Delhi District Court
Smt. Anshu Chhiber vs Sh. Lokesh Chhiber on 3 September, 2012
- : 1 : -
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SAVITRI,
MM (MAHILA COURT NO. 1), NORTH EAST, KKD: DELHI
CC No. 88/03
Unique I.D. No. 02402R0020572003
IN THE MATTER OF: -
1. Smt. Anshu Chhiber
w/o Sh. Lokesh Chhiber
d/o Sh. V.P. Dhingra
2. Kumari Sajana Chhiber
d/o Sh. Lokesh Chhiber
3. Kumari Vani Chhiber
d/o Sh. Lokesh Chhiber
4. Master Krishna Chhiber
s/o Sh. Lokesh Chhiber
(petitioner nos. 2 to 4 through her mother / natural
guardian)
All r/o H. No. 1576, Sui Walan
Daryaganj, Delhi - 2. ... petitioners
Versus
Sh. Lokesh Chhiber
s/o Sh. Sunder Swaroop
r/o 104-A, J & K Pocket,
MIG Flats, Dilshad Garden,
Shahdara,
Delhi - 110 032. ... respondent
Date of Institution: 26-02-2003
Date on which the judgment has been reserved: 03-09-2012
Date of Judgment: 03-09-2012
PETITION U/s. 125 Cr.P.C FOR THE MAINTENANCE
ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
JUDGMENT
1. Present is a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. The case of the petitioner CC No. 88/03 Cont.......... 1/21
- : 2 : -
wife is that she got married with the respondent husband on 10-05-1992 and respondent nos. 2 to 4 are children born from this marriage.
2. Admittedly, the child Sanjana has attained the age of majority as on date.
3. It is mentioned in the petition that sufficient dowry articles were given in the marriage but the respondent husband and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry articles given in the marriage. She was tortured for having brought less dowry.
4. The respondent husband did not pay any single penny for the expenses for herself and the children. She is a person without any means whereas the respondent husband is running two maruti vans on hire and also doing tour and travels business. He is earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. from the business of maruti vans and Rs.10,000/- p.m. from the tour and travels business.
5. He is also owner of Flat no. 21A, H-Pocket, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. Two shops are also located in this property and the same fetch rent @Rs.6,000/- p.m.
6. Admittedly, FIR no. 361/02 PS Seemapuri u/s 498A/406/34 IPC has already been registered against the respondent husband and his family members.
7. As per the petitioner wife, she is willing to join the company of the respondent husband, if, he maintains the children and her CC No. 88/03 Cont.......... 2/21
- : 3 : -
properly. She has prayed maintenance @Rs.2,500/- p.m. for each petitioners i.e. total @Rs.10,000/- p.m.
8. In the WS, the relationship between the parties has been admitted by the respondent. It is mentioned that no dowry was demanded by the respondent husband or his family members. The allegations of cruelty have been denied.
9. It is mentioned that the petitioner wife had gone to her parents' house on her own desire and the children are in custody of petitioner wife with her own desire. Respondent husband never asked her to go to her parents house and he wants to take her back. It is further mentioned in the WS that the respondent husband wants to join the company of the petitioner wife and he visited the house of petitioner wife with the request to join his company but the petitioner wife flatly refused to go with him. Contrary to this, when the parties appeared before me during the course of final arguments, on inquiry from me, the respondent refused point blank to take back the petitioner wife and the children.
10. Admittedly, the divorce petition has already been filed by the respondent husband against petitioner wife. Hence, there is no bonafide in his claim to take back the petitioner wife.
11. Regarding the means of petitioner wife, it is stated in the WS that she is working in Tirath Ram Hospital as nurse and she is earning adequate amount per month whereas the respondent husband is CC No. 88/03 Cont.......... 3/21
- : 4 : -
unemployed and is jobless. The averments in the petition regarding the respondent husband running any tour and travel business and his rental income have been denied and it is mentioned that he is totally dependent upon his parents.
12. As per the WS of the respondent, he never neglected to maintain the petitioners. The registration of dowry FIR has been admitted but it is mentioned that it is a false case. It is mentioned that no maintenance should be awarded to the petitioners as the petitioner wife is earning sufficient income for children as well as for herself.
13. The petitioner wife has filed replication wherein the assertions to the contrary have been controverted and she has reiterated the facts stated in the petition. The petitioner has denied her alleged income in the WS.
14. By way of interim maintenance order, the petitioner was allowed maintenance @Rs.750/- p.m. and petitioner's children were granted maintenance @Rs.600/- p.m. each child.
15. Many times reconciliation efforts were made by my Learned Predecessor Judge but no amicable settlement could take place between them with respect to the present case. Hence, the matter was contested and both parties led evidence in support of their case.
16. At the stage of petitioner's evidence, the petitioner wife examined three witnesses.
17. She herself is PW1 and she has led her evidence on the lines of CC No. 88/03 Cont.......... 4/21
- : 5 : -
petition. In her evidence, she stated that she is 12th pass. She has stated that she could not tell the date, month and year when the respondent husband and his family members demanded dowry.
18. She denied the suggestion that no demand was made by the respondents. She denied the suggestion that there was no office of property dealing or tour and travels in the house where she was living with the respondent husband after marriage.
19. She denied the suggestion that the respondent husband did not use the Van bearing no. DL2CR4020 and it was used by his brother Gulshan to supply surgical goods. (Admittedly, this van was in the name of his brother Gulshan Chhiber, who, as per the complainant, was working in Johns & Johns surgical appliances as supplier of surgical items). The van bearing no. DL5087 was purchased by the respondent husband in the year 2001. This fact was stated by the petitioner in her cross.
20. She stated that one Van was engaged in Bal Bharti School in Brij Vihar, Ghaziabad and another was engaged in Arvahin Bharti Bhawan School in Vivek Vihar.
21. She denied the suggestion that she had cooked up a false story regarding employment of these vans and the respondent getting income from the same.
22. She admitted that her mother was running a nursing bureau at Darya Ganj but she denied the suggestion that the said nursing bureau CC No. 88/03 Cont.......... 5/21
- : 6 : -
was run by her after the death of her mother. She voluntarily said that it was run by her Bhabhi Sunita. She denied the suggestion that the work of property dealing was done by the father of the respondent and the respondent had never done the said business. She denied the suggestion that she had taken with her all the jewellery even the jewellery received from the respondent's side.
23. She denied the suggestion that she had taken the jewellery of her mother-in-law to her parental home after stealing the same. She denied the suggestion that she had stolen the money of her mother-in- law on 14-09-2002 and had taken the same to her parental home.
24. She denied the suggestion that a meeting was held where it was stated that the respondent is willing to keep her if she leaves the habit of stealing. She denied the suggestion that she earns between Rs. 12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- p.m. from nursing bureau.
25. PW2 is one Sushil Saxena. He is a witness from school of J.K. Happy School, where the children of the couple were studying. He has proved the school-fee payment slips.
26. In his cross examination, he admitted that he has not brought any record about fee of Sanjana Chhiber. He also admitted that he has not brought any proof whether Sanjana Chhiber was a student in that school in the year 2008. Even so, it is not the case of the respondent that Sanjana Chhiber was not a school going child or was not being maintained by the petitioner wife.
CC No. 88/03 Cont.......... 6/21
- : 7 : -
27. He also stated that there was no provision in the school for fee concession for the poor students when asked while admitting that the petitioner wife has never moved any application for fee concession, hence, nothing material could be elicited from this witness.
28. PW3 is V.P. Dhingra, the father of the petitioner wife. He has supported the case of the petitioner wife and stated that he was bearing the entire expenses of the petitioner wife and all the children.
29. He has given details of fee payments of the children of about Rs.13,050/-. He has stated in his evidence that his daughter Anshu Chhiber is a household lady and she was doing nothing.
30. It is further stated in his evidence affidavit that due to pressure of demand of dowry by the respondent husband and his relatives, he gave his daughter Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of Maruti Van and her husband purchased a Maruti Van on installments but despite this, the respondent husband and his family members were not satisfied and they threatened his daughter that she should press her parents to give him the Sukhdev Vihar flat, which her parents owned.
31. Other evidence given by him with respect to cruelty meted out with the petitioner wife is hear-say evidence and I do not attach any value to it as it is not direct evidence.
32. The petitioner has also placed on record certified copy of the Guardianship petition filed by the respondent husband before Guardianship Court.
CC No. 88/03 Cont.......... 7/21
- : 8 : -
33. I have perused the same. In this petition, it is mentioned by the respondent that he was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. from property dealing business, out of which Rs.4,000/- was being spent for his own requirements but, in the present proceedings, he claims to be jobless and unemployed.
34. As per the petitioner wife, the child Sanjana Chhiber is the eldest of three children and she is doing BBA from Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Sector-16-C, Dwarka, New Delhi - 75. Some document in this regard have been placed on record.
35. Certified copy of cross examination of the respondent by the petitioner recorded in the Guardianship Court has already been placed on record wherein it has been sated that he was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. and in his cross examination, he had admitted that he had been sentenced to imprisonment in the maintenance case. He further admitted that on 06-07-2004, he had gone to the house of the petitioner wife and was apprehended by the police. He also admitted that at that time, he was under the influence of liquor and had gone to her house in night.
36. After examination of three witnesses, whose evidence has been discussed above, P.E. was closed.
37. The respondent husband has also examined some witnesses in support of his case.
38. He has examined himself as RW1. It is mentioned in the evidence CC No. 88/03 Cont.......... 8/21
- : 9 : -
affidavit of the respondent that petitioner wife is working as Private Nurse @Rs.300/- per day and she is running Dhingra Nursing Bureau at Darya Ganj, New Delhi and earns Rs.20,000/- p.m.
39. The averment regarding petitioner wife working as Private Nurse @Rs.300/- per day has no value as this stand was not taken in the WS.
40. Regarding his source of income, the respondent husband has stated in the evidence affidavit that he was working as a Caretaker in a private bus with Ms. Yashraj Travels, Dilshad Garden and earning Rs. 3,000/- p.m. The salary certificate issued by Yashraj Travels is Ex.RW1/1.
41. As per him, he has been debarred by his parents from movable and immovable assets and property after publication in the newspaper. The publication in the newspaper is Ex.RW1/2. This stand has not been taken by him in the WS, hence, it has no evidentiary value, being out of pleadings.
42. He has further stated that he is residing on rent whereas he has stated in the WS that he was jobless and was living on the mercy of his parents, meaning thereby that his parents are maintaining him and have every link with him. This belies the story of disowning by the parents.
43. He has stated in his evidence affidavit that he is living as a tenant and is paying Rs.500/- p.m. as tenancy charges excluding water and electricity charges.
CC No. 88/03 Cont.......... 9/21
- : 10 : -
44. He has also mentioned in his evidence that he was falsely implicated u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. on 03-10-2002 by the petitioner wife and a case dowry FIR no. 361/02 PS Seemapuri u/s 498A/406/ IPC was registered against him.
45. From his own averments, one thing becomes clear that there had been an incident of quarrel and breach of peace by him on 03-10-2002. Under these circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that she escaped from the matrimonial house to save her life, after she was beaten by the respondent and his family, appears to be believable and, I accordingly believe the same. Therefore, she is justified in living separately from him. More so, as the divorce petition has already been filed by the respondent husband.
46. A stand has been taken by the respondent husband in his evidence affidavit that the petitioner wife has herself deserted him without any sufficient reason and justification and, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance amount.
47. The submission of the respondent regarding the petitioner having deserted him and being dis-entitled to maintenance has no ground in view of the fact that firstly dowry FIR has been registered against him and secondly he was lodged in custody u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. on 03-10-2002, the date from which the parties started living separately. Under these circumstances, he has not been able to prove that the petitioner wife has deserted him without any reason. Rather CC No. 88/03 Cont.......... 10/21
- : 11 : -
there is a constructive desertion on his part.
48. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, he denied that he was owning any house in Dilshad Garden. Flat No. 104, J & K Dilshad Garden, Delhi, was in the name of his father and that flat is lying vacant. In the same breath, he stated that he was not confirmed as to whether his father owned that flat or not. He further stated that Flat No. 104, J & K Dilshad Garden, Delhi was lying vacant after the death of his mother when his father shifted to the house of his brother. He denied the suggestion that Flat No. H-21/A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi was owned by him and he has sold the same.
49. He admitted owning a bullet motorcycle make 1995/96, bearing registration no. PB-32-9200. He denied owning another motorcycle bearing no. DL 12S 0512 but, he admitted that he had used this motorcycle. In the same breathe, he stated that he was not aware as to who owned this motorcycle.
50. In his cross examination, he stated that no appointment letter was issued to him by Yash Raj Travels and Yash Raj Travels belongs to one of his friends. He further stated in his cross examination that even his landlord Jitender is relative of one of his friends and no rent agreement had been executed between him and the landlord. He denied the suggestion that he is not residing at Budh Vihar. He further denied that the landlord Jitender had issued rent receipts at the instance of his friend. He denied the suggestion that all the rent CC No. 88/03 Cont.......... 11/21
- : 12 : -
receipt Ex.RW-1/C1-C6 had been prepared in one day intentionally to show that he was residing as tenant. Though, he admitted that Ex.RW1/C3 & C4 is written by one pen and by one person and were bearing the revenue stamp therein, having no dates.
51. He admitted that earlier all three children were studying in Happy School, Daryaganj, New Delhi but, he did not know where they were studying presently. He admitted before the court of Learned Guardian Judge in petition no. 102/03 that he earned Rs.10,000/- p.m. from property dealing business but, during his cross examination in the present case, he denied the suggestion that he was working as a property dealer. He also denied the suggestion that he was carrying tours and travels business; further that he was running two vans on hire for carrying the business from Arvachin Bharti Bhavan Senior Secondary School, Vivek Vihar and earned Rs.30,000/- p.m. from these two vans. He denied the suggestion that a false salary certificate by Yash Raj Travels was issued to him, the owner Rajiv Goel being his friend.
52. He admitted that he and the petitioners are living separately since 03-10-2002 when a Kalandra u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. was registered against him and thereafter a dowry FIR was also registered and he was sent to JC in dowry FIR on 09-10-2010 and further, that the kids were handed over to the petitioner wife by the orders of the court on 10-10-2002.
CC No. 88/03 Cont.......... 12/21
- : 13 : -
53. In his evidence, he denied the allegations regarding dowry related cruelty to the petitioner or that he asked her parents to transfer the flat at Sukhdev Vihar to him as a pre-condition to keep the petitioner wife happy.
54. He denied the suggestion that petitioner wife is a housewife and is unemployed and voluntarily stated that petitioner wife is running a nursing bureau of her mother. This stand is not taken in the WS, however, it has been admitted by the petitioner wife in her cross examination that her mother had expired now and while alive, she was running Dhingra Nursing Bureau.
55. He denied his income of Rs.30,000/- and also denied the suggestion that he had contracted second marriage without divorce to petitioner wife. He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally avoiding his liability towards the petitioner wife and children.
56. The respondent has examined Rajiv Goel, the proprietor of Yash Raj Travels as RW2. In his evidence, Rajiv Goel has stated that he is registered owner of Bus No. DL -1PA 2821 and the respondent is care taker of this bus since 01-05-2008 and earlier he was getting Rs. 3,000/- p.m. He also stated that he issued a salary certificate to the respondent, which is Ex.RW2/A and bears his signatures at point-A. Ex.RW2/A shows the salary of the respondent as Rs.3,600/-.
57. In his cross examination, he admitted that he had not placed any document on record to show that he was the owner of bus bearing no.
CC No. 88/03 Cont.......... 13/21
- : 14 : -
DL 1PA 2821. He also admitted that he had not placed any document to show that he was the owner and proprietor of Yash Raj Travel. He admitted that he has not issued any appointment letter to the respondent and that he was paying the salary in cash but he has not filed any cash memo on record. Regarding the mode of employment of respondent, he stated that the respondent had made a verbal request for employment and no appointment letter was issued to him.
58. He admitted that both he and the respondent were living in Dilshad Garden earlier, hence, he knew the respondent. Further, that he had not maintained any service register and stated that there were only three persons working with him. He further admitted that he had not taken any document and he had also not checked the driving license of the respondent.
59. He denied the suggestion that the respondent is not employed with him and he is deposing in favour of the respondent as respondent is his friend. He further denied the suggestion that the salary certificate issued by him is false and fabricated document and has been prepared with the sole intention to help the respondent to evade the responsibility to maintain the petitioners.
60. In the evidence affidavit, Rajiv Goel has mentioned his address as H. No. 808, Sector-11, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, UP and he affirms the same, even in the cross examination.
61. The next witness of the respondent, RW3 Sh. Jitender Singh is CC No. 88/03 Cont.......... 14/21
- : 15 : -
landlord of the respondent. In his evidence, he stated that H.No. B-139, Gali No. 6, Budh Vihar, Mandoli, Delhi - 93 is in the name of his wife Smt. Pramila Devi and he is posted in Delhi Police as Constable. He has let out one room on rent on second floor to the respondent containing latrine, bathroom in the year 2007 @Rs.500/- p.m. He has proved the rent receipt Ex.RW3/A. Further, he stated that rent was increased @Rs. 200/- w.e.f. January, 2010 excluding Rs.50/- as water charges and Rs. 100/- as electricity charges.
62. In his cross examination, he stated that the respondent is a friend of his mother-in-law (there appears to be a typographical error in place of brother-in-law), who was posted at PS Seemapuri in the year 2007 and that the respondent neither have any ration card nor have any ID card or any document to show that he has been residing as tenant. No rent agreement was executed between him and the respondent.
63. He admitted that no receipt number has been mentioned on Ex.RW1/C1 to Ex.RW1/C6 but denied the suggestion that all the rent receipts have been prepared in one day. He further admitted that he had not informed to the concerned PS at the time of inducting the respondent as a tenant nor any verification has been done by the staff of PS concerned. He denied the suggestion that he used to issue rent receipts for helping the respondent at the instance of his brother in law.
CC No. 88/03 Cont.......... 15/21
- : 16 : -
64. He admitted that he had not filed any document about ownership of the house no. B-139, Gali no. 11, Budh Vihar, Mandoli, Delhi where the respondent was allegedly living as a tenant. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely to help the respondent.
65. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties and I have gone through the record carefully.
66. The respondent husband has admitted having made a statement before the Guardianship Court that he was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. wherein he has also admitted that he is working as a Property Dealer. Whereas in the present petition, he has denied his employment and stated that he was jobless. He has also admitted having married with the petitioner wife and the relationship of father with petitioner nos. 2 to 4.
67. Regarding the house bearing no. 104-A, Pocket J & , Dilshad Garden, Delhi, the stand of the respondent has been fluctuating. At one time, he stated that it is owned by his father and in the next breath, he claims to have no knowledge about the same. In his evidence, the respondent has admitted to have lived in this house for a considerable long period of time. RW2 also knew him for the reason that both of them were staying in Dilshad Garden. In his cross examination before the Guardianship Court, he furnished his address as 104-A, MIG Flats, Pocket J & K, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. He also deposed that his parents are also living in Dilshad Garden, J & K Block, CC No. 88/03 Cont.......... 16/21
- : 17 : -
MIG Flat (the same address). He further stated in his cross that he was running his property dealing business from his house only. It was for the respondent to explain as to in what capacity he was living in this house if not owned by him, which he has failed to prove. In this light, the submissions of the petitioner wife that the respondent was running a property dealer business, owned a house in Dilshad Garden and the house had shops also, is held to be correct and proved.
68. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the respondent has not come to the court with clean hands.
69. I am not inclined to believe the testimony of RW2 Rajesh Goel. The respondent husband in his cross examination has stated that Yashraj Travels was owned by his own friend meaning thereby that RW2 Rajiv Goel is his friend.
70. During the cross examination of Rajiv Goel, it has come on record that he could not produce any document regarding owning any bus on which the respondent was stated to be working as Care Taker and also any appointment letter of the respondent could not be proved. It is very unlikely that the owner of a business would be friends with a care taker, who is his salaried employee @Rs.3,000/- p.m. later on increased to @Rs.3,600/- p.m. It is, therefore, clear that the respondent was not employee but a friend of RW2 Rajiv Goel. Hence, it is, therefore, very much likely that a false salary certificate has been issued by RW2 with a view to assist the respondent in his design to CC No. 88/03 Cont.......... 17/21
- : 18 : -
evade payment of maintenance and I accordingly hold so.
71. Salary certificate of the respondent has been placed on record as Ex.RW2/B (proved by RW2, Rajiv Goyal, owner of Yashraj Travels).
72. I have also gone through the rent receipts issued to him. Perusal of the same shows that Ex.RW1/C1 to Ex.RW1/C2 and Ex.RW1/C-5 to Ex.RW1/C-6 are in the hand writing of one and same person and all have been filled up with same pen and revenue stamps of Ex.RW1/C-5 to Ex.RW1/C-6 bear no signatures. Ex.RW1/C-3 to Ex.RW1/C-4 are in filled up in different pen than the other rent receipts.
73. In this light, the submissions of the petitioner regarding the respondent running tour and travels business are also believed to be correct considering that the respondent was having friend circle in tour and travel line. And further, the respondent in his WS has admitted having owned one of the vans specified by the petitioner in her petition. In this light, it is proved that he was gainfully employed and was running both tour and travels and property dealing businesses.
74. I also disbelieve the testimony of RW3, the alleged landlord of respondent. He is relative of one of respondent's friend, admittedly. The rent receipts produced in evidence by the respondent do not inspire any confidence. Particularly, in view of the fact that a person who is residing at the same address for the last 4-5 years is unable to furnish a single document of residential proof at that address. Not only this, 6 of 4 hand written receipts are in the same pen and hand writing CC No. 88/03 Cont.......... 18/21
- : 19 : -
and none of the receipts bears any number making it quite probable that these had been prepared on same day with a view to present on court record in order to help the respondent.
75. Not only this, it is also surprising that in modern days circumstances, the respondent is paying rent @Rs.700/- p.m. for one room, kitchen and bathroom and the landlord requires him to pay Rs.50/- as water charges and Rs.100/- as electricity charges, in a time when the cost of electricity is sky rocketing.
76. Argument of the petitioner side to this effect is accepted and I hold that the rent receipts are not genuine, hence discarded. I hold that these rent receipts have been placed on record with a view to help the respondent to evade his liability and RW3 has deposed falsely on oath.
77. It is a tendency of the privately employed people to deliberately not disclose their true income in the proceedings for maintenance because they do not want to pay and are in a position to manipulate.
78. The father of the petitioner was examined as PW3, who had claimed that petitioner and her three children were maintained by him. Later on admittedly, he had expired and thereafter the case of the petitioner in her evidence was that she was maintained by her brothers though, none of the brothers had been examined as witness in the present case. Petitioner wife appears to be an educated and well groomed lady. I had an occasion to glance at the parties as they CC No. 88/03 Cont.......... 19/21
- : 20 : -
personally appeared during the stage of final arguments. I noticed that she was able to speak some English also and in her cross examination, she had admitted that her mother was running Nursing Bureau. It is a rare possibility in modern days circumstances that an educated woman, who is mother of three grown up children, all getting good education would be doing nothing and would be maintained totally by her brothers, who also have their own families to maintain.
79. Under these circumstances, considering that it is a tendency of privately employed petitioners also to deliberately not disclose their income, if any, before the court and further that her mother had admittedly expired and therefore, it is not unlikely that she might be running a Nursing Bureau. Though no document has been placed on record to prove this by respondent but, it is very difficult for the respondent to produce any document in this regard in the same manner as it is difficult for the petitioner to produce any documents regarding the respondent owning a flat in Dilshad Garden because the documents, if any, are in possession of other side. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioner wife must be earning, though insufficient to maintain herself and the children.
80. Considering the overall circumstances of the case and further considering the modern days cost of living, I order the respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of petitioner no. 1 and Rs.2,000/- p.m. each in favour of the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 from the date of filing CC No. 88/03 Cont.......... 20/21
- : 21 : -
of present petition (Total Rs.8,000/- p.m. shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioners). It is clarified that the children shall be entitled to receive the maintenance amount only till they attained the age of majority. The contention of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to otherwise is discarded.
81. Payment shall be made or be deposited in bank account of petitioner by 15th of every month. The present petition is accordingly disposed off. Maintenance awarded in any other proceedings shall be liable to adjustment.
82. All pending applications stand disposed of.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (SAVITRI)
ON 03-09-2012 MM/MAHILA COURTS NO. 1
NORTH EAST, KKD, DELHI
CC No. 88/03 Cont.......... 21/21