HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.NO. 5002 OF 2008 AND C.R.P. NO. 1611 OF 2010 Thursday, the Twentieth day of January, Two Thousand and Eleven Between B.Sudhakar Petitioner in both the C.R.Ps. AND Bandaru (Gadi) Krishnaveni Respondent in both the C.R.Ps. COMMON ORDER: In both these petitions, petitioner is husband of the respondent. The respondent filed O.P. No.945 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and under Sec. 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking past, present and future maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month and also return of the dowry amount and other articles. Pending disposal of the said O.P., the respondent also filed IA No. 110 of 2008 in the said OP No. 945 of 2007 seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month and for the legal expenses of Rs.5,000/-. The learned Judge, Family Court, after hearing both sides and after perusing the counter filed by the petitioner herein, by order dated 23.9.2008 allowed the application granting interim maintenance of Rs.2,500/- from the date of filing of the petition and also granted a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards legal expenses. The husband was directed to pay arrears of maintenance before 13.10.2008 and further directed to pay the monthly maintenance on or before 10th of every succeeding month. Aggrieved by the said order dated 23.9.2008 in I.A. No. 110 of 2008, Civil Revision Petition No. 1611 of 2010 is filed. As the said order dated 23.9.2008 was not complied by paying the interim maintenance, docket order dated 13.10.2008 was passed issuing non-bailable warrant against the husband. Aggrieved by the said docket order dated 13.10.2008, Civil Revision Petition No. 5002 of 2008 is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grant of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- is without any basis and without any proof of earnings. It is further stated that the petitioner has lost his job and he has joined a profession course and, as such, he is not in a position to pay the interim maintenance. He further submits that in fact the respondent wife is earning and she is in a position to maintain herself. The said contentions have been considered by the learned Judge while passing the said order dated 23.9.2008 granting interim maintenance. The learned Judge rejected the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the husband that he has not filed any proof or evidence with regard to the averment that the hotel in which he was working i.e. Urvasi Inn and was getting Rs.20,000/- per month, was demolished, and he has not established that he is not doing job in any other hotel. It is further observed that the petitioner has not placed any evidence with regard to earnings of his wife. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for the first time submits that the petitioner is studying LL.B. After passing the interim order of maintenance, he has obtained the Study Certificate on 27.10.2008. Merely because he has obtained Study Certificate, it cannot be said that he is not working anywhere. Therefore, I do not see any legal infirmity warranting interference in the said order granting interim maintenance. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition No. 1611 of 2010 is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Insofar as the Civil Revision Petition No. 5002 of 2008 is concerned, it is stated that the order granting interim maintenance dated 23.9.2008 is not complied with. It is always open for the respondent wife to execute the said order in accordance with law. But after disposal of the said I.A. No. 110 of 2008 in OP No. 945 of 2007, issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant against the husband for non- compliance cannot be justified. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Docket Order 13.10.2008 is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. It is always open for the respondent wife to execute the said order dated 23.9.2008 in I.A. No. 110 of 2008 in OP No. 945 of 2007 in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah January 20, 2011 MAS