B.Rakesh Nanada, v. Smt. Jyothi Priya

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.7373 of 2017 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner before admission and before issuing notice to the respondent and perused the material on record.

2.

Undisputedly, the petitioner-husband did not dispute the factum pleaded by the respondent-wife of doing catering business, much less by stating what is his income. As rightly pointed out by the impugned order of the lower Court, dated 17.11.2017, in I.A.No.1075 of 2017, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in the pending O.P.No.913 of 2015, by the learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, for his say that she is still working, there is no proof filed, much less named any company, it is rightly observed that the fact that earlier prior to her marriage she was working in a private company, does not mean she is continuing when it is her specific case of she has no avocation and is at the mercy of her parents. Having regard to the above, there is nothing to interfere with the quantum. 3.

Accordingly and in the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed and the lower Court is directed to give preferential disposal of O.P.No.913 of 2015.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

____________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J 28th December 2017.

mar