IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2702 OF 2008 Between: B.Anand …Petitioner A n d Smt.B.Sunitha Bai ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2702 OF 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 06-08-2007 in I.A.No.1456 of 2003 in F.C.O.P.No.784 of 1997, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed, holding that as on 27- 06-2001, the petitioner was still due in a sum of Rs.18,000/- towards arrears of interim maintenance and so O.P.No.784 of 1997 which was closed, cannot be reopened. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner herein filed F.C.O.P.No.784 of 1997 against the respondent for a decree of divorce. The respondent and her children filed O.S.No.128 of 1997 for grant of maintenance. An interim maintenance of Rs.600/- per month to the wife and Rs.400/- per month to each of the two children was granted in I.A.No.849 of 1997 in O.S.No.128 of 1997. The petitioner filed I.A.No.418 of 2000 for modification of the orders on the ground that the wife was working and earning. The Family Court, by order dated 06-07-2000, enhanced the interim maintenance to the two children at Rs.750/- per month and held that the mother was not entitled for maintenance as she is employed. The suit and the OP were clubbed. The petitioner filed I.A.No.24 of 2001 for review of the order passed in I.A.No.418 of 2000 and the said petition was dismissed on 08-05-2001 directing the petitioner to pay the arrears by 08-06-2001. Against the said orders, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.2798 of 2001 and the same was also dismissed on 29-06-2001. The respondent-wife filed I.A.No.473 of 2001 for closure of the OP for non-payment of arrears. By order dated 27-06-2001, the OP was closed due to non-payment of arrears of interim maintenance and the suit was directed to be disposed of on merits. The petitioner filed I.A.No.513 of 2002 in O.S.No.128 of 1997 for reopening the OP wherein a docket order was passed allowing the application to the extent of reopening the suit but not OP. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.2001 of 2003 and by order dated 14-07-2003, the said CRP was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an application in the OP. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1456 of 2003 for reopening the OP. The said petition was dismissed by order dated 18-07- 2005 as the arrears were not paid by 08-06-2001. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed CRP.No.2245 of 2006. By order dated 02-02-2007, the CRP was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial Court with a direction to the trial Court to decide the fact as to whether as on 27-06-2001 there were any arrears or there were no arrears. Thereafter, the present impugned order was passed on 06-08-2001 holding that there were arrears. 4. According to the petitioner, he has paid an amount of Rs.8,400/- on 01-03-2005 and another sum of Rs.9,000/- on 06-08-2008, both by way of demand drafts and the same have not been given credit to by the Family Court while holding that the petitioner was still due an amount of Rs.18,000/-. The alleged payments of Rs.8,400/- and Rs.9,000/- were subsequent to 27-06- 2001. This Court, while disposing of CRP.No.2245 of 2006 by order dated 02-02-2007 and remanding the matter, directed the Family Court to go into the question and decide the fact as to whether as on 27-06-2001 there were any arrears or there were no arrears and pass orders accordingly, because the petitioner therein contended that as on 27-06-2001 there were no arrears and the interim maintenance as directed by the Court was paid. In the impugned order, the said question has been specifically dealt with by the learned Judge, Family Court and it was held that there were arrears still due in a sum of Rs.18,000/- as on 27-06-2001. The contention of the petitioner has been that the interim maintenance granted to the respondent-wife was subsequently cancelled by the Court by order dated 06-07-2000 in I.A.No.418 of 2000 and, therefore, the amount received by her has to be adjusted towards the interim maintenance payable to the children while cancelling the maintenance to the wife in I.A.No.418 of 2000. There was no further direction that the amount already paid shall be recovered from her or that the same should be adjusted towards the claim of future maintenance by the children. The cancellation of the maintenance granted to the wife in I.A.No.418 of 2000 was with effect from the date of the said orders i.e., 06-07- 2000. Hence, the amount already paid by the petitioner to the respondent towards interim maintenance cannot be sought to be adjusted towards maintenance claim of the children for the subsequent period. The learned Family Judge has made an in-depth enquiry pertaining to the issue as to whether or not there were any arrears of maintenance due by the petitioner as on 27-06-2001 and after taking into consideration the contentions of both parties arrived at the conclusion that a sum of Rs.18,000/- was still due as on that date. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity so as to call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th March, 2011 Lrkm