Dismissed

P.Bhooma Rao v. Smt.P.Varsha

Telangana HC19 Apr 2010CRP/1147/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a revision petition challenging an order granting interim maintenance to the wife and daughter under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court held that the perspective petitioner has income, the family needs support during divorce proceedings, and the lower court did not err in allowing maintenance.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed. No order as to costs.

P.Bhooma Rao Vs Smt.P.Varsha — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

C.R.P. No.1147 of 2010

Between:

P.Bhooma Rao

Petitioner

And

Smt.P.Varsha and another

¶11

Respondents

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶13

C.R.P. No.1147 of 2010

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This revision petition has been filed assailing the order dated 04.11.2009 passed in I.A. No.148 of 2009 in O.P. No.5 of 2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

¶16

The revision petitioner is the husband and the respondents 1 and 2 are the wife and daughter of the revision petitioner, respectively.

¶17

The case of the revision petitioner, in brief, is that his wife filed I.A. No.148 of 2009 in O.P. No.5 of 2009 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to grant interim maintenance and the Court below allowed the said petition directing him to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.700/- to his wife and Rs.300/- to his daughter, from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred the present revision petition.

¶18

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Court below committed an error directing the revision petitioner to pay interim maintenance and it did not properly appreciate the facts of the case. He also submitted that the respondent/wife is an educated having qualifications with

¶19

B.A., B.Ed., and she is working as a Teacher in Sri Vani Vidhya Niketan at Jannepally Village, Mandal Navipet, Nizamabad District. Therefore, she can maintain herself and her daughter without any amount from the revision petitioner. Hence, he requested this Court to allow the revision petition by setting aside the impugner order.

¶20

From a perusal of the record, there is no dispute that the revision petitioner and the 1^st respondent are the legally wedded husband and wife. Initially, the revision petitioner filed a petition for divorce and the same is pending. Pending the said divorce petition, the wife filed a petition seeking interim maintenance stating that the revision petitioner neglected and refused to maintain her and their daughter and they are suffering very lot.

¶21

It is also averred that the revision petitioner is working in a private organization and drawing salary of Rs.10,000/-

¶22

per month apart from the above, he is doing real estate business and finance business and he also getting rents.

¶23

Though the revision petitioner filed counter in I.A. No.148 of 2009, while denying the averments of his wife, he did not specifically deny the source of income, moreover, in the instant case he himself admitted that he is earning Rs.3,900/- per month. It is also necessary to be noted here that though the wife alleged that her husband is earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- apart from other source of income, she did not adduce and evidence to that extent. Further, in the affidavit, filed in support of the petition in I.A. No.148 of 2009, she categorically mentioned that she is not working anywhere in any capacity and not earning any amount to maintain herself and her child. Therefore, I am of the view that the Court below did not commit any error in passing the impugned order.

¶24

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, it is the duty of the revision

¶25

petitioner to maintain his family and during the pendency of the divorce petition, the Court below had rightly justified in granting interim maintenance under the impugned order.

¶26

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

_________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 19.04.2010. LSK

P.Bhooma Rao v. Smt.P.Varsha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Bhooma Rao v. Smt.P.Varsha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ramkishan Rao Pawar Vs Ekachakra Hire Purchase and Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Army Major Mrs.Lata Kakkar Vs Secty Mins of Defence N.Delhi

Mulakaledu Anwar Basha, Vs The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

Madanam Yellaiah, Vs The Andhra Prdesh State Road Transport Corporation

G.Gangadhar Vs The Labour Court - Ii.

Shaik Ahamed Basha, Vs The Tahsildar, Nellore