HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P. No :4754 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 18.8.2009 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur in E.A No.205 of 1994 in E.P. No. 52 of 1993 in O.S. No. 114 of 1976, whereby, the learned Senior Civil Judge while allowing the petition filed by the petitioner for enhancement of the maintenance directed for redelivery of the property to the respondent. The facts in brief are that petitioner and her children filed the suit in O.S. No.114 of 1976 against the respondent- husband claiming maintenance and separate residence in item Nos. 1 and 2 of schedule or alternatively to pay Rs.1200/- per annum. Subsequently, the said suit was decreed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.P. No.52 of 1993 and obtained possession. Challenging the order made by the Execution Court in E.P. No. 52 of 1993, C.R.P. Nos. 1503, 191 and 2815 of 1994 were filed before this Court and this Court disposed of those revisions through order dated 5.8.1994 directing the respondent to pay the arrears of maintenance, failing which, it was observed that the petitioner would be entitled to item No. 1 of the schedule property. Thereafter, the petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 4223 of 1994 before this Court, which was disposed of by this Court on 13.4.1995 by accepting the payments made by the respondent-husband and with further direction to the respondent for providing residence and granted time till 30.6.1995 to the petitioner for vacating the house and to redeliver item No.1 of the suit schedule property. Challenging the said order, the petitioner carried the matter to the Supreme Court by way of SLP and she withdrew the said SLP with permission to approach the Court below for enhancement of maintenance. Pursuant to which, she filed I.A. No. 756 of 1990 seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount and the husband also filed E.A. No. 205 of 1994 seeking delivery of possession. The trial Court through orders dated 4.2.1997 disposed of the I.A. filed by the petitioner for maintenance and dismissed the E.A. filed by the respondent-husband. Challenging the order made in I.A No. 756 of 1996, the petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 4129 of 1998; whereas challenging the order in E.A. No.205 of 1994, the respondent filed C.R.P. No. 2131 of 1998. This Court through common order dated 4.12.2000 allowed the revisions and remanded the matter back to the Court below for fresh consideration. On remand, the Court below through the impugned order, dated 18.8.2009 allowed the applications filed by the petitioner and the respondent by enhancing the amount of maintenance from Rs.100/- to 800/- and directed the petitioner to redeliver the property to the respondent by 19.9.2009. Challenging the order made in E.A. No.205 of 1994, the petitioner filed the present revision. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is seen from the record that in pursuance of the order of this Court in C.R.P. No. 4223 of 1994, the respondent has deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in compliance with the directions of this Court. In fact, the brother of the petitioner, who was examined as P.W.2 before the Court below deposed about the deposit of the amount of Rs.10,000/- by the respondent. It is relevant to extract para-23 of the impugned judgment of the Court below, which reads thus: “The brother of the petitioner has been examined as P.W.2 and he deposed that Rs.10,000/ was deposited by his brother P.W.1 to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble High Court given in the order passed in C.R.P. No. 4223 of 1994, dated 13.4.95 and Ex.A3 duplicate certificate of Fixed Deposit Receipt. It is marked subject to objection. The original is filed into Court and I therefore find no substance in the objection raised by the respondent/wife to mark the document. He therefore deposed that Ex.A3 Fixed Deposit Receipt was renewed for another five years. It was elicited in the cross-examination that original of Ex.A3 was filed into court and as per the endorsement of Ex.A3, the interest is payable to wife Annapurnamma. Exs.A1 and A3 probablise the petitioner husband’s contention that he complied the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in making payment of rental allowance and deposit of Rs.10000/-. The learned Advocate for the respondent/wife argued that no notice was given to the respondent to show that he deposited the amount and as such she was not aware of the said payment. I do not find any force in the said contention since the deposit was made and as can be seen from the ledger account some payments were received by the wife by filing cheque applications. Conceding a moment for argument sake that no notice was given to the respondent/wife, it does not take away the probative value of Ex.A1 and A3 establishing that the petitioner/husband complied the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by making payment in compliance with such orders. It cannot be lost sight of the respondent/wife preferred SLP on the file of Hon’ble Supreme Court against the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh condoning the delay in payment of amounts as directed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed in CMP 11601/95 dated 3.8.95 and that SLP was not pressed. Ex.A2 is the copy of the order and she was specifically directed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh to deliver item 1 of A schedule to the petitioner on or before 13.6.95 and whereas she has not pressed the SLP under Ex.A2 to permit her to continue in possession of item 1 of A schedule till she obtains interim orders from the Addl. Subordinate judge Court, Guntur by filing a petition for enhancement of maintenance and she was granted three months time and the SLP was dismissed by observing interim orders passed on continuation for a period of three months. She did not file any petition permitting her to continue in possession of item 1 of A schedule along with the Petition filed for enhancement of maintenance and she did not obtain any favourable order allowing her to continue in possession.” Therefore, it is quite clear from the above paragraph that even though the respondent paid the amounts as directed by this Court, the petitioner carried the matter to the Supreme Court by way of S.L.P. and in the Supreme Court, she withdrew the said SLP with permission to approach the Court below for enhancement of maintenance and till such time, she was directed to be continued in possession. The petitioner did not file any petition before the Court below thereafter nor did she vacate and delivered the property to the respondent as directed by this Court. Hence, she cannot be allowed to continue in possession of the schedule property. The Court below, while taking all the aforesaid facts into consideration has rightly allowed the E.A. filed by the respondent and ordered for redelivery of the schedule property. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the Court below warranting interference. The Civil Revision petition is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 4th February, 2011 pnb