HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1548 & 3258 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the order dated 08.03.2011 in I.A.No.369 of 2009 in OP No.637 of 2006 on the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, whereunder the said application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the petitioner in C.R.P.No. 3258 of 2011, for interim maintenance was allowed in part awarding interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to the minor son, from the date of the petition i.e., 02.07.2009. C.R.P.No.1548 of 2011 is filed by the husband assailing the impugned order, whereas C.R.P.No.3258 of 2011 is filed by the wife seeking enhancement. As both the Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the same order, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. Heard both sides. The petitioner-husband in C.R.P.No.1548 of 2011 filed O.P.No.637 of 2006 against his wife for grant of divorce and the same is pending. The wife filed I.A.No.369 of 2009 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for interim maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month for herself and her son. It is not in dispute that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed on 19.02.2000 and they begot a male child, who is now staying with the mother. According to the wife, the husband is working as Senior Metallurgical Engineer in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and he is drawing a salary of nearly Rs.1,00,000/- per month. In the impugned order it is observed that the Photostat copy of the salary certificate filed by the wife would show that the husband was drawing gross salary of Rs.51,796/- and net salary of Rs.26,217/- per month, after deductions in sum of Rs.25,579/-. After filing of the Civil Revision Petitions, it is stated that the wife submitted an application to Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Authorities seeking information about the salary particulars of her husband under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The computerised copy of the salary particulars of the husband for the period from August, 2008 to July, 2011 would show that the husband was drawing a gross salary of Rs.98,642.54 ps and after deductions in a sum of Rs.41,455.50 ps., he has been drawing a net salary of Rs.57,188/-. Even if the net salary alone is taken into consideration for the purpose of considering the quantum of interim maintenance, the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month granted for the wife and Rs.5,000/- per month for the son towards interim maintenance appear to be on lower side. No doubt, this Court while admitting C.R.P.No.1548 of 2011, on 21.04.2011 directed payment of 50% of the amount awarded by the lower Court during the pendency of the said C.R.P. But, however, subsequently salary particulars of the husband are made available to this Court and the said particulars would show that the husband has been drawing a net salary of Rs.57,188/-. Therefore, it is considered just and appropriate to fix a reasonable amount towards interim maintenance, based on the salary particulars of the husband, filed by the wife. It is not the case of the husband that the wife is having any income or independent source of income of her own. Further, the minor son, who is now aged about 9 years, is also residing with the mother and attending the school. In the circumstances, having regard to the basic needs of life for a decent living, commensurate with the social status of the parties and also the educational and other expenses of the minor child, it is just and appropriate to direct the husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to the minor son, on or before 15th of every succeeding month, from the date of the petition, pending disposal of main OP. The arrears shall be deposited within a period of four weeks from today. Having regard to the fact that the main OP is filed in the year 2006, the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, is directed to dispose of the same on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order is modified accordingly. In the result, C.R.P.No.3258 of 2011 is allowed in part to the extent stated above and C.R.P.No.1548 of 2011 is dismissed. G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 26.12.2011 va