Allowed

Sri v. Venkateswar Rao v Smt. v Venkata Vasaatha Lakshmi

Telangana HC12 Mar 2010CRP/4892/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a civil revision petition under Article 227, examined a challenge to an interim maintenance and rent order. The Court found it reasonable to modify the amounts to Rs. 2,000 per month for maintenance and Rs. 1,500 per month for rent, considering the petitioner's earning capacity and the respondent's needs.

What did the court decide?

The interim maintenance order was modified to Rs. 2,000 per month and rent to Rs. 1,500 per month; the petitioner is liable to pay from the date of the petition till March 2009.

Sri v. Venkateswar Rao Vs Smt. v. Venkata Vasaatha… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4892 OF 2008

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri V. Venkateshwar Rao

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Smt. V. Venkata Vasantha Lakshmi

¶11

....RESPONDENT

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶14

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4892 OF 2008

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 18.07.2008, in I.A.No.186 of 2008 in F.C.O.P.No.957 of 2006 on the file of the Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petitioner herein was directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month towards interim maintenance and Rs.2,000/- per month towards rent to the

¶17

respondent herein.

¶18

2. Petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent.

¶19

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein contended that the petitioner is working as salesman in a Jewellery shop and earning only Rs.5,000/- per month; that awarding Rs.3,000/- per month towards maintenance and Rs.2,000/- per month towards rent is beyond the income of the petitioner and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶20

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent herein contended that the petitioner is working as a salesman in Meena Jewellers, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

¶21

5. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the respondent herein was residing separately. It is not in dispute that the main O.P. was dismissed on 24.03.2009. The point which is to be determined in this petition is with regard to the interim maintenance from the date of petition till March, 2009. According to the respondent/wife, petitioner/husband is working in a Jewellery shop and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. Where as the contention of the petitioner/husband is that he is earning only Rs.5,000/- per month and hence, the award granted by the trial Court in I.A.No.186 of 2008 in F.C.O.P.No.957 of 2006 towards maintenance and rent is exorbitant. At this stage, there is no material filed by the respondent to show that the petitioner is earning Rs.15,000/- per month. But for a wife to live in a society, where the prices are escalating day by day, at least a minimum amount of Rs.2,000/- per month is required for maintenance and similarly, she requires at least Rs.1,500/- per month towards rent, to reside in a house. Therefore, considering the facts and

¶22

circumstances of the case, an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month towards maintenance and Rs.1,500/- per month towards rent can be said to be reasonable amount. Hence, the order of trial Court is modified to the extent indicated above. However, it is made clear that the petitioner herein is liable to pay the said amount from the date of petition till March, 2009. It seems that in pursuance of the interim direction of this Court, the petitioner has already deposited the arrears amount. Therefore, after deducting the deposited arrears amount, the remaining amount, if any, shall be paid to the respondent within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which the respondent herein can recover the same through process of Court.

¶23

6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

_______________ K.C. BHANU, J

¶25

March 12, 2010

¶26

Note: Issue C.C. of the order within two days. B/O.MD/YVL

Sri v. Venkateswar Rao v Smt. v Venkata Vasaatha Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Venkateswar Rao v Smt. v Venkata Vasaatha Lakshmi

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

B.Rajender Vs Santhoshi Devi

Bobbili Kondababu Vs Alla Lakshmi

Gudavalli Sivarama Krishna Vs Koneru Rma Thulasamma

The E.S.I.Corporation, Vs Usha Kiran Movies 1-10-76

Papireddy Ravindra Reddy Vs Nagalapuram Adisesha Reddy

P. Ashok Kumar Vs Smt. Maisamma