HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. Nos.4459 & 4843 OF 2009 DATE:13-11-2009 C.R.P. No.4459 OF 2009 BETWEEN: G.Vamsi Chakradhar …Petitioner AND Gummadi Sailaja …Respondent C.R.P. No.4843 OF 2009 BETWEEN: Gummadi Sailaja …Petitioner AND G.Vamsi Chakradhar …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. Nos.4459 & 4843 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: Since these two revisions are interconnected and arising out of the very same proceedings, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. C.R.P.No.4459 of 2009 is filed by the petitioner-husband assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram in I.A.No.200 of 2009 in O.P.No.80 of 2008, dated 13.8.2009 whereby the application filed by respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of the petition and Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. The petitioner- husband earlier filed O.P.No.884 of 2008 before the Family Court, Visakhapatnam for judicial separation but subsequently did not press the same and later filed O.P.No.1086 of 2008 seeking divorce from his wife-respondent herein. The respondent-wife filed M.C.No.56 of 2008 seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram, in which she also filed Crl.M.P.No.755 of 2009 for grant of Rs.1.00 lakh per month towards interim maintenance and Rs.25,000/- towards legal expenses. The respondent-wife also filed the present O.P.No.80 of 2008 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in which, she filed the present impugned I.A.No.200 of 2009 seeking maintenance of Rs.1.00 lakh per month and legal expenses of Rs.50,000/- contending that the petitioner-husband is working as Senior Architect in Verizon Data Services in India Pvt. Ltd. and drawing Rs.3.00 lakhs per month towards remuneration and is also having movable and immovable properties. Contesting the I.A., the petitioner-husband filed a counter affidavit contending that the respondent-wife is a post-graduate in M.Sc.M.Phil in Nuclear Physics and she is working as Junior Lecturer in a private College at Vijayawada and getting Rs.15,000/- by way of salary and therefore, as she is having sufficient means she is not entitled to any maintenance. Further he admitted about his employment as averred in the I.A. but contended that that he is getting basic salary of Rs.24,000/- per month, and that he purchased a flat in an apartment at Visakhapatnam and as his brother is now residing therein he is not getting any income from that flat. He has to maintain his sickly aged mother and is spending amount for her treatment, and that except the said flat, he is not having any other movable or immovable property. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner-husband brought to the notice of the Court that the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram in Crl.M.P.No.755 of 2009 in M.C.No.56 of 2008 filed by the respondent- wife awarded maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month by order, dated 11.6.2009 and the same was subsequently reduced to Rs.10,000/- per month in Crl.M.P.No.57 of 2007 in CRP No.47 of 2009 by II Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Amalapuram. Since no proof as such was produced by the petitioner-husband about his paying the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- as awarded in Crl.M.P.No.755 of 2009, the lower Court taking into consideration the salary of the petitioner at Rs.68,541/- as reflected in the salary slip of December, 2008 and taking net salary at Rs.50,963/- and that considering the admission of respondent-wife that she was already granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month in Crl.M.P.No.755 of 2009 in M.C.No.56 of 2008, by the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife towards maintenance from the date of petition and Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. Hence, this revision. Seeking further enhancement of maintenance, C.R.P.No.4843 of 2009 is filed by the wife. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as per their array in C.R.P.No.4459 of 2009. Sri G. Ram Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- husband contended that in compliance with the order passed by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram in Crl.M.P.No.755 of 2009 in M.C.No.56 of 2008, the husband is paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance to the wife from the date of the order, but the said fact was not taken into consideration by the lower Court in the impugned order and thereby erroneously awarded Rs.10,000/- per month on the ground that no proof as such is produced by the husband about his paying Rs.10,000/- per month in the said M.C. and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Per contra, the respondent-wife who appeared in-person in the Court, by producing a copy of appointment order of husband issued by Verizon Data Services India Pvt. Ltd., wherein the annual salary of the petitioner-husband was fixed at Rs.14,44,500/-, contended that though the petitioner-husband is officially drawing the salary of Rs.1,00,336/-, unofficially he is getting more than Rs.2,50,000/- and therefore, the lower Court ought to have considered the said fact and could have granted the maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The salary slip of the petitioner-husband summoned by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram in M.C.No.56 of 2008 would disclose that the annual gross salary of the petitioner- husband was fixed at Rs.14,44,500/- by the employer, which is not disputed by the petitioner-husband who is present in the Court. Even otherwise, there is no dispute with regard to the receipt of net salary of Rs.50,963/- per month which is evident from the pay slip of the petitioner-husband for the month of December, 2008 after deductions of Rs.17,578/-. The petitioner-husband has to maintain his wife according to his standard of living, but merely because Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the respondent-wife by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram in M.C.No.56 of 2008 it is not open for him to contend that the Civil Court ought not to have granted any maintenance, which fact was already taken into consideration by the lower Court while awarding the maintenance, but however, observed that there is no proof of receipt of Rs.10,000/- per month by the respondent-wife. Now, the respondent-wife, who is present in the Court has not disputed the factum of her receiving Rs.10,000/- per month as awarded in M.C.No.56 of 2008. Keeping in view of the said fact into consideration and taking the net salary of the petitioner-husband at Rs.51,000/- per month, granting 1/3rd therefrom towards maintenance of the respondent-wife is just and reasonable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and C.R.P.No.4459 of 2009 filed by the husband is partly allowed reducing the maintenance to Rs.7,000/- from Rs.10,000/- per month which is payable in addition to the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month granted in M.C.No.56 of 2008. Consequently, C.R.P.No.4843 of 2009 filed by the wife is dismissed. It is now brought to my notice that O.P.No.1056 of 2008 filed by the husband on the file of Family Court, Visakhapatnam for judicial separation has been withdrawn and transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram to be tried and disposed of along with O.P.No.80 of 2008. Hence, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram shall try both the O.Ps. together and dispose of the same uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court while disposing of the present revisions. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. NOVEMBER 13, 2009 Tsr.