ORDER : 1. Heard Sri. C.V.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Khaja Vizarath Ali, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 10.01.2025 in I.A. No. 469 of 2023 in F.C.O.P. No. 385 of 2022 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda, wherein, the petition filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was partly allowed granting interim maintenance of Rs.24,000/- per month to the respondent/wife and son payable by the petitioner/husband from the date of petition within three (03) months in three installments and also to pay the regular maintenance on or before 10 th of every succeeding month from the month of February, 2025. 3. The petitioner and respondent are husband and wife having been married on 11.10.2017 under Hindu Rites and Customs at Vorla Laxmi Narasamma Conventions, Saket, Kapra, ECIL Post, Hyderabad. Thereafter, disputes arose between the respondent on one hand and the petitioner and his family members on other hand. According to the respondent, the petitioner herein and his family members have abused her in filthy language and necked her out on 29.09.2020 with a demand for additional dowry of Rs.40,00,000/-. The respondent was waiting for reconciliation but the petitioner filed a divorce petition in F.C.O.P. No. 385 of 2022 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, with a false allegation of cruelty and thereafter, the respondent filed H.M.O.P. No. 105 of 2022 on the file of learned I Senior Civil Judge Court at Markapur in Prakasam District and then there were attempts at compromise upon withdrawal of cases. However, the petitioner did not come for counselling and subsequently, did not allow the respondent to enter into matrimonial house leading to filing of cases under Section 498(A) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. The respondent is residing with her parents and does not have any independent source of income. 4. The petitioner is working as Deputy Manager, ERP HR AD in Vodafone at Pune and has salary of more than Rs.1,00,000/-. The respondent is a BSC graduate and her general monthly expenses are Rs.68,000/- and she has no other source of income. Therefore, sought interim maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month. 5. 4. The petitioner is working as Deputy Manager, ERP HR AD in Vodafone at Pune and has salary of more than Rs.1,00,000/-. The respondent is a BSC graduate and her general monthly expenses are Rs.68,000/- and she has no other source of income. Therefore, sought interim maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month. 5. The petitioner is a MBA graduate and his general monthly expenses are Rs.10,000/- and he is a private employee and getting salary of Rs.55,000/- per month. The petitioner’s case is that the respondent is earning Rs.30,000/- per month, but no document is filed in that regard. 6. Having considered the ambit of facts and circumstances, the learned Family Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.24,000/- per month with arrears. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is preferred. 7. In the grounds of the revision petition, it is pleaded that the order passed is bereft of reasons, that the liabilities of the petitioner who has to maintain his parents have not been considered. Further, the capability of the respondent to maintain herself is not considered while granting exorbitant interim maintenance. On the basis of the aforementioned grounds, the petitioner prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 8. The respondent filed counter stating that she is residing with her parents in a remote village as the petitioner refused to keep her in his home with dignity of a legally wedded wife. There is a condition imposed on the respondent not to do any job. The respondent is facing trauma as she is unable to do job with a son aged two (02) years. The respondent is dependent on her parents and also her son is also maintained by the parents and they do not have any movable and immovable properties. The petitioner has stated that he is getting a salary of Rs.55,000/- per month but the income tax and salary receipts show that his income is more than Rs.55,000/-. The Liabilities shown are payment of Rs.20,000/- towards EMI. Reference is made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rajnesh v. Neha and another , (2021) 2 SCC 324 about perusing the income tax returns, three (03) years prior to the filing of F.C.O.P. The petitioner’s submitted a salary slip for the month of August, 2024, showing gross salary as Rs.1,19,075/- and net pay as Rs.82,134/-. The petitioner’s statements show that the salary for the month of April, 2024 is Rs.1,08,293/-. Though the net salary of the petitioner for the month of June, 2024, is shown to be Rs.82,134/-, the respondent pleaded that the petitioner is earning more than Rs.1,08,000/- per month and made false statement before the Court attracting penal liability. The petitioner has not paid single rupee towards the welfare and maintenance of the son. Due to the schooling of her minor son, the respondent is living at Hyderabad taking residence in a decent locality. The respondent is a BSC graduate and has done diploma in education. Private teachers are getting meagre remuneration even though qualified. The respondent is trying to appear for TET and DSC examinations for government job. In the circumstances, the respondent is unable to maintain herself. Lastly, reference is made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Neha Tyagi v. Lt. Col. Deepak Tyagi , (2022) 3 SCC 86 , wherein it is held that the liability and responsibility of the father to maintain the child continues till the child attains the age of majority. Along with the counter, the respondent filed voluminous documents containing the pleadings and documents filed in F.C.O.P. No. 385 of 2022, H.M.O.P. No.105 of 2022 and Crl.P. No. 14454 of 2024. 9. A perusal of the Assets and Liabilities information filed by the petitioner shows that he has monthly income of Rs.55,000/- and loans and liabilities to an extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. Further, the petitioner claims that the respondent is doing a private job with income of Rs.30,000/- per month and living at her parent’s house.As per the income tax returns filed the total income of the petitioner for the year 2021-22 is Rs.8,25,090/-, for the year 2022-23 is Rs.7,59,080/-, for the year 2023-24 is Rs.10,43,440/- and for the year 2024-25 is Rs.10,96,030/-. When the monthly income is assessed on the basis of the income tax returns filed, the petitioner is having gross income of Rs.90,000/- per month approximately in the year 2024-25. Whereas, the respondent is claiming that her parents do not have any income to meet her monthly expenses. 10. When the monthly income is assessed on the basis of the income tax returns filed, the petitioner is having gross income of Rs.90,000/- per month approximately in the year 2024-25. Whereas, the respondent is claiming that her parents do not have any income to meet her monthly expenses. 10. As per the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the respondent, the monthly expenditure is shown to be Rs.68,000/- which includes expenditure of minor child aged 5 years at Rs.5,000/-, housing rent at Rs.15,000/- i.e., Rs.20,000/- apart from other expenses. In the absence of any evidence to prove that the respondent is working and has income of Rs.30,000/- per month, on perusal of the said affidavit, after deducting frivolous claims, the only inference that can be made is that the respondent and her son need minimum basic household expenses of about Rs.30,000/- per month for their livelihood. Further, considering the fact that the petitioner has to pay EMIs and when said EMIs are deducted, the petitioner has income of about Rs.70,000/- per month, out of which, the petitioner has to maintain himself and the respondent and her son. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that granting of Rs.24,000/- per month towards interim maintenance of the respondent and her son, is not on the exorbitant side 11. In the circumstances stated above, no fault can be found with the interim maintenance granted by the learned Family Court. There are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.