AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition is directed against the orders of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet dated 5-3-1999 passed in IA No.J65 of 1997 in OP No.27 of 1996 granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per month to the respondents herein pending the above OP filed by her for relief of divorce.
As caveat was filed in the matter, notice of the petition was given to the caveator for whom Mr. K. Venkat Reddy filed his appearance.
When the Revision Petition came up for admission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner pressed for interim suspension of the order under revision. Under these circumstances, both sides agreed that the CRP may be taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.
Heard both sides.
The principal contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri C. Ramachandra Raju is that the quantum of interim maintenance ordered by the learned Senior Civil Judge is not based on any material as to the income of the petitioner herein (respondent in the OP). The respondent herein claimed Rs.1,200/- per month as interim maintenance.
A perusal of the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge would show that he found a minimum of Rs.1,500/- per month would be required for the maintenance of the petitioner in view of the sky-rocketing of prices. As the Criminal Court already granted maintenance of Rs.300/- per month to the respondent wife, the learned Judge held that a sum of Rs.1,200/- per month may be granted in her favour.
The learned Counsel''s contention is that the order under revision does not disclose any reference to the means of the petitioner as well as the respondent. Thus, the order under revision is incomplete disregard of the statutory provisions u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act providing for maintenance pendente lite.
The learned Counsel for the respondent however contends that there is some material to show that the petitioner has sufficient income to pay maintenance ordered by the Court. It is not known what that material is as there is no reference to it in the order under revision. A reading of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act makes it abundantly clear that the quantum of maintenance pendent lite has to be determined by the Court having regard to the income of the petitioner and the respondent.
To that extent, as the order does not disclose that the learned Judge considered the quantum of income of the petitioner and respondent while ordering the maintenance to the respondent, the order under revision is bad, and accordingly it is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned senior Civil Judge for passing fresh orders after taking into consideration such material as may be placed before the Court by the petitioner and the respondent as to their respective incomes.
The Revision Petition is allowed with the above directions.