THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.3106 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage took place in the year 2004, but hardly there was any harmony between them. Both of them started living separately. While the respondent is staying in the premises where they earlier lived together, the petitioner has shifted to another place. The respondent filed O.P.No.692 of 2009 in the Family Court- cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (for short ‘the Act’), claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/-, or lumpsum maintenance of Rs.50,00,000/-. She has also filed I.A.No.105 of 2010, for interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/-, per month. The petitioner opposed the application. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order, dated 11.06.2010 and awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/-, per month. The same is challenged in this revision. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. The O.P., was filed under Section 18 of the Act. There is no provision in that Act that enables a trial Court to grant interim maintenance, similar to Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short ‘H.M.Act’). It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner filed O.P.No.794 of 2009 in the same Court. The respondent could have simply filed an application under Section 24 of the Act, for interim or permanent maintenance. Be that as it may, the maintenance was awarded on the basis of the values of the properties said to have been held by the petitioner. The parameters for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., or Section 24 of the H.M. Act, have a different connotation, compared to those under Section 18 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the respondent is residing in the house owned by the petitioner. Unless a definite source of income was found and other factors, such as the obligation of the petitioner to maintain other family members, are taken into account, awarding of such a huge amount by way of interim maintenance, cannot be sustained. At the same time, the respondent needs to be taken care of. This Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if the respondent is awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-, per month. Hence, the C.R.P. is partly allowed, reducing the interim maintenance awarded by the learned Family Judge, Vijayawada, to Rs.5,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:30.08.2010 GJ