IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1756 OF 2010 Between: Pavuluri Munirathnam …Petitioner And P. Tejovathi … Respondent And CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2036 OF 2010 Between: P. Tejovathi …Petitioner And Pavuluri Munirathnam … Respondent This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1756 & 2036 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revision petitions are filed by both the parties who are wife and husband questioning order, dated 14.05.2010, in Crl.M.P.No.316 of 2009 in M.C.No.145 of 2010, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, granting inteirm maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife from the husband. There is no dispute about relationship between the parties. There is also no dispute about both the parties living separately since some time prior to filing of the maintenance case in the lower Court. The wife contends that she is not having separate source of earnings and is prosecuting M.Sc. in Nursing course in Kamineni Medical College and her fees is Rs.2 lakhs per year apart from other expenses for books, conveyance, etc., and that her husband is working in SEIMENS Information Systems, drawing salary of Rs.80,000/- per month. The wife claimed Rs.20,000/- per month towards interim maintenance. The husband contended that the wife is having vast agricultural land worth Rs.40 lakhs and gold worth Rs.3 lakhs and that she has sufficient means to maintain herself and to prosecute her post graduate studies. Insofar as properties of the wife and income from those properties, at this stage there is no proof except a plea. There is no dispute that the husband is working in IT company drawing huge salary at Bangalore. 2. It is contended by the counsel appearing for wife that the lower Court mistook his claim as one towards her educational expenses to the extent of Rs.10,000/- and that the wife claimed Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses and not towards educational expenses. In any event, the impugned order is not final order fixing maintenance amount between the parties. It is only an interim measure adopted by the lower Court. Rights and liabilities will be finally decided at the time of final disposal of the maintenance case. Therefore, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards maintenance is too low. In the absence of proof of properties and income of the wife, at this stage the lower Court is justified in awarding maintenance to the wife and it cannot be validly questioned by the husband in this revision petition. I do not find any infirmities in the order passed by the lower Court. 3. In the result, both the Criminal Revision Petitions are dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 29, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1756 & 2036 OF 2010 December 29, 2010 KL