- (1.) IN this Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner questions the order of the learned Subordinate Judge at Machilipatnam in LA. No. 564 of 1985 in O. P. No. 127 of 1984 dated 12-3-1991.
(2.) THE petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The respondent filed the said O. P. No. 127 of 1984 for restitution of conjugal rights and the petitioner herein filed LA. No. 564 of 1985 for interim maintenance and expenses to prosecute and defend, in the said O. P. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the said LA. granting the petitioner herein maintenance at Rs. 150/per month instead of Rs. 200/- per month as claimed by her and also Rs. 500/- towards legal expenses. The learned Subordinate Judge granted to said interim maintenance only from 1-12-1990, even though the said LA. was filed in February, 1985. In this C. R. P. , the petitioner contends that she is entitled to grant of interim maintenance from the date of the filing of the I. A. i. e. , from February, 1985. She also contends that she is entitled to interim maintenance at Rs. 200/- per month.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the said O. P. was dismissed for default on 28-6-1991 and that therefore the C. R. P. has become infructuous inasmuch as there cannot be any claim for interim maintenance, once the main O. P. itself is no longer pending. He relies on the judgment of Justice Radhakrishna Rao in "donti Reddy Chinna Venkat Reddy v. Donti Reddy Vijaya Laxmi, 1990 (1) An. W. R. 374 wherein the Learned Judge, in very short order held as follows : "the O. P. was filed by the husband for dissolution of marriage. An interim order was passed in the O. P. granting maintenance. But the interim order has not yet been implemented. Subsequently, the O. P. was dismissed without any direction. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the order passed in the LA. pending disposal of the O. P. will be valid after the dismissal of the O. P. ? If the maintenance order has been passed in the O. P. itself while dismissing the O. P. , the wife would be entitled to execute the same. The moment the main O. P. is dismissed; the interim order passed in I. A. during the pendency of the O. P. will lose its effect. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that after the disposal of the O. P. the interim order in I. A. need not be implemented as the order has lost its effect is correct. ";