IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.885 OF 2011 Between: S.Issac Naveen Deep …Petitioner A n d Smt.G.Sadhana ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.885 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 03.01.2011 in I.A.No.3058 of 2010 in O.P.No.1088 of 2010, on the file of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the learned Judge passed the impugned order granting maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month payable by 10th of every month. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent. The respondent filed I.A.No.3058 of 2010 seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month to the child. She also filed I.A.Nos.3057 and 3056 of 2010 claiming maintenance to herself and also legal and medical expenses. It is stated that all three applications are coming together for hearing, but, however, the impugned order is passed in I.A.No.3058 of 2010 and the other two applications are still pending. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband filed the present revision on the ground that the child is admittedly no more and, therefore, question of granting maintenance to the child does not arise. 4. This Court, while admitting the CRP on 18.03.2011, granted interim suspension of the impugned order noting the contention of the petitioner that the boy died and, therefore, the impugned order is illegal. In fact, in the impugned order also the learned Judge, Family Court, noted that the child is no more alive. When that is so, question of granting any maintenance to the child does not arise. The impugned order further shows that the interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month was granted to the respondent, the wife. When separate application filed by the respondent seeking interim maintenance is pending, any order granting or refusing interim maintenance is to be passed in the said application filed by the wife, but not in the present application, which is filed seeking interim maintenance for the child. 5. In the circumstances, as the child is admittedly no more and question of granting maintenance does not arise, the interim order is held liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The learned Judge, Family Court, shall dispose of the other two applications filed by the wife i.e., I.A.Nos.3057 and 3056 of 2010 on their merits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. Interim suspension granted earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 19th July, 2011 Lrkm.