THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3599 & 3953 OF 2009 C.R.P.No.3599/2009 BETWEEN: Ayyagari Sateesh S/o. late A.V.S.N.Murthy, R/o. Washington, Unites States of America, Permanent Address R/o.7-58-3, Sri Vihar, Ramaraopeta, Kakinada, E.D.Dist. PETITIONER And 1. Ganti Sujatha W/o. Sateesh Ayyagari, D/o. Ganti Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Sarma, Amalapuram, E.G. District, presently working a san Architect/CAD Drafts Person in Western Tile & Marble, Washington-98005, U.S.A. RESPONDENT Counsel for Petitioner: Sri K.A. Narasimham Counsel for Respondent: Sri G. Ram Gopal. The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: The husband filed C.R.P.No.3599 of 2009 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 22.06.2009 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram East Godavari District in I.A.No.252 of 2009 in O.P.No.53 of 2008 whereby the application filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards maintenance and medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses and Rs.1,50,000/- towards expenses for journey from United States of America (USA) to India and return ticket for each trip as and when she has to attend the Court, was allowed in part directing the husband to pay Rs.55,000/- towards maintenance and medical expenses per month from the date of filing of the petition pending disposal of the main petition, and Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses, and also the actual fare from USA to India and to return on each trip. The wife filed C.R.P.No.3953 of 2009 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the quantum of maintenance contending that she has lost her employment on 16.12.2008 and it is very difficult for her to maintain herself with such a meager amount of Rs.50,000/- in a Country like USA. The husband has not denied about his earning of Rs.4,00,000/- per month and both the parties are residing in USA. Since the husband filed O.P. for dissolution of marriage at Amalapuram the wife has to come all the way from USA to contest the suit at Amalapuram and she has to necessarily attend the Court as and when her presence is required. Further, in the revision filed by the wife, it is stated that she has lost her employment on 16.12.2008. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the lower Court awarding maintenance and the legal expenses as and when she visits Amalapuram to attend the above O.P., does not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is always open to the petitioner/husband to seek modification of the said order in the event of wife securing employment. Accordingly both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) 28th August, 2009 Js.