THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR C.R.P. NO. 3683 OF 2006 Date: 03-02-2011 Between: Kapa Mahendranath .. Petitioner And Kapa Visalakshmi .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR C.R.P. NO. 3683 OF 2006 ORDER: Smt.N.S.Lakshmi, appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.Gopala Krishnamacharyulu, learned counsel for the respondent, are present. 2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the husband against the order dated 21.11.2005 passed in I.A.No.19 of 2002 in H.M.O.P.No. 175 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur granting pendentelite maintenance to the wife and minor son of the parties. 3. It is seen that the trial court passed a common order in I.A.No. 19 of 2002 filed by the wife for pendentelite maintenance and I.A.No. 365 of 2000 filed by the husband to order a D.N.A. test for the child to ascertain whether the husband is biological father of that child. The common order shows that with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both parties, the trial court fixed a monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- for the wife and it also granted an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards legal expenses. No monthly maintenance was fixed for the child. Regarding the plea of D.N.A. test taken by the husband, it was represented before the trial court that both the parties would have that aspect of the controversy decided in the partition suit brought by the wife and her child. Recording the said submissions and on the consent of the parties, the trial Court allowed I.A.No. 19 of 2002 fixing a monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- for the wife pending disposal of the O.P. Against this order, the husband has now filed this revision. His plea is that subsequently his O.P. was allowed and the marriage has been dissolved and that, therefore, since the marriage is dissolved, the wife is not entitled to maintenance and consequently, on that ground the order of the trial court granting pendentelite maintenance should be set aside. This plea is specifically taken in ground Nos.2 and 3 of the Civil Revision Petition. 4. It may be noted that if the marriage has been dissolved as pleaded by the husband, it is always open for him to approach the trial Court and make an application before it for revocation of the order of maintenance granted by the trial Court showing a sufficient cause and that aspect may again require an enquiry. Alternatively, he may also show that the wife should have applied for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and if she applies whether she is entitled to same or not, it can again be decided by the trial Court. In any event, the controversy relating to the right of the wife to claim maintenance after the marriage is dissolved, can be independently decided by the trial Court. 5. Smt.N.S.Lakshmi, appearing for the petitioner, has sought time stating that she has no instructions in the matter and Sri K.Gopala Krishnamacharyulu, appearing for the respondent, also sought time. However, in view of the above legal position and the facts involved in this matter, I am of the opinion that no time need be granted and the Civil Revision Petition need not be kept pending. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, as it is filed against a consent order and it shall be open for the parties, especially the husband, to work out their remedies before the trial Court. ___________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 3rd February, 2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR C.R.P. NO. 3683 OF 2006 Date: 03-02-2011 MR