THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6068 OF 2006 DATED: 09-02-2011 Between: Hari Prasad. .... PETITIONER And D.Lavanya. .... RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 23.11.2006, in I.A.No.688 of 2005 in F.C.O.P.No.363 of 2005 on the file of the learned Family Court, Secunderabad, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for brevity, ‘the Act’) for interim maintenance and legal expenses, was allowed directing the petitioner herein to pay Rs.1000/- per month towards interim maintenance from the date of the petition and also to pay Rs.2000/- towards legal expenses. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the records. 3. Respondent herein filed the O.P. for dissolution of marriage with the petitioner and the same is pending. She filed I.A.No.688 of 2005 seeking interim maintenance of Rs.3000/- each to herself and to her son, and legal expenses under Section 24 of the Act. According to her, the petitioner is running a hardware shop and is earning Rs.10,000/- per month besides Rs.15,000/- per month as rental income. She further pleads that she has no independent source of income and herself and her minor son are taking shelter near her mother, who is an employee. Petitioner herein filed counter alleging that the respondent wants to lead a luxurious life and the respondent is doing job and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Petitioner did not file any document to show that the respondent is doing any job or earning any income. Admittedly, petitioner is doing business. Though he disputes the claim of the respondent that he is earning Rs.10,000/- per month from the business, petitioner also did not adduce any evidence to show his actual income from the business. Under those circumstances, the learned Judge, Family Court directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs.1000/- per month to the respondent towards interim maintenance besides Rs.2000/- towards legal expenses. 4. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the said amount, awarded by the learned Judge, Family Court, cannot be held to be excessive or unreasonable. The impugned order does not therefore call for any interference by this Court. 5. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 09th February, 2011. Tsy