HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.NO.2140 OF 2009 Dt.16.12.2010 Between: Sondi Rama Prasad ..Petitioner And Sondi Radha ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.NO.2140 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard both the counsel. Petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent and they are legally wedded married couple and their marriage took place on 14.12.2006. It is stated that the respondent herein married earlier to one Kasireddy Giridhar Prakash in November 2002 and blessed with a male child out of the first marriage. Subsequently, the said marriage was dissolved with a decree of divorce. Respondent herein filed O.P.No.645 of 2008 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, stating that the petitioner husband neglected her without maintaining though he is working as Assistant Divisional Engineer in A.P.Genco at Kothagudem, getting a salary of Rs.35,000/- per month, but whereas she has no other source of income except depending upon her husband towards her maintenance and her minor son and therefore sought for interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month in I.A.No.931 of 2008. The court below granted only Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent herein towards interim maintenance. It is not in dispute that the petitioner husband is working as Assistant Divisional Engineer in A.P.Genco and drawing a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month. Therefore, it cannot be said that the granting of meager amount of Rs.2,000/- per month towards interim maintenance to the respondent wife is illegal and unsustainable. I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise in the order impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent wife got an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from her first husband and therefore she is entitled to maintain herself. I am not inclined to appreciate the said contention as the receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- is yet to be proved in the O.P. Even otherwise, it is the duty of the legally wedded husband to maintain her wife so far as the matrimonial relations are continuing. The civil revision petition is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 16.12.2010 kpr