THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.983 OF 2009 20th August 2009 Between: Yougender Prashad Pandey, S/o. Late dr. Omkar Prashad Pandey, 32 years, Business, Re/o.H.No.17-2-258/3, Kurmaguda, saidabad, Hyderabad. …PETITIONER AND 1. Arthi Pandey, W/o.yougender Prashad Pandey, D/o.Pradeep Raj Saxena, 26 years, Household, R/o.H.No.3- 5-15, Ramkote, Hyderabad. And one other. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.983 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and the second respondent is their child. The first respondent filed O.P.No.755 of 2007 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 {“the Act” for brevity}, against the petitioner in the Family Court, Hyderabad. Herself and the second respondent filed I.A.No.474 of 2008 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 {CPC}, with a prayer to grant interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,500/- {Rupees six thousand five hundred only} and Rs.3,500/- {Rupees three thousand five hundred only} per month respectively. The petitioner opposed the application. Through its order, dated 03.10.2008, the Family Court, Hyderabad, awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- {Rupees two thousand five hundred only} and Rs.1,500/- {Rupees one thousand five hundred only} per month in favour of respondents 1 and 2 respectively. The same is challenged here. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The very filing of I.A.No.474 of 2008 was defective and impermissible. The reason is that, in an O.P. filed under Section 13 of the Act, it is only a spouse, who can claim maintenance. The child was also roped in the I.A. Secondly, Section 24 of the Act is the provision, under which such a prayer can be made by a spouse. The respondents have invoked Section 151 CPC. Unfortunately, the Family Court did not notice these aspects. Whenever an application is filed for maintenance, whether interim or otherwise, the Court is under obligation to take into account, the requirement of the person claiming maintenance and the income of the opposite party. No such effort was made in this case. Straight away, stipulating the amount, the order was granted. The petitioner states that he is an employee in a private firm and his monthly income itself is Rs.3,000/- {Rupees three thousand only}. Though it is difficult to believe that he is working at a salary of Rs.3,000/-, to meet the basic necessity of the first respondent for herself as well as maintaining the second respondent cannot be ignored. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed, reducing the amount payable by the petitioner to Rs.2,500/- {Rupees two thousand five hundred only} per month. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 20th August 2009 RRB