IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THIS THE 1st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 C.R.P.No.3139 of 2009 Between: Nallapati Bhaskar ….PETITIONER(S) and Nallapati Sunitha …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3139 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 03.03.2009 passed in I.A.No.747 of 2007 in O.P.No.26 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge directed the petitioner-husband herein to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month pending O.P.No.26 of 2007. Background facts in a nutshell leading in filing of this petition by the petitioner-husband are; the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife and the petitioner-husband filed O.P.No.26 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, for grant of divorce. The respondent-wife entered appearance in O.P.No.26 of 2007 and moved I.A.No.747 of 2007 under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for grant of maintenance to her and her son pending the O.P. The petitioner-husband filed counter resisting the application. On considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Senior Civil Judge proceeded to grant maintenance to the respondent-wife at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month, by order dated 03.03.2009. The relevant portion of the order passed in I.A.No.747 of 2007 reads as hereunder: “As against the said version respondent disputed the entire petition allegations except M.C. filed by the petitioner against him. Respondent denies Iron and hardware shop alleged to have been run by him, so also his income at Rs.10,000/- on house rents. Further it is his version that he is unable to maintain himself being a physically handicapped person and he is depending upon his father who is a old man. Thus respondent contends that he need not give any maintenance to the petitioner. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that respondent did not deny his relationship with petitioner. Further it is not the contention of the respondent that petitioner is not living with her parents. Further it is not the contention of the respondent that petitioner has been earning substantial amount to maintain herself. The entire contents of the counter is silent with regard to any source of income for the petitioner. In which case this Court has no alternative except believing the version of the petitioner that she is depending upon her parents. Respondent could not adduce any evidence at this stage to believe his version that Bhaskar Iron and Hardware shop does not belong to him. Above all it is an obligation of the respondent to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself. The said obligation cast upon the respondent is legal as well as moral. In the circumstances this petition is allowed partly by grant of maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner per month till the disposal of the main O.P. However, petition for maintenance of her son Prakash as well as legal expenses is hereby dismissed.” Assailing the order passed in I.A.No.747 of 2007 in O.P.No.26 of 2007, the husband has filed this revision. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 29.07.2009. The respondent-wife entered appearance through a counsel and filed counter. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband submits that the petitioner-husband has been paying Rs.1,000/- towards interim maintenance as per the orders of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet, in M.C.No.52 of 2007 dated 01.05.2009 and if the said amount is taken into consideration, the petitioner-husband is liable to pay Rs.1,000/- only pursuant to the order impugned in this revision. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife does not dispute the fact of the respondent-wife getting the interim maintenance in M.C.No.52 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet. In that view of the matter, the order impugned in the revision is modified and, accordingly, the maintenance granted to the respondent- wife pending the O.P. is reduced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.1,000/-. I make it clear that the petitioner-husband has to pay Rs.1,000/- as compliance of the order passed in I.A.No.747 of 2007 in addition to interim maintenance which he is paying pursuant to the order passed in M.C.No.52 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed at the stage of admission. However, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, is directed to dispose of the O.P.No.26 of 2007 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 1st February 2010 CVRK Note: Office to issue copy in three days. B/o CVRK