Delhi High Court
Iqbal Kaur vs Gurdev Singh on 16 December, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998IAD(DELHI)1003, 71(1998)DLT277, I(1998)DMC552
Author: Manmohan Sarin
Bench: Manmohan Sarin
JUDGMENT Manmohan Sarin, J.
(1) This is a. revision petition filed against the order dated 22.10.1994, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Whereby the learned Additional District Judge granted maintenance of Rs. l,000.00 p.m. w.e.f. 21.5.19^1 to 22.9.1991. Further from 22.9.1991, maintenance Was granted @ Rs. 200.00 p.m. The maintenance @ Rs. 200.00 p.m. was granted by the learned Additional District judge. considering that on 22.9.1991, the petitioner/wife received a sum of Rs. 80,000.00 in pursuance to a settlement. The learned Additional District Judge concluded that the amount of Rs. 80,000.00 would be fetching an interest income of Rs. 800.00 p.m. and thereby reached the total figure of Rs. l,000.00 p.m. would be available to petitioner and granted Rs. 200.00 p.m. (2) The respondent/husband is stated to be a mechanic, who as per the petitioner/wife, does the work of body building of trucks and other heavy vehicles. Respondent/husband works under the name of Vishwkarma Body Works. The respondent/husband is said to be owing a house bearing No. RZ-237, Gali No. 10, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi then worth about Rs. 10 lakhs. It is stated that the respondent/husband also owned a shop bearing No. 148 at Truck Parking, Majnu ka Tilla, which is worth about Rs. 5 lakhs and telephone in his name. Respondent's Counsel on the other hand contended that respondent does not own any shop and I ie is doing the work of mechanic. Learned Counsel further submits that respondent has liability towards his married daughters and he is earning only Rs. 2,000.00 . The learned Additional District Judge in these circumstances assessed the income of the respondent/husband at Rs. 3,500.00 .
(3) Coining to the controversy regarding settlement, it is stated that as per the custom in the community and the Bradari a deed of divorce for settlement was drawn out. It is the respondent's case that petitioner was to be paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh in settlement for all her claims for permanent alimony, Istridhan etc. and a deed of divorce dated 13.9.1991, had been drawn out between the parties, which is duly witnessed. The petitioner denies the execution of any deed or having accepted a sum of Rs. 80,000.00 towards settlement of all claims for maintenance and permanent alimony. Petitioner/wife 'relies on a receipt dated 22.9.1991, which is said to have been executed by her, on the payment of Rs. 80,000 .00 . As per this receipt, the sum of Rs. 80,000.00 was in lieu of only Istridhan and balance of Rs. 20,000.00 on this account, was to be paid. To sum up, it is the petitioner's contention that the sum of Rs. 80,000.00 was received only in lieu of Istridhan while the respondent contends that the sum of Rs. 80,000.00 as per the deed of divorce dated 139.1991, was paid in lieu of settlement of all claims for permanent alimony, maintenance etc. I may observe that the receipt and the deed of divorce are both witnessed by one Shri Mohinder Singh, (4) The question whether Rs. 80,000.00 had been paid in full settlement of claim for maintenance, alimony etc. or was in lieu of Istridhan only as well as the genuineness/authenticity of the documents would be decided only after recording of evidence and trial. The receipt of Rs. 80,000.00 in any case is admitted, which would make some funds available to the petitioner for her sustenance.
(5) It appears to me that the learned Additional District Judge has erred in making an assessment of the income of the respondent/husband atRs.3,500.00 p.m. only. The said assessment ignores the surrounding circumstances, wherein the respondent/husband is said to be owning a house at Vishnu Garden and having a shop at Manju Ka Tilla. Moreover, the income of motor mechanic running a workshop engaged in the body building of trucks would have been easily be in the range of Rs. 5,000.00 to Rs. 6,000.00 p.m. The respondent/husband is also supported by his son in running the business. He has no great liabilities as the daughters are married and settled.
(6) At the same time, as rightly observed by the learned Additional District Judge the factum of receipt of Rs. 80,000.00 by the petitioner/wife has to be taken into account as having the potent ional yielding income to the petitioner/wife.
(7) Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the interim maintenance to the petitioner/wife as granted ought to be raised by a sum of Rs. 650.00 p.m., making it a total ofRs.850.00 p.m. This coupled with the payment of Rs. 80,000.00 of which the petitioner could be earning interest will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside to the extent that instead of the sum of Rs. 200.00 p.m. w.e.f. 22.2.1991, the petitioner would be entitled to a sum ofRs.850.00 p.m. w.e.f. 22.2.1991. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is aged about 60 years and is not in a very good financial position. The respondent may clear the arrears of maintenance in 16 equal monthly instalments. The maintenance w.e.f. 1.1.1998 shall be paid on or before the 7th of each month in advance to the petitioner. The revision petition is allowed and disposed of with the above directions.