THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 67 of 2009 Dated: 25-11-2011 Oral Order: On 12-1-2009 while ordering notice before admission on this revision, interim stay of the order impugned was granted subject to condition that the petitioner deposits Rs.1000/- per month to the respondents and the arrears from the date of the petition up to the date, within four weeks. The petitioner shall also continue to deposit an amount of Rs.1000/- per month to the respondent by 10th of every succeeding month and the petitioner shall be liable to pay the legal expenses to be incurred by the respondents by engaging counsel. Notices on this revision having been served, they are represented by Sri Vadapalli Ramesh who is, however, not present today despite the name being reflected in the cause list. Heard Smt Anjana Devi Satyanarayana for the revision petitioner. The revision is directed against the order dated 18-9-2008 of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, allowing I.A.No. 61 of 2008 in O.P.No. 458 of 2007. The revision petitioner filed the O.P. for dissolution of the marriage with the 1st respondent. Thereat the respondents filed I.A.No. 61 of 2008 under Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month to each of the petitioners and for grant of legal expenses of Rs.10,000/-. By the order impugned, the Court below allowed the application and granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month to the 1st respondent and Rs.500/- per month in favour of respondents 2 and 3 (the minor children born out of the wedlock between the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent). Interim maintenance was granted from the date of filing of the application- I.A.No. 61 of 2008. The revision petitioner was also directed to pay the arrears of interim maintenance on or before 14-10-2008 and further to pay monthly interim maintenance on or before 10th of every succeeding month. In granting interim maintenance as above, the Court below observed: “The contention of the respondent is that he is an auto driver and thereby getting Rs.60/- per day. The petitioner did not mention the sources of income of the respondent and how much the respondent is earning per month. Even though, the petitioners did not mention the actual income of the respondent, the respondent being able body he has to earn amount sufficiently by running auto. At the present circumstances of expenses one should have to spent a sum of Rs.1000/-. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that it is proper to grant Rs.1000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.500/- each to the petitioners 2 and 3. Hence, I hold this point accordingly”. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the revision petitioner is an auto driver and does not have the means to pay the interim maintenance granted by the Court below. As seen from the order impugned, there is no evidence as to the income of the revision petitioner. Smt Anjana Devi Satyanarayana however contends that as directed by the order in this revision, the petitioner would pay interim maintenance of Rs.1000/- which is the maximum amount within his capacity and would pay arrears from the date of filing I.A.No. 61 of 2008 and he would continue to pay interim maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month till the disposal of OP No. 458 of 2007. Smt Anjana Devi Satyanarayana also agreed that the revision petitioner would pay Rs.2000/- towards the expenses incurred by the 1st respondent in prosecuting her defence in O.P.No. 458 of 2007. In the facts and circumstances and in the light of the submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner and as there is no evidence on record as to income of the revision petitioner recorded by the Court below, for awarding the amount of maintenance set out in the impugned order, the revision is disposed of directing that the revision petitioner shall be liable to pay interim maintenance to the respondents 1 to 3 herein at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month from the date of filing I.A.No. 61 of 2008 before the Court below; that the revision petitioner shall pay month after month and before the 10th of every succeeding month the amount of Rs.1000/- to the respondents and shall also be liable to pay Rs.2000/- towards legal expenses incurred by the 1st respondent in prosecuting her defence in O.P.No. 458 of 2008 besides the arrears of maintenance at the above stipulated rate. With the modification above, the revision petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 25th November, 2011. GRR