THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CRP Nos.1774 of 2009 & 2356 of 2009 Common Order: These civil revision petitions are filed against the order dated 6-4-2009 passed in IA No.75 of 2009 in OP No.639 of 2008 by the Addl. Family Court, Vishakapatnam. 2. The parties in these revision petitions are husband and wife and there is no dispute between the parties with regard to their relationship as such. The wife filed the above IA under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act to grant interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1 Lac per month and legal expenses and to pay a sum of Rs.2 Lacs towards traveling expenses from USA to India to her. Since the parties are same and the order assailed is also same in these revisions, for convenience sake, the facts stated in CRP No.2356 of 2009 filed by the wife are adverted to. 3. The petitioner stated her husband-respondent herein was working as Mechanical Engineer in USA and she being his wife went to USA on H-4 VISA and there he deserted her. It is further stated that the petitioner went to the house of her brother and the respondent has not provided any means for the survival of the petitioner in USA nor paid any amount of traveling expenses to go to India. That the respondent is getting a sum of Rs.4 Lacs per month and he neglected her. On the other hand, the respondent stated that he never deserted the petitioner and in fact the petitioner used to threaten the respondent to give a report to the Police in USA and also used to demand the respondent to come back to India. It is further stated that the petitioner sent an E-mail to him that she decided to go back to India and requested to produce the relevant documents and accordingly the respondent arranged tickets for her travel to India. The respondent stated that the petitioner herself deserted the respondent and therefore she is not entitled for maintenance. 4. The Court below having formed an opinion that the petitioner is entitled for maintenance granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of filing the petition. Aggrieved by this order, both the wife and husband filed these revision petitions. 5. Sri PSP Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that as the petitioner was left on roads due to the respondent vacating the house at Connecticut and deserted her, the petitioner was staying with her brother at California. It is further stated that as the petitioner to harassment she gave Police complaint under domestic violence at Connecticut Police in USA, the respondent came to India and filed the above OP for divorce. It is further contended that the petitioner is studying at USA on H-4 VISA and as per the regulations, she is not permitted to day any job and therefore entitled for maintenance from the respondent being his wife. It is also stated that the respondent is earning 50000 dollars per annum and the amount of Rs.25,000/- per month granted by the trial Court needs to be enhanced to meet the expenditure of the petitioner. 6. Sri L. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, strenuously contended that the Court below erred in granting at the maintenance at Rs.25,000/- per month without regard to the fact that the petitioner has not proved the correct income of the respondent. Learned counsel also stated that the petitioner is a qualified person and she is able to earn and maintain herself and as such the interim maintenance granted by the trial Court in on the high side. Learned counsel during the course of hearing of the matter stated that the respondent has no lost the job and produced a copy of the order dated 8-1-2009 issued by Mott Corporation, which indicate termination of the services of the respondent from the said Mott Corporation, and the respondent has come back to India. Learned counsel also stated despite harassment by the petitioner, the respondent arranged for air tickets to the petitioner to return to India and the respondent vacated the house at USA due to the harassment of the petitioner and therefore the impugned order granted by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 7. The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondent is earning Rs.4 Lacs per month and thereby she is entitled for Rs.1 Lac per month towards interim maintenance. It has come on record that the respondent has not specifically denied about his income as stated by the petitioner. Though the respondent has stated that the petitioner being a Post Graduate in MCA and working in Hart Port earning $ 2500 per month and able to maintain herself, there was no evidence placed on record to show that she is getting that much amounts. 8. Vagaries of life continue to hunt all human beings. Both the parties i.e. respondent and petitioner (husband and wife) expressed their difficulties, the respondent stating that he lost his job in US and has come down to India and his passport also expired and he is not fiscally sound as he used to be working in US, the petitioner stating that she is pursing her studies at US on H-4 VISA, not entitled to do a job is totally dependent on her husband. Hindu marriage is sacrosanct. It is not only moral obligation, but a legal duty cast upon the husband and he is bound to maintain his wife. The correctness or otherwise of the various allegations made by either of the parties touching their behaviours and conduct shall have to be considered in the main OP, but till then the wife is entitled to claim maintenance. As per the copy of the order dated 8-1-2009 issued by Mott Corporation, which indicate termination of the services of the respondent from Mott Corporation, and the respondent has come back to India having left the job. The petitioner is also stated to be at Vishakapatnam, India and contesting the divorce proceedings through her father- GPA holder. Maintenance has to be granted so that the wife can live in the manner to which she was accustomed, atleast the life style she habituated after her marriage. 9. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The revision petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J Dated : April, 2010 Nrg./