THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5136 of 2010 Dated 08th July, 2011 Between: Singirikonda Ramesh …Petitioner And Singirikonda Laxmi …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Venkateshwar Varanasi Counsel for respondent: Sri V.Brahmaiah Chowdary The Court made the following: ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 14.09.2010, in I.A.No.240 of 2008 in O.P.No.36 of 2008, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet. The petitioner filed O.P.No.23 of 2007 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda seeking divorce against the respondent. The said OP was later transferred to the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet and re-numbered as O.P.No.36 of 2008. The respondent filed I.A.No.240 of 2008 in the said O.P., under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking monthly maintenance for herself and her minor child. This application was resisted by the petitioner stating that even though he was working as Lecturer, on account of the matrimonial disputes, he lost his job and consequently he lost his livelihood. The Court below having considered the respective pleas of the parties held that the respondent is entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- for herself and Rs.1,000/- for her seven-year old school going child. The Court below also granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses. At the hearing, Sri Venkateshwar Varanasi, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the respondent failed to adduce any evidence before the lower Court in support of her plea that the petitioner has been earning income to support her. In my opinion, the respondent being the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, it is the obligation of the petitioner to maintain her till such time as they are judicially separated. It is also his obligation to maintain his daughter, who is admittedly living with the respondent. Therefore, irrespective of the factum of his earning income or not, his obligation continues towards his wife and daughter to ensure that they will not starve. As regards the quantum of maintenance granted by the Court below, it requires to take judicial notice of the fact that in these inflationary days, a sum of Rs.2,000/- cannot be said to be either unreasonable or on higher side because of the spiralling prices. Viewed from any angle, in my opinion, the order of the Court below granting maintenance and legal expenses does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. For the above-mentioned reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, interim order, dated 26.11.2010, shall stand vacated and C.R.P.M.P.No.6832 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th July, 2011 VGB