THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No. 4618 of 2010. ORDER: This C.R.P. is filed assailing the order dt. 11.3.2010 in I.A.No. 310 of 2009 in F.C.O.P.No. 1111 of of 2007 on the file of the Addl. Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereby the petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance was dismissed. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent. Perused the record. The petitioner is the wife of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent filed FCOP.No. 1111 of 2007 seeking divorce from the petitioner on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The O.P. was filed in the year 2007. The petitioner filed I.A.No. 310 of 2009 about one year after filing of the O.P. seeking interim maintenance, pending disposal of the O.P. According to her, she is spending Rs. 12,000/- towards house rent and Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses and she is also incurring expenses to come to Hyderabad from Chennai to attend the court proceedings by flight and as such she requires an amount of Rs. 70,000/- p.m. towards interim maintenance and Rs. 30,000/- towards legal expenses. The case of the 1st respondent is that the petitioner deserted him and is living with the 2nd respondent and therefore he filed O.P. for divorce and that he is taking care of two children who were staying with him. His further case is that the petitioner is running a garment shop at Chennai under the name and style of ‘Dressense’ and is earning a sum of Rs. 25,000/- p.m. and she is also having insurance policies and she is paying premium out of her own earnings. In support of the said contentions, the 1st respondent filed bank statements issued by HDFC bank and Bank of Baroda. On the other hand, the petitioner contends that the 1st respondent is doing business in ‘Swastick Paints’ and earning a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs p.m. and also earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/- p.m. on Mahaveer Enterprises. It is stated that the enquiry in the O.P. has already been commenced and the matter is coming up for cross- examination of Pw.1. Admittedly, the petitioner is residing in Chennai and is running a Garment shop. It is not as though the petitioner is not having any means whatsoever to support. Even according to her she has been attending the court at Hyderabad from Chennai by flight. Under those circumstances, having regard to the fact that the O.P. was filed in the year 2007 and the enquiry in the O.P. is in progress, it is considered that instead of going into the merits of the case as to the assets and liabilities of both the parties for grant of interim maintenance, pending disposal of the O.P., the trial court be directed to dispose of the O.P. itself in a time bound manner. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case in the present proceedings, the trial court is directed to dispose of the O.P. within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the C.R.P. is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 29.12.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No. 4618 of 2010. ORDER: Dt. 29.12.2010.