated 19-09-2007 is modified directing the revision petitioner to pay Rs.600/- (Rupees six hundred only) per month from 01-08-2007 to the respondent herein during the pendency of O.P. No.868 of 2006. The civil revision petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 08-07-2010 Svv