Telangana High Court
CRP/5044/2014 of Loya Veera Venkata Govinda Rajulu Vs Loya Padmaja on 31 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5044 OF 2014 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the respondent in I.A.No.1623 of 2012 in O.S.No.455 of 2012 aggrieved by the order, dated 04.07.2013, passed by the
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDYCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5044 OF 2014
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of theConstitution of India, is filed by the respondent inI.A.No.1623 of 2012 in O.S.No.455 of 2012 aggrieved bythe order, dated 04.07.2013, passed by the learnedPrincipal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, in the said I.A.
The respondent – wife has filed the aforesaid I.A.claiming maintenance at Rs.5,000/- per month against thepetitioner – husband. The trial Court, by impugned order,dated 04.07.2013, has allowed the I.A. granting anamount of Rs.1,500/- per month as interim maintenance inaddition to the amount of Rs.500/- per month granted inM.C.No.7 of 1991 by the learned Additional JudicialMagistrate of First Class, Gudivada.
In this revision petition, it is submitted by the learnedcounsel for petitioner that as the respondent is having herown properties and as the petitioner has to maintain hisfather, the interim maintenance granted by the trial Courtis erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, Ihave perused the order under challenge.
In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., it is theallegation of the respondent that the petitioner is drawingan amount of Rs.20,000/- per month by working as aDriver in A.P.S.R.T.C. at Jaggaiahpet, whereas it is thecase of the petitioner that he is getting only Rs.13,000/-per month, after deductions and he is not having anyother properties. From a perusal of the impugned order, itis clear that on a petition filed by the respondent inM.C.No.7 of 1991, the learned Additional JudicialMagistrate of First Class, Gudivada, has ordered forpayment of Rs.500/- per month as maintenance to therespondent.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner is working as aDriver in A.P.S.R.T.C. and according to him, he is drawingan amount of Rs.13,000/- per month, after deductions.Though it is the case of the petitioner that the respondentis having her own properties, no material is placed onrecord to prove the same. In the absence of any suchmaterial and having regard to the admitted income of thepetitioner through his employment as a Driver inA.P.S.R.T.C., this Court is of the view that the impugnedorder granting Rs.1,500/- per month in addition to Rs.500/-per month as interim maintenance to the respondent isjust and reasonable and does not call for any interferencein this revision petition filed under Article 227 of theConstitution of India.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.However, as the Suit is of the year 2012, learned PrincipalSenior Civil Judge, Gudivada, is directed to dispose of theSuit as expeditiously as possible, by avoidingunnecessary adjournments.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in thisrevision petition shall stand closed. No costs.
______________________
R.SUBHASH
REDDY, J
31[st] December, 2014MD