IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.439 of 2010 Between: Kakileti Naga Varalakshmi and another. … Petitioners And Kakileti Krishnarao. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 439 OF 2010 ORDER:- Petitioners/plaintiffs are in revision against the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram in dismissing I.A.No.66 of 2008 in O.S.No.35 of 2008, dated 21.10.2009. Petitioners/plaintiffs filed the above suit for maintenance under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, wherein they filed the above I.A., seeking interim maintenance at Rs.2,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner, contending that the 1st petitioner’s husband--Late Kakileti Gori Sankara Krishna, is the third son of respondent/defendant and the defendant is the father-in-law of the 1st petitioner. The husband of the 1st petitioner and other two sons constitute a joint family who are in possession of Ac.0-63½ cents in R.S.No.437/2 of Challapalli village, apart from some other properties. Her husband acquired zeroyiti wet land in an extent of Ac.1-25 cents in R.S.No.435/1B from the amounts given to her by her parents as Pasupukumkuma at the time of her marriage and on the death of her husband all the properties were bequeathed in their favour and, therefore, they are entitled for maintenance as claimed. The respondent/defendant filed counter opposing the petition, contending that the terraced building is the absolute property of Kakileti Yesubabu, another son of the respondent, which was given by the Government. The plaint schedule property does not belong to the respondent or his family. Further an extent of Ac.1-25 cents in R.S.No.435/1B of Challapalli village, purchased under registered sale deed dated 05.06.2003 is the joint family property of the respondent and his sons. He being an agricultural coolie cannot give anything to the petitioners and he and his wife are ill health persons incurring medical expenses. Further, he has no objection to partition the suit schedule property and allot the share of the 1st petitioner’s husband to the petitioners. Since he has spent heavy amounts for treatment of the 1st petitioner’s husband, who suffered from cancer, and sold away the house to discharge the family debts, he cannot pay any amount. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners failed to establish the income derived from the joint family property, when the respondent agreeable for partitioning the said property, the lower court rightly dismissed the I.A., holding that no interim maintenance can be awarded in her favour, directing the father-in-law to pay the said amounts. No infirmity is discernable with the order passed by the trial court, warranting interference. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 11th February 2010 lmv