\THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5389 & 5681 OF 2009 DATED: 23.03.2011 C.R.P.No.5389 of 2009: Between: Ms.Jia @ Pooja Khemani. .... PETITIONER And Prakash L. Khemani. .... RESPONDENT C.R.P.No.5681 of 2009: Between: Prakash L.Khemani. .... PETITIONER And Pooja Khemani @ Jiya. .... RESPONDENT COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the order, dated 03.10.2009, in I.A.No.779 of 2008 in O.P.No.686 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for interim maintenance, was allowed granting Rs.5000/- per month towards interim maintenance and Rs.3000/- in lumpsum towards legal expenses. 2. Civil Revision Petition No.5681 of 2009 is filed by the husband for cancellation of interim maintenance and Civil Revision Petition No.5389 of 2009 is filed by the wife for enhancement of interim maintenance. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 4. As the two matters arise out of the same order, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 5. Husband filed the O.P. for divorce and the same is pending enquiry. Wife filed I.A.No.779 of 2008 seeking interim maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month. Pending disposal of the O.P., according to her, the husband is carrying on the business in electronic goods and earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month besides getting income from the residential and commercial properties. She also claimed Rs.25,000/-towards legal expenses. The husband, on the other hand, contends that he is only assisting his father in the family business and he does not have any business of his own in his name and he does not get any income from any independent source of his own. The husband would further contend that the wife is the Director of the company, doing the family business, and as such, she is also getting remuneration. The wife would in turn contend that she has resigned the directorship subsequent to the filing of the O.P. and by the date of filing the application for interim maintenance she was not getting any remuneration from the company. 6. In support of her claim, the wife filed income tax returns of the husband for the years, 2002-2003 and 2004-2005 showing that the husband has declared his income as individual and showing total income of Rs.4,15,310/- for the year 2002-2003 and Rs.5,64,460/- for the year, 2004-2005. As per the income tax returns, the husband is shown to be earning around Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per month during that period. The wife did not however file any income tax returns of the husband for the year, 2007-2008, showing his income by the date of filing of the O.P. and also I.A.No.779 of 2008. She also did not adduce any evidence to show that the husband is getting any rental income from the house properties, residential or commercial. The husband filed balance sheet of the company for the period ending upto 31.03.2008 to show that whatever income earned is by the company and not by the husband as an individual. The fact remains that the husband has declared his income as individual and filed income tax returns showing his individual income basing on which, the tax was also assessed. Admittedly, the wife has resigned as a Director subsequent to filing of the O.P. The husband has not filed any document to show that by the date of filing of I.A.No.779 of 2008, the wife was getting any remuneration from the company or any income from any other source. Thus, in the circumstances and having regard to the material available on record and keeping the status of the parties in view, the interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month awarded by the Family Court is considered to be just and reasonable and the same does not call for any interference. There are no valid or justifiable grounds for enhancement of the same. Having regard to the fact that the O.P. is filed in the year, 2008, the learned Judge, Family Court is directed to dispose of the O.P. at an early date, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd March, 2011. Tsy