Delhi District Court
Sh. Harinder Singh vs Sh. Mohan Singh on 4 April, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH M.R.SETHI:
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE:(FTC)(W):DELHI
Crl Revision No. 32/11
ID No.02401R0117432011
Sh. Harinder Singh
S/o Sh. Mohan Singh
R/o H. No. WZ-42, Plot No. 35-A,
Ground Floor, Ravi Nagar,
Near Chand Nagar,
New Delhi - 110018
..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Mohan Singh
S/o Late Sh. Mohinder Singh
2. Smt. Devender Kaur
W/o Sh. Mohan Singh
Both residents of :
H. No. WZ-42, Plot No. 35-A,
Ground Floor, Ravi Nagar,
Near Chand Nagar,
New Delhi - 110018
.....Respondent
Date of filing of Petition: 14.03.2011
Date of arguments : 04.04.2011
Date of Order : 04.04.2011
O R D E R:
1 Ld. Trial Court of Ms. Shivali Sharma, MM, Mahila Court, West, vide order dated 10.02.2011 passed in maintenance petition no. 104/04 was pleased to dispose of the matter as regards grant of interim maintenance. Vide the said order, Ld. Trial Court had directed Crl Revision No.32/11 Page 1 of 5 respondent therein to pay maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month to each of his two parents from the date of filing of the petition i.e 30.04.2010 till further order. It was further ordered that the arrears be paid within period of 6 months and payment be made by 10th of each month. Aggrieved, the respondent before the Ld. Trial Court has challenged the said order by way of present revision petition.
2 For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to in the manner as they had appeared before the Ld. Trial Court i.e present petitioner herein after would be referred to as the respondent and the present respondent no. 1 & 2 as petitioner no. 1 & 2.
3 It is not in dispute that petitioners are aged parents of the respondent. Before this court it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for Harinder Singh (respondent before Ld. Trial Court) that the Ld. Trial Court had erred in passing the impugned order. It was submitted that besides Harinder, the petitioners had one other son who was not made party in the present proceedings and no maintenance was claimed from him. It was further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court had wrongly presumed income of Harinder as being Rs. 15,000/- per month despite the fact that he was only doing private job of repairing computers and was earning meager amount of Rs. 6000/- per month. It was further submitted by Ld. Counsel that petitioner no. 1 Mohan Singh had retired as an Electronic Instructor from ITI and at the time of his retirement had received sum of Rs. 15 lacs which was invested by him in FDR / Kisaan Vikas Patra and in mutual funds and that he was getting regular interest income from the same. It was submitted that both the petitioners were getting Senior Citizen Pension of Rs. 1000/- per month from Govt. of Delhi . Ld. Counsel further submitted that no affidavit had been filed on record by the petitioners to show their income and as such the petitioners before the Ld. Trial court had Crl Revision No.32/11 Page 2 of 5 concealed their income. It was further submitted that the petitioner had sold part of ancestral property and had not given respondent his share in the same. It was submitted that from the sale proceedings the petitioners were getting more interest. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the petitioners had earlier disowned their son and now they can not claim any maintenance from him. It was prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
3 Ld. Counsel for the original petitioners on the other hand submitted that petitioner no. 1 was working in private concern i.e Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Polytechnic, Nanak Piyao, Delhi and had retired in 2001-02. It was submitted that at the time of his retirement, petitioner no. 1 had only got Rs. 3.5 lacs which had been spent on treatment of first wife of the respondent who subsequently expired in 2006. It was further submitted that the respondent was in fact a Computer Engineer who had been given adequate education by the petitioners and that he was earning handsome amount of Rs. 50,000/- per month. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the house is self acquired property of petitioner no. 1 and not ancestral property. It was prayed that the interim compensation amount awarded by the Ld. Trial Court was insufficient and ought to be increased. It was prayed that the revision petition be dismissed.
4 This court has given thoughtful consideration to arguments advanced and has also perused the trial court record.
5 It is no longer in dispute between the parties that respondent is son of the petitioners and that besides the respondent, petitioners have one other son. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are getting Senior Citizen Pension of Rs. 1000/- per month from Govt. of Delhi for each of the two petitioners. It is also not in dispute that petitioner Crl Revision No.32/11 Page 3 of 5 no. 1 had retired in 2001-02.
6 The dispute between the parties is regarding income of petitioner no. 1 and that of the respondent. Perusal of written statement filed by the respondent before the Ld. Trial Court reveals that he has only claimed that he had meager income and did not have sufficient income. He has no where disclosed his actual income. Apparently the respondent's son has made attempt to conceal his correct actual income.
7 The submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for respondent that the petitioners have not filed any affidavit disclosing their correct income would, in considered opinion of this court apply to the respondent, who too in his affidavit has nowhere disclosed his correct actual income.
8 Merely because the present petitioners have one other son and have not impleaded him as a party in the present proceedings, the respondent being another son of the petitioners is not absolved from his liability to maintain his parents i.e the petitioners. The effect of non impleading the other son would be on the quantum on maintenance amount to be fixed by the court but in no manner can it be said that the respondent would have no liability. The respondent admittedly is an able bodied man and he has legal and moral obligation to maintain his parents who admittedly are in the eve of their life. Although it had been claimed that his father after retirement was working somewhere, but nothing to support the said claim has been placed on record by the respondent.
9 Ld. Trial court taking consideration of the fact that the petitioners were getting Senior Citizen Pension of Rs. 1000/- per Crl Revision No.32/11 Page 4 of 5 month, in considered opinion of this court has rightly passed the impugned order regarding grant of interim maintenance @ Rs. 2000/- per month to each of the petitioners. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court had, in the order, observed that sum of Rs. 5000/- per month is required for each of the petitioners to maintain themselves. Still, the Ld. Trial court has proceeded to award the petitioners interim maintenance only of Rs. 2000/- per month. The same in considered opinion of this court has been rightly ordered and supports the view expressed earlier by this court that existence of yet another son of the petitioners does not absolve the respondent from his liability to maintain his parents, but will only effect the quantum of maintenance.
10 Keeping in view the aforesaid, this court is of considered opinion that the impugned order is a well reasoned order and there does not appear to be any irregularity or impropriety in the same. Consequently, this court is of considered opinion that the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed and the impugned order upheld.
11 Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld.
12 Copy of order along with trial court record be sent back to Ld. Trial Court.
Announced in open court ( M.R. SETHI )
on 04.04.2011 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(FTC)/WEST: DELHI.
Crl Revision No.32/11 Page 5 of 5