THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4658 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage took pace in the year 2006. However, shortly thereafter, differences have arisen and they started living separately. The petitioner filed O.P.No.14 of 2008 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Madurantakam under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short ‘the Act’) against the respondent. On an application filed by the respondent, the O.P. was transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala and it is pending adjudication in that Court. The respondent independently filed O.P.No.39 of 2009 in the same Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the petitioner. In that O.P., she filed I.A.No.588 of 2009 under Section 24 of the Act claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month and legal expenses of Rs.10,000/-. She pleaded that the petitioner is employed in Software Company and that he is getting salary of about Rs.35,000/- per month. The petitioner opposed the I.A. by filing a counter-affidavit. He pleaded that the respondent left his company on her own accord and that the allegation that he is getting salary of Rs.35,000/- per month is without any basis. However, he did not furnish any figure of his salary. The trial Court passed an order, dated 10.08.2010, awarding a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs.6,000/- towards legal expenses. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the course of an enquiry into the I.A., her client filed a salary certificate issued by the employer to the effect that the salary of the petitioner is Rs.11,500/- per month and that the trial Court proceeded on the assumption that no such certificate was filed at all. She contends that the amount awarded by the trial Court is excessive. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner is not only getting substantial amount towards salary, but also he is having valuable properties in Chirala and Vetapalem. He further submits that the respondent was deserted by the petitioner and that she is finding it difficult to maintain herself. He places reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. District Judge[1]. The revision arises out of an order passed in I.A.No.588 of 2009 filed under Section 24 of the Act. The maintenance pendente lite can certainly be granted by a Court to a woman spouse. However, in the course of determining the quantum, the Court has to take into account the necessity of the wife on the one hand and the capacity of the husband on the other. It is no doubt true that the respondent pleaded that the salary of the petitioner is Rs.35,000/- per month and while denying the said allegation, the petitioner did not mention the exact amount of salary he is getting. The trial Court proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner did not place any material in proof of his salary. The record, however, discloses that the salary certificate to the effect that the petitioner is being paid a sum of Rs.11,500/- per month was filed on 18.08.2009. The trial Court did not notice the same and assumed that no salary certificate was filed. Therefore, a serious error has crept into the order. This Court is of the view that as the things stand now, the maintenance can be reduced to Rs.3,500/- per month. No interference is warranted with the amount awarded towards legal expenses. However, in case the respondent is able to show that the petitioner is getting the salary higher than Rs.11,500/- per month, it shall be open to her to file an application for enhancement of the maintenance and the trial Court shall take the same into account. The civil revision petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:31.10.2011. Note: Issue cc in one week. (B/o) kdl [1] (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 7