IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SECOND (2ND) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.1117 and 2002 of 2011 CRP No.1117 of 2011: Between: KSN Krishna Varma … Petitioner K.Vasavilatha & another … Respondents CRP No.2002 of 2011: Between: K.Vasavilatha & another … Petitioners And: KSN Krishna Varma … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.1117 and 2002 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: These two revision petitions are directed against the order dated 21.02.2011 in IA No.157 of 2011 in OP No.1427 of 2008 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, wherein the said application filed by the respondents in CRP No.1117 of 20011 (petitioners in CRP No.2002 of 2011), was allowed, granting interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.2,000/- to the child, pending disposal of the OP No.1427 of 2008. 2. Heard both sides. As the two revision petitions arise of the same order, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent in CRP No.1117 of 2011 is the wife and 2nd respondent is the daughter of the petitioner therein. The husband filed OP No.1427 of 2008 for dissolution of the marriage by decree of divorce. The said OP is pending. Wife and daughter filed IA No.157 of 2011 under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking interim maintenance pending disposal of the main OP. 4. It is stated that the husband is employed in a software company but both parties raised rival contentions regarding the income. The learned Judge, Family Court has awarded Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the child towards interim maintenance. It is stated that the enquiry in the main OP is virtually completed and the matter has reached the stage of arguments. It is therefore considered that there are no valid or sufficient grounds to interfere with the order of interim maintenance passed by the lower Court at this stage when the matter has reached the fag end. 5. In the circumstances, it is considered that the impugned order does not call for any interference, except that the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month shall be shared by both the wife and child equally. 6. Subject to the above modification, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 02.09.2011 bss