Delhi District Court
Sudesh Dagar vs Shri Ashok Dagar (Inspector Cisf) on 12 May, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SHRI HARISH DUDANI,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-15 (CENTRAL) : DELHI
Suit No.709/08/07
1. Sudesh Dagar
W/o Shri Ashok Dagar
D/o Choudhary Chand Singh
2. Master Vishal Dagar @ Sanju
S/o Shri Ashok Dagar
(Through his mother petitioner no. 1)
Both r/o 70-D/5, Katwaria Sarai
New Delhi. ........Petitioners
Versus
Shri Ashok Dagar (Inspector CISF)
S/o Shri Kishan Chand Dagar
R/o H. No. 85, Maidan Garhi,
New Delhi]
also at :
Ashok Dagar No.912160098 SI/Exe.
C/o Director General
CIST, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi ........Respondent
Date of Institution : 10.07.2007
Date of Decision : 12.05.2010
JUDGEMENT
1. This is a petition u/s 18 & 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 filed by the petitioners. Briefly stated the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are as under :
2. The petitioners have filed the abovenoted petition stating Suit No. 709/08/07 1 therein that petitioner no. 1 was married with respondent on 27.01.1995 at IIT Campus, New Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and out of the wedlock, petitioner no. 2 Master Vishal Dagar was born on 11.10.1995. The petitioner no. 2 is presently staying with petitioner no. 1. It is stated that father of petitioner no. 1 had given sufficient dowry and cash in the marriage to the respondent. However, the respondent and his family members were not happy with petitioner no. 1 for bringing insufficient dowry and on that account petitioner no. 1 used to be physically beaten up and abused. The petitioner no. 1 kept on bearing the cruelty inflicted on her by the respondent. On 23.08.2004, petitioner no. 1 was beaten up by the respondent and was turned out of the matrimonial home and since then, petitioner no. 1 is living at her paternal home alongwith petitioner no. 2. Father of petitioner no. 1 was contributing for maintenance of both the petitioners but unfortunately, father of petitioner no. 1 expired on 15.03.2007.
3. It is stated in the petition that the respondent did not come forward to take the petitioners back and finding no other alternative, the petitioners filed a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. For grant of maintenance and the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 26.04.2005 granted interim maintenance to the petitioners @ Rs.1,000/- per month and Rs.500/- per month to petitioners respectively w.e.f. 01.04.2005. However, respondent has not made payment of the maintenance amount in terms of aforesaid order of Ld. Suit No. 709/08/07 2 Metropolitan Magistrate and the petitioners had to file execution petition which is pending before the Court of Ld. Magistrate. Respondent no. 1 had filed petition u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act wherein the petitioners filed application u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of interim maintenance and Court of Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, Ld. ADJ vide order dated 10.03.2005 ordered for grant of maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.3,000/- per month for petitioner no. 1 and Rs.1,500/- for petitioner no. 2 w.e.f. date of filing of application i.e. 12.10.2004 alongwith Rs.4,000/- towards litigation expenses. The respondent paid small fraction of maintenance to the petitioners thereby forcing the petitioners to file execution of the said order dated 10.03.2005.
4. It is stated that petitioner no. 1 has no source of income of her own and petitioner no. 2 is now student of class 6 and has growing needs of education and health etc. for which a respectable amount of maintenance is required and the respondent being husband of petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner no. 2 is legally liable to maintain the petitioners. It is stated that petitioner no. 1 has no source of income and petitioners do not own any movable or immovable property. It is stated that the respondent is working as Inspector with Central Industrial Security Force and his monthly salary is Rs.35,000/- per month and the respondent has other income from household property which he owns in Delhi and the income from household property is about Rs.30,000/- per month and total earnings of the respondent are over Suit No. 709/08/07 3 Rs.65,000/- per month. The respondent has absolutely no other liability except to maintain the petitioners as per his own social status. It is stated that petitioner no. 1 requires at least Rs.15,000/- per month for her respectable survival and petitioner no. 2 requires Rs.9,000/- per month for his proper heath and education. It is prayed that the respondent be directed to pay Rs,15,000/- per month and Rs.9,000/- to the petitioners respectively from the date of filing of the petition.
5. The respondent has filed reply to the petition and has contested the same. In the reply, the respondent has stated that application is liable to be dismissed because the petitioners are already getting interim maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and the aforesaid applications were decided after considering all the facts and salary of the respondent and at present there is no change in the circumstances. It is stated that the present petition is liable to be dismissed as in para 24 of her statement of the petition u/s 7 and 25 of the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 r/w Section 8 and 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 filed by the present respondent, the petitioners admitted that in addition to the maintenance award passed by the Court, the maternal uncle and maternal grandfather are receiving pension and the same is sufficient to take care of the petitioners in any event. It is stated that date of marriage of petitioner no. 1 and respondent and the date of birth of petitioner no. 2 are matter of record. It is stated that marriage between the Suit No. 709/08/07 4 parties was solemnized in a very simple manner and nothing was given and taken at the time of marriage. It is denied that the respondent and his family members were not happy with petitioner no. 1 for bringing insufficient dowry or they used to beat or abuse petitioner no. 1, as alleged. It is also denied that the respondent gave beatings to petitioner no. 1 and turned her out of the matrimonial home on 23.08.2004, as alleged. It is stated that the respondent filed a case u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights to bring and keep the petitioners in the matrimonial home but the petitioner has shown indifferent attitude towards the respondent. It is stated that at the time of marriage of younger sister of respondent, the petitioner lodged FIR u/s 498-A/406 IPC against all family members but they were granted anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble Court. It is denied that the respondent is not paying maintenance in compliance of order dated 26.04.2005 of the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and it is stated that in the order dated 26.04.2005, the Hon'ble Court has given direction to the petitioner to give full particulars of bank account number to the respondent within a week but the petitioner did not furnish those particulars. It is stated that the respondent has deposited the maintenance upto September, 2007. It is admitted that vide order dated 10.03.2005 Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, Ld. ADJ granted maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.3,000/- per month for petitioner no. 1 and Rs.1,500/- per month for petitioner no. 2 alongwith Rs.4,000/- towards litigation expenses w.e.f. date of filing of application u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act in Suit no. 692/04 u/s 9 of Hindu Suit No. 709/08/07 5 Marriage Act. It is stated that the petitioners have not disclosed that on the application of the respondent, previous order was modified and the maintenance was fixed @ Rs.2,000/- for petitioner no. 1 and Rs.1,000/- per month for petitioner no. 2 and maintenance allowances fixed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. will be adjusted in this amount. After withdrawing the case u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner is not entitled to any claim u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is denied that the petitioner has no source of income. It is stated that petitioner no. 1 is teaching the children in a private school and is getting maintenance allowance from the respondent and mother of petitioner no. 1 is also getting pension of her husband. Petitioner no. 1 has sufficient means to maintain herself and the minor. It is stated that the respondent has deposited maintenance upto September, 2007 in the Court of Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Ld. M.M., New Delhi. It is denied that monthly salary/income of the respondent is Rs.35,000/-. It is also denied that the respondent is having extra income from property situated in Delhi. It is stated that there is no property in the name of the respondent and there is no question of any income from the property. It is denied that the respondent has no other liability except to maintain the petitioners. It is stated that respondent is a member of joint Hindu family and has some social responsibilities towards his mother and two married sisters. It is stated that the demand of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month for petitioner no. 1 and Rs.9,000/- per month for petitioner no. 2 is not justified and is unreasonable. It is stated that petition is liable to be Suit No. 709/08/07 6 dismissed.
6. The petitioners have filed rejoinder to the reply of the respondent and in the rejoinder, the petitioners have controverted the allegations as alleged in the reply and have reiterated the contents of the petition. It is stated that intention of respondent in not keeping the petitioners are evident from his act of withdrawing the petition u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act from the Court of law on 15.11.2006 and his act of filing a divorce petition. It is denied that the respondent is a member of Hindu undivided family. It is stated that all the brothers and sisters of respondent are happily settled in life and are living separately and there is no other social liability on the respondent as all the brothers of the respondent are leading independent life and mother of the respondent is not living with the respondent. It is stated that mother of respondent is living with the brother of the respondent who is in Delhi whereas the respondent is posted at Kolkata (West Bengal).
7. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by my ld. Predecessor on 03.04.2008 :-
1. Whether the total income of respondent is about Rs.65,000/- p.m.? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner no. 1 is earning a decent income by way of business of coaching center, rental income as well as teaching in the school of a relative? OPD.
3. Whether the respondent has no other source of income except salary income? OPD.Suit No. 709/08/07 7
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for maintenance for last three years from the date of filing of the suit?
OPP.
5. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a decree of maintenance @ Rs.24,000/- p.m.? OPP.
6. Whether the petitioners are also entitled for a decree towards litigation expenses and at what amount? OPP.
7. Relief.
8. In order to prove their case, petitioners examine petitioner no. 1 Ms. Sudesh Dagar as PW-1 and Shri Rajesh (brother of petitioner no. 1) as PW-2.
9. In support of his defence, the respondent Shri Ashok Dagar examined himself as RW-1.
10. I have heard ld. Counsels for the parties and carefully perused record. My findings on the specific issues are as under :-
11. Issue No. 2In para 5 of the petition, the petitioners have stated that petitioner no. 1 has absolutely no source of income of her own and petitioner no. 2 is a student of Class 6 and has his own growing needs of education, health etc. In para 5 of reply, the respondent has denied that petitioner no. 1 has no source of income and in the said para, the respondent has stated that petitioner no. 1 is teaching the children in a private school and the petitioner has sufficient means to Suit No. 709/08/07 8 maintain herself and the minor. In reply to para 5(b) of the petition in his reply, the respondent has stated that the petitioner is teaching in a private school and is running a coaching centre in her house. Petitioner no. 1 appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and adduced evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. In para 4 of the affidavit Ex.PW1/A, the petitioner no. 1 has stated that initially her father was supporting her and petitioner no. 2 from his pension but unfortunately her father expired on 15.03.2007 leaving behind the petitioners unfunded. Although, in the reply the respondent has pleaded that petitioner no. 1 is earning decent income by way of coaching centre and teaching in the school but no such suggestions were given to PW-1 in the cross-examination. Shri Rajesh who is brother of petitioner no. 1 appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and adduced evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. In para 7 of the affidavit Ex.PW2/A, PW-2 has stated that petitioner no. 1 has absolutely no source of income nor does she have any movable or immovable property in her name or any other source of income of any kind to maintain herself and petitioner no. 2. In the cross-examination of PW-2 also, no suggestions have been given to the effect that petitioner no. 1 is teaching in a school or is running a coaching centre and has decent income so as to maintain herself and petitioner no. 2.
12. Respondent Shri Ashok Dagar appeared in the witness box as RW-1 and adduced evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/A. Although, in his reply to the petition of the Suit No. 709/08/07 9 petitioners, the respondent has pleaded that the petitioner no. 1 is teaching in a private school and is running a coaching centre in her house and is earning sufficiently but in his affidavit Ex.RW1/A, the respondent has nowhere stated that the petitioner is working in a school or she is running a coaching centre and she is earning decent amount. In the cross-examination, RW-1 admitted that the petitioners have no other souce of income except what they get as maintenance from the Court. Respondent has failed to prove that petitioner no. 1 is earning decent income by way of business of coaching centre or by rental income or by teaching in the school of a relative. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.13. Issue Nos. 1 & 3
Since both these issues involve common discussion of facts and law, hence, for the sake of brevity, both these issues are being taken up together. In the petition, the petitioners have stated that the petitioners have no source of income and the respondent is working as Inspector with the Central Industrial Security Force and his salary is more than Rs.35,000/- per month and the respondent has other income from the household property which he owns in Delhi and the income from the household property is about Rs.30,000/- per month and the total earnings of the respondent are over Rs.65,000/- per month. The petitioners have further pleaded that respondent has absolutely no other responsibility except to maintain the petitioners. In the Suit No. 709/08/07 10 reply, the respondent has not admitted that his salary is Rs.35,000/- per month or that the respondent is having extra income from property situated in Delhi. In the reply, the respondent has stated that there is no property in the name of the respondent and there is no question of any income from the property. The respondent has further denied in his reply that he has no other liability except to maintain the petitioners. In the reply, the respondent has stated that he is a member of Hindu joint family and he has some social responsibility towards his mother and two married sisters.
14. The contention of ld. Counsel for the respondent is that the respondent has no rental income and the petitioners have not adduced any evidence to prove that the respondent has any rental income. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent has admitted in the cross- examination that his father owned ancestral land in the village and the respondent has not specifically denied that he does not own any house.
15. The respondent appeared in the witness box as RW-1 and in the cross-examination he stated that it is correct that his father owned ancestral land in the village but, thereafter, he stated that the said land was acquired by the authority. Thereafter, RW-1 stated that in the cross-examination that he is not aware as to how much compensation was given in lieu of the said land. Thereafter, RW-1 stated in the cross- examination that however, he has heard that a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- was paid to his father as compensation. RW-
Suit No. 709/08/07 111 denied in the cross-examination that in village Maidan Garhi he has an ancestral house bearing no. 85. Thereafter, RW-1 voluntarily stated in the cross-examination that his brother Shri Raj Kumar purchased this house in the year 1990-91. RW-1 denied suggestion of petitioners to the effect that in addition to house no. 85, he has two more residential properties in the village from which he is getting rent @ Rs.30,000/- per month. Petitioner no. 1 (PW-1) stated in the cross-examination that she has no document regarding rental income received by the respondent. Although, the petitioners have pleaded that the respondent is owner of the house but the petitioners have not summoned any record from any authority to prove that respondent owns any house. The petitioners have not succeeded in proving that the respondent owns any house or he is deriving any rental income therefrom.
16. The plea of the petitioners is that the respondent is working as Inspector with Central Industrial Security Force and he is earning salary of Rs.35,000/- per month. The respondent adduced evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/A and in para 5 of the affidavit Ex.RW1/A, respondent has stated that he is working as Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force and gross salary of the respondent is Rs.18,000/- per month which includes house rent allowance even though no government accommodation facility has been provided by the department and the respondent is living in a private colony in the market on payment of market rent and in order to prove his salary, the respondent has relied on salary slip Suit No. 709/08/07 12 for the month of August, 2008 Ex.RW1.
17. On 04.03.2009, an application u/o 11 rule 14 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC was filed by the petitioners for directing the respondent to file his latest salary slip. As per order dated 29.05.2009, respondent filed salary slip for the month of May, 2009 as per which the net pay of the respondent for the month of May, 2009 was Rs.25,309/- out of which a sum of Rs.1,500/- was deducted as GPF and Rs.60/- towards CGEGIS and after the said deductions the amount which was paid to the respondent in the said month was Rs.23749/-. However, during the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the petitioners urged the respondent to file his latest salary slip but ld. Counsel for the respondent contended that petition be disposed of on the basis of the salary slip for the month of May, 2009 which has been filed on record. As per salary slip for the month of May, 2009, the basic pay of the respondent was Rs.15,390/- and grade pay was Rs.4,600/- and notice of fact can be taken to the effect that the respondent would have been granted one increment of 3% on the aforesaid sum of Rs.15,390/- and grade pay of Rs.4,600/- i.e. a sum of Rs. 600/- approximately can be taken as the amount of increment which would have been added to the salary of respondent on 01.07.2009. At the same time, after May, 2009, the respondent would have also got two installments of dearness allowance on 01.07.2009 & 01.01.2010 thereby increasing the salary of respondent at least by a sum of Rs.2,000/- by January, 2010. After addition of the aforesaid Suit No. 709/08/07 13 amounts, the present net amount payable to the respondent can be taken as Rs.28,000/- approximately per month.
18. The contention of ld. Counsel for the respondent is that respondent is also contributing towards GPF and group insurance and income tax deductions but the income tax deduction has not been reflected in the salary slip for the month of May, 2009. The respondent has not filed on record any document to prove as to the amount which was being deducted from his salary as contribution towards income tax. As discussed above, the net salary of the respondent for the month of January, 2010 onwards can be taken as Rs.28,000/- per month and from he said income after deductions of GPF, CGEGIS and income tax, it can be presumed that the amount which is being received by the respondent after necessary deductions would be around Rs.23,000/- per month. Hence, for the purpose of fixing the maintenance of the petitioners, the income of the respondent can be taken as Rs.23,000/- per month. The petitioners have not succeeded in proving that the respondent has income from any other source except the salaried income. Both these issues stand answered accordingly.
19. Issue No.4 In prayer clause of the petition, the petitioners have prayed that the respondent be ordered to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) and Rs.9,000/- (Rupees nine thousand only) each to the petitioners from the date of filing Suit No. 709/08/07 14 of the petition. In the petition, the petitioners have not prayed for payment of maintenance for the last three years from the date of filing of the petition. However, issue to this effect has been framed. In A. Bhagavathi Ammal and Others vs. Sethu, AIR 1987 Madras 224, it was held that the maintenance claimed u/s 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act ought to be awarded from the date of the suit. Accordingly, the petitioners shall be entitled to the maintenance from the date of the petition. This issue stands answered accordingly.
20. Issue Nos. 5 & 6Since both these issues involve common discussion of facts and law, hence, for the sake of brevity, both these issues are being taken up together. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed that the respondent be ordered to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) and Rs.9,000/- (Rupees nine thousand only) respectively to the petitioners from the date of filing of the petition. In findings on issue nos. 1 & 3 above, it has been held that net pay of the respondent is Rs.28,000/- approximately per month and after deductions of GPF, CGEGIS and income-tax, the amount which is being paid to the respondent from January, 2010 onwards is approximately Rs.23,000/- per month. However, the said income also includes the house rent allowance which the respondent is getting for not having been allotted the government accommodation and the respondent might have been incurring some amount on the rent and in case the respondent is allotted government Suit No. 709/08/07 15 accommodation, then he will not be granted the said sum of house rent allowance. Accordingly, that amount which is being received by the respondent towards house rent allowance for not having been allotted government accommodation is also to be taken into consideration while fixing the maintenance of the petitioners as subsequently as and when respondent is allotted government accommodation, he will not be paid the house rent allowance.
21. Ld. counsel for the petitioners has contended that income of the respondent is to be equitably apportioned between the petitioners and respondent as the respondent has not to look after any other responsibility. In para 5(g) of the reply to the petition u/s 18 & 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the respondent has denied that he has no other liability except to maintain the petitioners. In the said para, the respondent has further stated that he is a member of Hindu joint family and he has some social responsibilities towards his mother and his two married sisters. However, in the cross-examination the respondent/RW-1 has stated that his father retired as Upper Division Clerk from Food & Supply Department of Delhi Government and he was getting salary as long as he served and thereafter he was getting pension till his death. Thereafter, RW-1 further stated in the cross-examination that after the death of his father, his mother is getting the benefit of pension. As mother of the respondent is getting pension, in the circumstances, it cannot be said that mother of respondent Suit No. 709/08/07 16 is financially dependent on the respondent. In the cross- examination, a specific question was put to the respondent to the effect that whether he does not have any other family than that of the petitioners and himself to which he replied that it is correct. The respondent has not adduced evidence to the effect that apart from the petitioners, he has to maintain any other family member and that he has to contribute financially for the said family members. In Annurita Vohra vs. Sandeep Vohra, MANU/DE/0166/2004, our own Hon'ble High Court held :
1. ............................... In Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun and Ors., MANU/SC/0832/1997, it has been observed that - "no set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has, in the very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be always there.
The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her Suit No. 709/08/07 17 husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."
22. In Annurita Vohra vs. Sandeep Vohra (supra), the Hon'ble Court held :
2. .......................In my view, a satisfactory approach would be to divide the Family Resource Cake in two portions to the Husband since he has to incur extra expenses in the course of making his earning, and one share each to other members.
3. Observations in similar vein have been made by a Learned Single Judge of this Court in Harminder Kaur vs. Sukhwinder Singh, 2002 VI AD (DELHI)
797. S. N. Kapoor, J. had opined that one should not be oblivious of the fact that equal status has been given to the Indian women under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and that she should live according to the status of her husband alongwith the child of the parties. The Learned Judge had ordered that the income has to be equitably apportioned for maintenance of wife and Suit No. 709/08/07 18 the child. In his opinion the income should have been divided into five units, two units for each of the parents and one for the young child. On a disposable income of Rs.12,000/- he had granted Rs.7,200/- per month for the maintenance of the wife and the child.
23. As per the aforesaid discussions, the considerable income of the respondent has been taken to be as Rs.23,000/- per month. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner no. 2 is a going to the school and at the time of filing of the petition, petitioner no. 2 was studying in Class 6 and as the child is growing, his expenses on education and his proper maintenance and health are also increasing. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that Ex.PW1/2 is the fee receipt from January to March, 2008 as per which a sum of Rs.5,135/- was being paid as quarterly payment towards his expenses for the school and apart from the said expenses, there are expenses on the books, uniform etc and those needs also need to be considered while passing the order. RW-1 admitted in the cross- examination that petitioner no. 2 is studying in Red Roses Public School, Saket and he is a student of Class 7th. However, he further stated in the cross-examination that he is not aware of the fact that quarterly fee of his son is Rs.6,080/-. Thereafter, RW-1 further stated in the cross- examination that it may be correct that his monthly expenses for books and stationery would be Rs.300/- per Suit No. 709/08/07 19 month. RW-1 further stated in the cross-examination that it is not known to him that dietary expenses of petitioner no. 2 are about Rs.1,400/- per month. It is also to be noted that petitioner no. 2 is a growing child and in his interaction with other children, he must be making demands of different kinds of food and gadgets which are being enjoyed by children of his age and the petitioner no. 1 must be meeting those expenses of petitioner no. 2 also. Hence, over all needs of petitioner no. 2 who is a growing child have to be taken into consideration. The ld. Counsel for the respondent has not opposed the petition on any other ground except on the quantum of maintenance to be adjudicated for respondent. Hence, in the circumstances, I am of the view that it would be appropriate if petitioner no. 1 is granted maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) and petitioner no. 2 is granted maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) per month.
24. The present petition was filed on 09.07.2007 and the petitioners have been prosecuting the petition since then. By order dated 29.02.2008, my ld. Predecessor was pleased to direct that petitioners be paid interim maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) per month for petitioner no. 1 & 2 respectively and a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses was ordered to be paid. However, looking at the circumstances that the petition has continued for about 3 years, hence, it would be equitable if the petitioners are awarded a sum of Suit No. 709/08/07 20 Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) more towards litigation expenses. Both these issues stand answered accordingly.
25. Issue No. 7 (Relief) In view of aforesaid discussions and findings on issue nos. 5 & 6 above, the petitioner no. 1 & 2 shall be entitled to maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) and Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) per month respectively from the date of filing of the petition. However, the amount which has been received by the petitioners by any order of the Court either by way of orders u/s 125 Cr.P.C., u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act or by way of order of this Court shall be adjusted towards the amount which is to be paid to the petitioners. Petitioners shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) on account of litigation expenses. Appropriate court fees be filed within one month from today and thereafter decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open Court
on 12th May, 2010) (HARISH DUDANI)
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-15
(CENTRAL) : DELHI
Suit No. 709/08/07 21