The court upheld that a spouse's financial independence can nullify their claim for interim maintenance, while children's maintenance is affirmed based on their dependency.

ORDER :

P. SREE SUDHA, J.

The revision petition is filed against the decree and order dated 27.06.2013 passed in I.A.No.918 of 2010 in O.P.No.1503 of 2010 by the Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

2. An application is filed by the petitioner against the respondent before the trial Court under Section 94(e) and Section 151 of CPC, Section 1908 R/w. Order 39, Rule 1 and Sections 20 and 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 R/w. Section 24 of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1995 to direct the respondent to pay to the petitioner and to the children interim maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) per month pending disposal of the O.P aside from salaries of the staff employed for the matrimonial house as at present paying them as is done at present.

3. Parties herein referred as petitioner-wife, respondent- husband as arrayed in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

4. It is contended by the petitioner that marriage of petitioner and respondent was performed on 01.01.2000 and they are blessed with two daughters on 02.03.2001 and 29.04.2002. It is further contended by the petitioner that she is daughter of Late Dr.Kishore Taggarse and Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha Taggarse and also stated that she belongs to a well educated and an affluent family and was brought up at their home in Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. She stated that she went to study in Bangalore and was a top ranking student in the University, won national level awards and was selected to represent India twice in moot Court competitions and sponsored by the Government of Karnataka, she was admitted in Oxford University on a total scholarship base and she has also been invited as Judge, Moot Court competitions in National Law School at Bangalore, NALSAR at Hyderabad and for the Bar Council of India Moot Court Competitions. She further stated that she began to practice law in Hyderabad in 1991 and also a practicing lawyer with a standing of 19 years and also stated that she represented many of the reputed clients and enclosed the list.

5. It is further contended by the petitioner that respondent is a businessman and he was Managing Director of Krishna Godavari Power Utilities Limited (KGPUL) and also stated that respondent is the Director of a software company and Mining company as well but she did not know about the details of business as he refused to share the information from the beginning. Petitioner further stated that she was managing the house with her earnings. It was further contended by the petitioner that father of the respondent is a retired bureaucrat and business of the respondent is joint family business but no salary was paid to the respondent for around seven (07) years from the date of the marriage but respondent is the major stock owner having 80% share of the company in his name and also stated that father of the respondent is “Karta” of the joint family. It was further contended by the petitioner that when she intended to live separately respondent alleged that she was characterless and further stated that petitioner was possessive and had low self-esteem and leading her to emotional, financial, physical abuse and neglected herself and her children and petitioner has also explained about the incident happened in April, 2006 and further stated that to trouble her and to make her inconvenient she was forced to attend the works of maid in her in-laws house by removing the maid in their house. She further contended that respondent was habituated to drinking and smoking before the marriage but he quit the habits from the year 2000 till about 2003-2004. Petitioner stated that in August, 2010, the respondent informed the petitioner through an Advocate that he has sold the said land and house to his father and also gifted the said property on 30.03.2000 and the said gift deed is a sham document. She stated that respondent signed personal securities as a Director of the Company and also stated that she is in fear that if due to the mismanage