of the house and there is also an injunction order in her favour that her possession shall not be disturbed. Her maintenance case in M.C. No.4 of 2005 was dismissed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad for non-prosecution is admitted. It is also borne out by record that in C.C. No.499 of 2005 she was convicted and paid an amount of Rs.500/- towards fine. For the house in which she is residing the monthly power supply charges and necessities are being paid by the 1st respondent/husband is admitted by her in the civil suit. Though she is a private teacher, she did not file her salary certificate to show her income. She did not also file any document to show that she had discontinued her services as a private teacher. Therefore, in a civil suit, which was decided on merits, when no maintenance was awarded to the wife, it is not just and fair to award maintenance in a proceedings for interim maintenance where no oral or documentary evidence was adduced, more particularly, when the main case is pending consideration since 2007. Having gone through the concurrent findings in the orders of the Courts below, this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, finds that impugned order brooks no interference and that there is no merit in the revision and that the revision is liable to be dismissed.
