THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4838 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 27.08.2010 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, in I.A.No.2069 of 2009 in O.P.No.569 of 2009. The petitioner-husband filed the above O.P seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and mental agony. Pending the O.P., the respondent-wife filed the present I.A seeking interim maintenance @ Rs.26,700/- per month and legal expenses of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner-husband contested the I.A by filing a counter-affidavit inter alia stating that he is working in a private software company, his salary varies from month to month; that his last drawn salary i.e., for the month of August, 2009 was Rs.65,985/- and after deductions his take home salary was Rs.6,042/-; that the respondent-wife herself left the matrimonial home on 29.04.2009 without informing him; that even though the respondent is drawing about Rs.15,000/- per month by working as a Chief Administrator at A.K.J Chest Clinic of Rama Murthy Hospital, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, in the petition filed in support of the I.A she stated that she is earning Rs.5,000/- per month only. The Court below, after considering the material available on record, held that though the petitioner-husband claimed that the respondent-wife was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, he has not produced any material to prove the same and accordingly allowed the application directing the petitioner- husband to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife towards interim maintenance and Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-husband filed this revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in Gunda Prabhakar v. Gunda Padma @ Padmavathi[1] and contended that the Court below has not considered the details furnished by the petitioner with regard to his salary and expenditure in proper perspective, and that the Court below ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the income certificate of the petitioner, and therefore, he prayed to set aside the impugned order. Under the Hindu Law, the husband has a duty to care and maintain his wife and children. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he is earning not less than Rs.60,000/- per month. Though his salary certificate discloses that an amount of Rs.59,943/-per month is being deducted from his salary towards house loan, car loan, personal loan etc., the same is for his benefit only. The amount of interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. awarded by the court below cannot be said to be on the higher side, warranting its reduction. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. N.V.RAMANA, J Date: 26.11.2010 va [1] 1999 (4) ALT 740