APHC010096942022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 660/2022 Between: 1.K.VENKOBA RAO, SON OF KV. SUBBA RAO, HINDU, AGED 36 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/O NARASAPURAM VILLAGE, RUDRAVARAM MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.SMT V MYTHREYI, wife of K. Venkoba Rao, C/o V. Venkata Rao, Rio. 7-1-120/2, Upstairs, Nehru street, Opp. Bharathi Vidya Mandiram, Allagadda. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to set aside the order dt.24.01.2022passed in I.A.No.103/2021 in H.M.O.P.No.51/2019on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, Kurnool District by disMissing the same and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in I.A.N0.103 of 2021 in H.M.O.P.N0.51/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Allagadda, during pendency of this revision in the circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice otherwise irreparable loss will be caused to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.K V VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1.V SESHA KUMARI The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.660 OF 2022 ORDER : 1. The Civil Revision petition is filed, aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2022 passed in IA.No.103 of 2021 in HMOP.No.51 of 2019 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda. The petitioner herein is the respondent in the said interlocutory application and was directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to the petitioner therein (respondent herein) from 12.02.2021. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein submits that on 07.04.2022, this Court granted stay subject to the petitioner paying monthly maintenance to the respondent at Rs.6,000/- per month and depositing arrears of maintenance, as ordered by the Court below, within a period of three months. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has no fixed income on account of his profession as an Advocate, and that the respondent cannot, as a matter of right, to claim maintenance as she is qualified and capable of securing employment. It is submitted that even as per the affidavit filed before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, the respondent herself stated that she was working as a Pharmacist in the Ayurvedic Department at Koyilakuntla from 12.09.2008. It is submitted that the respondent is now trying to rely on the maintenance to be paid by the petitioner without making any efforts to get employment. It is submitted that the petitioner places 3 reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttak passed in R.P.F.A.M.No.417 of 2023, whereby the learned Judge observed that the qualified woman cannot claim maintenance without making efforts to work. It is also observed that the social object behind the provision for grant of maintenance is only to ensure the social balance. Therefore, it is argued that the respondent’s failure to seek employment, despite being qualified and capable, ought not to be a ground for awarding maintenance. 4. It is also submitted that the respondent filed H.M.O.P No. 51 of 2019 in the year 2019, whereas the IA.No.103 of 2021 was filed after a lapse of two years, which, according to the petitioner, indicates that the application was filed only to harass him. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent is unable to maintain herself and is dependant on her parents and that she is living with them. It is further submitted that although the respondent sought maintenance of Rs.15,000/-, the Court below, upon consideration, partly allowed the application by directing the petitioner to pay Rs.8,000/- per month. 6. It is also submitted that the respondent was unable to sustain herself and that the maintenance granted by the Court is also not paid regularly by the petitioner. The said fact is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 4 7. Be that as it may, this Court finds no grounds to interfere in the well considered and well reasoned order. The Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is also not applicable to the present set of facts and circumstances. It is the responsibility of the petitioner to maintain his family, and the Court below has, upon a comprehensive consideration of he matter, awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as interim maintenance. 8. On these grounds, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well considered well reasoned order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda in IA.No.103 of 2021 in HMOP.No.51 of 2019. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, making it clear to the petitioner to pay all the arrears of maintenance, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 11.03.2026 KGM 5 217 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.660 OF 2022 Dated 11.03.2026 KGM