Skip to content


Ramesh Chander Sharma Vs. Saroj Sharma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision Appeal No. 144 of 1991
Judge
Reported in45(1991)DLT35; II(1991)DMC365; 1991(1)DRJ(Suppl)449
ActsHindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Sections 29
AppellantRamesh Chander Sharma
RespondentSaroj Sharma
Advocates: Shailesh Kapoor and; O.P. Hans, Advs
Excerpt:
hindu adoption and maintenance act, 1956 - section 20--revision petition against order of grant of interim maintenance for daughters--keeping in view that wife was earning trial court fixed rs. 300/-for each child from date of institution of suit till disposal thereof--joint responsibility of parents to maintain children--no justification in petitioner's prayer not to pay the amount to respondent wife and deposit in accounts of minors-rs. 300/- is bound to be spent on each child at the present cost of living--revision petition dismissed,;this amount of rs. 300/- per child was fixed obviously in view of the fact that the mother was also earning and it was the joint responsibility of both the parents to maintain the children. otherwise, the amount of rs. 300/- for each child of that age..........entire material on record and keeping in consideration that the wife was also an earning hand, no interim maintenance was ordered for her but so far as the two daughters are concerned, who age at that time was given to be ii and 15 years respectively, it was ordered that the petitioner pay a sum of rs. 300.00 for each child from the date of the institution of the suit till its disposal.(2) this amount of rs. 300.00 per child was fixed obviously in view of the fact that the mother was also earning and it was the joint responsibility of both the parents to maintain the children. otherwise, this amount of rs. 300.00 for each child of that age would be highly inadequate because of present cost of living. it is in recognition of this fact the petitioner does not challenge the quantum of.....
Judgment:

Santosh Duggal, J.

(1) This is a revision petition against an order of grant of interim maintenance for the daughters of the petitioner, who have filed asuit along with their mother under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, By means of interim application, the wife of the petitioner, who was plaintifi No. I as well as the daughters, plaintiffs No. 2 and 3, prayed for an interim order of maintenance and on consideration of the entire material on record and keeping in consideration that the wife was also an earning hand, no interim maintenance was ordered for her but so far as the two daughters are concerned, who age at that time was given to be Ii and 15 years respectively, it was ordered that the petitioner pay a sum of Rs. 300.00 for each child from the date of the institution of the suit till its disposal.

(2) This amount of Rs. 300.00 per child was fixed obviously in view of the fact that the mother was also earning and it was the joint responsibility of both the parents to maintain the children. Otherwise, this amount of Rs. 300.00 for each child of that age would be highly inadequate because of present cost of living. It is in recognition of this fact the petitioner does not challenge the quantum of maintenance. His only plea is that before this order was made, he was spending on the major heads of school fee, books etc.

(3) There is no material placed by the petitioner on the record that from the date when the suit was filed and up to the date this order is effective he has paid school fee or incurred any other expenses on a major head. his only plea is that he should not be ordered to pay this amount direct to respondent wife but deposit the same in some bank in the account of the minors. In view of the admitted position that the girls are studying in school and are now of the age of approximately 16 and 12 years, ajudicial notice can be taken that the mother has to supplement the expenditure on the girls to a great extent, even if sum of Rs-300.00 per child is taken into account, which the petitioner is required to pay under the impugned order.

(4) There is thus no justification in the prayer of the petitioner not to pay the amount the responident wife and deposit the same in the account of the minors because it has to be prestumed that this amount of Rs. 300.00 is bound to be speot on each child at the present cost of living.

(5) I, thereforee, do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed.

(6) It is noticed that by the impugned order, the petitioner was directed to make payment of the maintenance from he date the institution of the suit which according to the counsel for the respondent was 24th May, 1990. It is admitted by the petitioner that be has not paid anything under this order so far, which means that an arrear of about Rs. 9000.00 has accrued and besides that he has to pay the current amount.

(7) It is thereforee directed that besides paying the amount of Rs. 600.00 each month to the respondent wife for the maintenance of two children by 8th of every month, the petitioner shall clear the arrears of Rs. 9000.00 in three Installments by paying Rs. 3000.00 by means of bank draft by the end of this month and the remaining Rs. 6000.00 in two Installments before the dale of hearing in the trial Court, which is stated to 24th October, 1991.

(8) With these directions, the revision petition stands disposed of.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //