IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1816 OF 2009 Between : Jitender Tiwari ...PETITIONER A N D Smt Preeti Tiwari and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1816 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 12.02.2009 in I.A. No.755 of 2008 in F.C.O.P.No. 1026 of 2008, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Section 151 C.P.C. for interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondents / petitioners and Rs.15,000/- towards legal expenses, was allowed by granting Rs.3000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.2000/- to respondent No.2 and directed to pay the maintenance from 20.10.2008 and continuous to pay every month on or before 10th of every succeeding month, pending disposal of the main O.P. and also directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards legal expenses in lumpsum. 2. The petitioner herein is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2 herein. O.P.No.1026 of 2008 on the file of Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, has been filed by the respondents / petitioners under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, stating that the petitioner/ respondent is doing business at Barelli in Uttar Pradesh, and getting not less than one lakh per annum. Some disputes cropped up between them, respondents are living separately and respondent No.2 is studying U.K.G., for which, they require not less than Rs.10,000/- per month for maintenance. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The Court below upon consideration of evidence on record came to the conclusion that Rs.3000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2000/- to respondent No.2 is sufficient for maintenance. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an income tax assessee. Even according to him, his annual income for the year 2007-2008 is one lakh and odd and Rs.99,000/- for the year 2008-2009 and Rs.96,000/- for the year 2006-2007. In view of the fact that the trial Court has taken into consideration that the petitioner was getting not less than one lakh per annum and taking the same as a basis for awarding the maintenance of Rs.5000/- to the respondents. The Court below granted nearly half of the income towards maintenance, which is not permissible. 6. This Court is of the opinion that the amount of Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1500/- per month to respondent No.2 is just and reasonable maintenance, pending disposal of the main O.P.No.1026 of 2008. Therefore, the impugned order is modified granting maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1500/- per month to respondent No.2, while confirming the legal expenses. 7. With the above modification, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU. J OCTOBER 06, 2010. YVL