ITIONAL DISTRICT and SESSIONS JUDGE AT KARIMNAGAR Counsel for the v. Durga Nageswara Rao

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all the proceedings ln |.A.NO. 595 OF 2024 in FCOP NO. 16 OF 2O24 on the file of the lN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM ADDITIONAL DISTRICT and SESSIONS JUDGE AT KARIMNAGAR Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. V. Durga Nageswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent : Sri. Gaddam Srinivas The Court made the following : ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN Cll REVISION PEIITION No.39O8 of2O24 ORDER: Heard Sri Durga Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 222 of the Constitution of India, challenging the attachment order, dated L8.1O.2024 in I.A.No.595 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.16 of 2O24 passed by the learned Judge Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Karimnagar

3. Petitioner is the husband and respondent is his wife. He has filed the aforesaid F.C.O.P.No.I6 of 2024 against the respondent-wife seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelt5r.

4. During pendency of the said O.p., respondent had filed an interlocutory application i.e., I.A.No.S95 of 2024 KL,J C.R.P-No.3908 of2O24 2 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking pendente lite/interim maintenance of Rs. 15,0O0/- per month and also legal expenses to her. Vide impugned order, dated 18. IO.2O24,learned Family Court awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards interim maintenance pendent lite every monttr to her from the date of hling of the petition i.e.,21.03.2024 tlll the disposal of the F.C.o.P.No.I6 of 2024. Learned Family Court also directed the petitioner to deposit the monthly maintenance pendente lite/ interim maintenance on or before Sth of every succeeding month preferably by way of depositing into the bank account of the respondent-wife. l,earned Family Court also directed the respondent herein to file a memo grving particulars of her bank account to enable the petitioner herein to deposit monthly maintenance pendent lite amount into her bank account. Two months time was granted to the petitioner herein to pay the arrears of monthly maintenance. KL;J C.R.P No.39O8 of 2024 3

5. Challenging the same, petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition contending that he has two children i.e., one son and one daughter. Petitioner performed the daughter's marriage. Respondent had frled a maintenance case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. vide M.C.No.34 of 2024 seeking maintenance and the same is pending. She has also hled D.V.C.No.29 of 2024 seeking several reliefs against the petitioner herein including interim maintenance and the same is also pending. Therefore, the respondent cannot pursue parallel remedies. He would further submit that respondent is also working and she is in a position to maintain herself. Considering the same, Iearned Family Court awarded an amount of Rs. 1O,O0O/- to respondent towards monthly marntenance

6. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, instructions, would submit that respondent will not press for interim maintenance in KL,J C.R.P.No.39O8 oJ 2O24 4 \ M.C.No.34 of 2024 and D.V.C.No.29 of 2024 tlll disposal of the F.C.O.P.No.16 of 2024. She is not working and she is not in a position to maintain herself.

7. There is no dispute with regard to the pendency of the aforesaid F.C.O.P.No. i6 of 2024. During the pendency of the said F.C.O.P., respondent had frled the aforesaid I.A.No.595 of 2024 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking maintenance. On consideration of the paylng capacit5r of the petitioner, his income and other aspects, vide the aforesaid order, learned Family Ccurt awarded the aforesaid amount to respondent. In the cause title itself, it is mentioned that he is a private employee. Even then, he has not furnished the particulars of his salary including salary certificate either before the Family Court or before this Court. Though the petitioner contended that respondent is also working, he has not filed the details of the emplo5rment particulars of respondent including her salary. He has not taken any steps in F.C.C.P No. 16 of 2024 calling for KL'J C R.P.No.39O8 of 2O24 5 the emploSrment pa-rticulars from the employer of the respondent.

8. On the other hand, it is specifically contended by the respondent that she has not working. Therefore, burden lies on the petitioner to prove the said fact and the petitioner failed to prove the same. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent is only house wife and she is not in a position to maintain herself.

9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that respondent is seeking interim/pendente interest under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955. During pendency of F.C.O.P.No.16 of 2024, she has hled a maintenance case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C vide M.C.No.34 of 2024 seeking permanent maintenance. She has filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2OO5 vide D.V.C.No.29 of 2024 seekins various reliefs. KL,J C.R.P.No.39OB of 2024 6 1(). It is relevant to note that the respondent has filed the additional alfrdavit on 18.03.2025 specifically contending that she is claiming meager quantum of maintenance in M.C.No.34 of 2024 and D.V.C.No.29 of 2024 tlll disposal of F.C.O.P.No.\6 of 2024.

11. In the light of the said submission, this Revision is dismissed confrrming the order, dated 18. lO.2O24 passed by the learned trial Court in I.A.No.595 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.16 of 2024 before the learned Judge Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. However, respondent shall not press for interim maintenance in M.C.No.34 of 2024 and D.V.C.No.29 of 2024. Subject to the result of F.C.O.P.No.16 of 2024, liberty 1S granted to the respondent to take steps to seek relief in M.C.No.34 of 2024 and D.V.C.No.29 of 2024. L2. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that though the Family Court directed the petitioner to pay the said amount from the date of i- I KL,J C.R.P.No.3908 of 2O24 7 petition within two (21 months, he has not paid. Therefore, liberty is granted to respondent to take steps in accordance with law. No costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A. PRATHIMA DEPUW REGISTRAR secr$Porrrcen To, DISTRICT and SESSIONS JUDGE, AT KARIMNAGAR 1, THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUTVI IV ADDITIONAL 2. One CC to Sri. V. Durga Nageswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Gaddam Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies. (p. JS/gh /l I \ i-i n 514 t 3 0 JUt 2t6 /).-- (' { ) t_) i ,> HIGH COURT DATED i 2110312025 ORDER CRP.No.3908 of 2024 THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED A- >\ 4