The court dismissed the husband's revision petition challenging the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/month awarded to the wife. The court refused to accept evidence of salary loss produced across the bar and found no reason to alter the lower court's quantum.
Revision dismissed with costs; lower court directed to dispose of main petition expeditiously.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3856 of 2010
ORDER:
Instead of passing further orders on the stay petition, I propose to dispose of the main revision petition because both the parties have addressed arguments on merits.
This revision petition is filed by the husband questioning award of interim maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs,10,000/- per month in I.A.No.835 of 2007 in O.P. 326 of 2007 on the file of Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad.
The wife filed main F.C.O.P. in the lower Court seeking maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 against her husband. There is no dispute on relationship of husband and wife between the parties. There is also no dispute that both the parties are living separately since prior to filing of the petition in the lower Court. Pending decision in main F.C.O.P, the wife filed the present petition in the lower Court in the year 2007 for interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month and legal expenses of Rs.40,000/-. The lower Court passed the impugned order granting interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month; and no legal expenses are awarded to the wife by the lower court. There is no dispute that by the time of filing of interim maintenance application, the husband was working in M/s. Tomax India Software Private Limited as senior software developer. As per the salary slip produced by the wife, her husband was drawing Rs.29,000/- per month in that capacity. Basing on the said material, the lower Court awarded interim maintenance at that rate. Even though the husband contended before the lower Court that his services were terminated in the year 2008, he did not produce any document in the lower Court. The revision petitioner’s counsel intended to place a certificate before this Court across the bar for the first time to show that the husband was relieved from M/s. Tomex India Software Private
Limited on 30.09.2008. This Court cannot rely upon a document produced across the bar. It should have been filed in the lower Court during hearing of the interim maintenance application. Even now the husband will be at liberty to file the original certificate before the lower Court during trial of F.C.O.P. and prove the same as per law by examining the person who issued the said Certificate. Though it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner has no job as on today, it cannot be believed. In any event, the petitioner has got potentiality to earn and maintain his wife and to pay interim maintenance of Rs10,000/- per month. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to set aside the impugned order passed by the lower Court or to reduce quantum of interim maintenance granted by the lower Court.
In the result, the revision petition is dismissed with costs. Since the matter before the lower Court is of the year 2007, the lower Court may dispose of the main petition as expeditiously as possible.
______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J
08.12.2010 lvl
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
C.R.P.No.3856 of 2010
Dt.08.12.2010
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the interim maintenance awarded by the lower court at Rs.10,000/- per month should be reduced considering the petitioner's alleged loss of employment.
Whether a certificate produced across the bar for the first time regarding the petitioner's employment termination can be considered.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
HUSBAND
WIFE
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
