HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4222 OF 2010 Between: Nalli Venkata Kumar … Petitioner And Nalli Asha Latha and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4222 OF 2010 ORDER:- This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is filed to revise the order of the interim maintenance granted to the respondents by I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada in I.A.No.1336 of 2009 in O.S.No.797 of 2009, dated 28.06.2010. The 1st and 2nd Respondents, who are the wife and the minor son respectively of the petitioner, filed the above suit for maintenance against the petitioner seeking maintenance. Pending the suit, the 1st respondent filed the above I.A. seeking interim maintenance of Rs.14,000/- per month. It is not disputed that the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent took place on 09.11.1997 and out of the wedlock, the 2nd respondent born to them and he is a minor studying 7th class at Bhashyam Public School, Kakinada. The petitioner is working as Radiologist in the Government General Hospital, Kakinada and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.34,000/-. It is submitted by the respondents that apart from the salary, petitioner is also earning an income of Rs.40,000/- per month by running a scanning center and Rs.50,000/- from other sources. Suspecting the fidelity of the 1st respondent, petitioner started harassing her and drove the respondents away from the marital home and they have no capacity to maintain themselves. Hence, she prays to award Rs.14,000/- per month towards maintenance. Petitioner filed the counter denying the ill treatment and driving the respondents away from the house. At the age of 15 years, the 1st respondent’s marriage was performed with him at the instigation of her mother at Annavaram. She developed recklessness and carelessness towards him and failed to take care of the 2nd respondent’s health and education. She is in the habit of going with her boy friends for days together leaving the 2nd respondent at her parents place. She is leading adulterous life. She is running a scanning center under the name and style of Kakinada Scanning Center and she let out the same on 01.08.2009 for a period of two years for a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- under registered lease deed, dated 05.08.2009. Petitioner is nothing to do with her scanning center, which was started by him on her name. She is an income tax assessee and having bank accounts with sufficient balance. She is also having fixed deposits in Nationalized Banks, financial institutions through out the District and she is earning Rs.1,40,000/- from the scanning center and Rs.10,000/- per month on lending business. She also purchased two plots from R.K.C. Developers, Rajahmundry and paying Rs.5,000/- per month out of the salary of the petitioner. He is not having any properties as alleged by the 1st respondent. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the respondents, but Exs.B1 to B9 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. The trial court after considering the evidence on record, awarded interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the 1st respondent and Rs.3,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent towards monthly maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 1st respondent is an income tax assessee and having bank balances in her name, as such, she is not entitled to any maintenance. The trial court on considering Exs.B1 to B9 filed by the petitioner in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of the impugned order held that the petitioner and the respondents are living separately since 07.11.2009, whereas Exs.B-1, B-3 and B-8, dated 11.08.2009, 27.07.2009 and 03.02.1997 respectively, pertain to the period when the respondents were living with the petitioner. The bank accounts of the 1st respondent were opened when they were living together and they are being operated by the power of attorney holder of the 1st respondent, probably the petitioner herein and it is evident from the extracts of the statement filed into the Court as on that date. There is no proof for receipt of rents by the 1st respondent in pursuance of Ex.B1 certified copy of the lease agreement from the lessee and also other sources as alleged by the petitioner. The 2nd respondent is a minor, studying in 7th class and living with the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has no employment. The petitioner is a doctor and even as per his own saying, his monthly salary is Rs.21,000/- and the 1st respondent is not having house of her own at Kakinada. Taking all these facts into consideration, the trial court awarded interim maintenance as referred supra. As the petitioner failed to establish that the 1st respondent is receiving any rents under the lease agreement and no explanation is offered by the petitioner that Exs.B5 and B6 documents are not being operated by him and though the payment under Ex.B3 has been made by the 1st respondent as per the document, the discretion exercised by the trial court in awarding the maintenance to the respondents is not excessive compared to the living standards of the petitioner. When the transactions under Exs.B1 and B3 were being made and looked after by the petitioner in the name of the 1st respondent when they were living together; and the bank accounts were being opened and operated by the petitioner under Exs.B5 and B6; and also filing income tax returns under Ex.B-4 in the name of the 1st respondent even after their separation, it is unimaginable to attribute adulterous life to the 1st respondent. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court do not find any error in the discretion exercised by the trial court warranting interference by this court. Hence the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 24th September 2010 lmv