Manjeet Singh v. Sarabjit Kaur & Ors.

1. The present petition is against the impugned order dated 17.03.2010 whereby the learned Trial Court has awarded f 5000/- per month towards maintenance in favour of Respondent No.l and T[2],500/- each in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 &3 from the date of CRLM.C. 2077/2011 page 1 of[4] 2011:DHC:11492 filing of the petition to be paid by 10^'' day of every month till further orders. It was further directed that the respondent shall clear the arrears of maintenance within six months and that the payment made in the present case was to be adjusted towards arrears. Further it was directed that the maintenance amount shall be paid to Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 till further orders or till the time they attain majority whichever is earlier.

2. The learned Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is in the business of film and serial production and earns T40,000/- per month. The petitioner also owns a house at Mumbai. Though the Trial Court has also recorded that the correct income ofthe petitioner could not be determined but the Court has considered some documents on record which show the status of the parties. As per his own admission by the petitioner before the Guardianship Court that he is in the lines of film and serial production and also an implied admission that he owns a house in Mumbai for which he pays installment in the sum of T.25,000/- though it is not clear as to whether the said installment is for one month or more than one month. During the cross-examination given to Respondent No. 1 regarding status of the petitioner's family, wherein she stated that the petitioner's family is CRLM.C. 2077/2011 page 2 of[4] Still well off than her family.

3. While considering the petitioner's having his own house at Mumbai and his ability to pay ^25,000/- towards installments, the Guardianship Court has assumed the income of the petitioner to be T30,000/-, if not more. It is also on record that the petitioner has no other liability except to maintain the respondents. Accordingly, the said income of ? 30,000/- was ordered to be divided into five shares. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already sold the house at Mumbai bearing No. C-24, Sunder Bhavan Society, Plot No-39, S.V.P. Nagar, MHADA, Andheri(West), Mumbai-400053, and the loan has been re-paid to the Punjab and Sindh Bank. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that presently the petitioner is residing in a rental house in Mumbai (West) MHADA and paying rent of f 1,500/- per # month.

4. The question here is that Respondent No. 1 is not an earning member and she is maintaining herself and twin sons, i.e.. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, who are about 8-9 years old. Respondent Nos. 2&3 are school going children, therefore. Respondent No. 1 has to take care of them. No doubt, the prices of grains, serials and all articles are on a very high side. Respondents are the legal liability of petitioner and it is CRLM.C. 2077/2011 the duty of the petitioner to maintain all the Respondents by any means and the order passed by the Guardianship Court for grant of ? 5,000/- per month for the maintenance of Respondent No.l; and T[2],500/- each for Respondent Nos. 2 &3 are reasonable and proper.

5. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Trial Court dated 17.03.2011. Accordingly, Crl.M.C.2077/2011 is dismissed.

6. No order as to costs. ^. SURESH KAU, 3 JULY 07, 2011 RS