The Single Judge dismissed the review petition seeking to restore interim maintenance. The court held that pending merits cases must be finalized below and no relief was inclined under those circumstances, granting liberty for future remedies.
I.A No 3 of 2023 dismissed with liberty to petitioner to avail other remedies.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: C.R.P.No.1006 of 2023
PROCEEDING SHEET
| Sl. No. |
DATE | ORDER | OFFICE NOTE |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07.03.2025 | DR.KMR,J I.A.No.3 of 2023 I.A.No.3 of 2023 has been filed by the petitioner to review the order dated 08.08.2023 in C.R.P.No.1006 of 2023. |
||
| 2. Heard Mr.P.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.P.Laxmi Priyanvita, learned counsel for the respondents. |
|||
| 3. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court ought to have consider that the petitioner is working in Zomato as delivery boy and he is getting commission of Rs.200 to 300 per day and the Court below without taking into consideration the income of the petitioner, allowed interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/-. This Court modified the order passed by the Court below and this Court reduced to Rs.24,000/- from Rs.30,000/- in the present civil revision petition instead of allowing the present civil revision petition without considering the submissions of the petitioner. He |
2
| further submits that this Court ought to have consider that the 1strespondent is doing a job in |
|---|
| SBI Life Insurance and she is getting income by way of commission of Rs.40,000/- per month and also, she is occupying petitioner’s house as well |
| as entire agricultural land and she is getting |
| rental income and agricultural income. He further submits that the 1strespondent is having earning capacity and also, she is getting income monthly |
| and also she is not entitled to seek interim |
| maintenance. 4. To support his contentions, learned |
| counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a |
| decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Anu Kaul vs. Rajeev Kaul1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex court held that : “A sermon on moral responsibility and ethics, in our opinion for disposing of this appeal may not be necessary, since the respondent has not disputed the assertion of the appellant. However, since the appellant is employed and is drawing a salary of Rs.9,000/- per month, we do not intend to enhance the interim maintenance awarded to her by the High Court during the pendency of the appeal filed by the husband.” |
| 5. To support his contentions, learned |
| counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon |
| a decision of Karnataka High Court reported in Dr.Shanthi vs. Dr.H.K.Vasudev2, wherein it was stated as follows: |
1 (2009) 13 SCC 209
2 AIR 2005 Kant 417
3
| “When the petitioner is capable of earning and having required qualification and that when she was working as a doctor prior to marriage, there cannot be any difficulty for her to continue the same profession.” 6. To support his contentions, lear |
ned |
|---|---|
| counsel for the petitioner has further relia | nce |
| upon the decision of the Madras High C | ourt |
| reported in**Manokaram @ Ramamoorthy** | vs. |
| M.Devaki3, wherein it was held as follows: | |
| “In the light of the materials available, particularly the admitted case of the respondent/wife, she is employed in a private Satelite T.V. and earning for her livelihood staying with her brother, it cannot be construed that she is not having sufficient independent income.” Therefore, learned counsel for |
the |
| petitioner while relying upon the ab |
ove |
| judgments, prays to review the order of this C | ourt |
| dated 08.08.2023 in C.R.P.No.1006 of 2023. | |
| 7. Per Contra, learned counsel for |
the |
| respondents vehemently opposed for grant | of |
| any relief in this petition and submits that | the |
| petitioner has sufficient means to maintain | the |
| wife and children. The 1strespondent initi | ally |
| worked as an SBI Life Insurance Commiss | ion |
| Agent and getting Rs.8,000/- per month, | at |
| present she is unemployed and is having | no |
| income. Whereas the petitioner herein |
is |
| maintaining a Car Maruti Tourist vehicle and | he |
3 AIR 2003 Mad 212
4
| had immovable properties evidencing Registered |
|---|
| Sale Deeds dated 11.08.2021 and 14.08.2021 |
| and maintaining a luxurious life by abandoned the wife and children. She further submits that |
| this Court has reduced the interim maintenance |
| to Rs.24,000/- from Rs.30,000/- as an interim measure. Therefore, learned counsel for the |
| respondents prays to dismiss this applicaton. 8. On hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that, as there are other cases pending between each |
| other before the Courts below and they have to be finalized on merits, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief in the present application. 9. In view of the above discussion, this |
| Court found no merit in the instant application and liable to be dismissed. |
| 10. Accordingly, the I.A.No.3 of 2023 is |
| dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail the remedy available to him in accordance with law. |
| __________ DR.KMR, J BMS |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant review of the modified order on interim maintenance passed in the civil revision petition.
Whether the petitioner's argument regarding the wife's earning capacity justifies restoring the earlier maintenance order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anu Kaul vs. Rajeev KaulReferred¶4
Anu Kaul vs. Rajeev Kaul
Dr.Shanthi vs. Dr.H.K.VasudevReferred¶5
Dr.Shanthi vs. Dr.H.K.Vasudev
Manokaram @ Ramamoorthy vs. M.DevakiReferred¶10
Manokaram @ Ramamoorthy vs. M.Devaki
Petitioner (Husband)
1st Respondent (Wife)
Other Respondents
DR KMR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
