MEKA PRAKASH Vs. MEKA DEEPA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 28.03.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy in I.A. No. 306 of 2010 in O.P. No. 17 of 2010. I have heard Sri B.Laxman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ch. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents.

(2.) The revision petitioner-husband filed the main O.P against the first respondent-wife for dissolution of marriage. The first respondent-wife and second respondent who is her minor son, aged 8 years filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for interim maintenance and litigation expenses pending disposal of the main O.P. The learned Senior Civil Judge after making an enquiry into the application, granted interim maintenance to the first respondent-wife at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month and to the second respondent-son at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month and also granted litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-.

(3.) The relationship of the parties is admitted. It is also an admitted fact that the revision petitioner is working as Branch Manager in State Bank of Hyderabad, Nizamsagar Branch, Hyderabad. In her application, the first respondent claimed maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month for her and Rs. 5,000/- per month for her minor son-second respondent. She pleaded in her petition that the revision petitioner, who is working as Branch Manager in the State Bank of Hyderabad is getting monthly salary of Rs. 40,000/- besides doing finance business and getting rents of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The revision petitioner contended that he is not drawing monthly salary of Rs. 40,000/- and that he is also not doing any finance business and getting no income towards any rents. His version is that except the salary, he has no source of income. He also contended that the first respondent is working as a teacher in a private school and getting salary of Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month which is sufficient for her to maintain herself and also to maintain the second respondent. But, the revision petitioner did not adduce any evidence in proof of the fact that the first respondent-wife is working as a teacher in a private school and getting salary of Rs. 5,000/-. Further, he also did not file his salary certificate to prove that his salary is not Rs. 40,000/- as pleaded by the respondents.