THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR C.R.P.Nos.176, 177 and 206 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner in these three revisions is the petitioner in OP No.442 of 2007 before the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam filed seeking divorce against the respondent. Pending the said OP, another OP was filed by the respondent for maintenance. Interim maintenance @ Rs.5,000/ was granted by the trial Court on 20th July, 2004. The said divorce OP No.442 of 2007 is now at the stage of completion of trial and on the basis of alleged admissions made by the respondent in said OP, the petitioner herein filed three separate applications. IA No.149 of 2008 was filed seeking stay of monthly maintenance already awarded till disposal of IA No.693 of 2007. He also filed IA No.147 of 2008 to cancel the interim maintenance already ordered and another application IA No.148 of 2008 for refund of the amount so far received as interim maintenance by the respondent. The trial Court considered all the three applications and passed a detailed order in IA No.147 of 2008 and dismissed all the three applications, against which three revisions are preferred by the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who has contended that the respondent admits in her chief examination in OP that she is the standing counsel for BSNL and has filed large number of cases for that, annexure containing the list of cases filed by her, also produced. It is also stated that she is also the panel counsel for State Bank of India and getting substantial income, minimum of Rs.20,000/- P.M and consequently, interim maintenance earlier granted at the rate of Rs.5,000/- needs to be withdrawn and she is required to refund the amounts already received by her. I have seen the impugned order as well as the counter filed by the respondent before the Court below in which it is specifically alleged that BSNL has never paid Rs.20,000/- as alleged and if that much of money is received by the respondent, she would be very happy and the said amount is sufficient for her. She also claims that she does not have work everyday. In substance, she denies the allegation that she is getting substantial income. The said counter is not controverted by the petitioner by way of filing any reply nor there is any material to establish such huge income of the respondent as alleged. Being panel counsel for BSNL or SBI by itself does not guarantee substantial work and remuneration for a practising counsel. The assumptions of the petitioner are therefore based on no material and the Court below rightly refused to consider the petitioner’s application and prayer. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, accordingly, these revisions are dismissed. However, since OP No.442 of 2007 which is at the stage of cross examination of the respondent, it can be disposed of finally without further loss of time. The Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, therefore is requested to hear and dispose of the said OP positively before 31st December, 2010. __________________________ VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR,J rkk Dated: 16-11-2010