1. Petitioner No.2 Ms. Gunjan Grover, present in person. Respondent is present alongwith Shri Sunil Verma, Advocate.
2. This application is filed for enhancement of the maintenance amount which was awarded by this Court by an order dated 26.4.2006 in M.C.C. No. 1290 of 2004. For ready reference we quote order dated 26.4.2006 which reads thus :- " This Court in LPA No.89/88 while dealing with the appeal against the dismissal of divorce petition speaking through U.L.Bhatt, learned Chief Justice, in paragraph 14 and 15 expressed the view as under :- "14. The husband has been working as a Lecturer and subsequently as an Assistant Professor in one of the Govt. Engineering Colleges. According to his learned counsel, his monthly emoluments would be around Rs.5000/-. The wife has taken the stand that she is unemployed, though a post graduate and has no means of her own. Respondent has made a vague statement that she is working as a Teacher. He did not give any proof, nor did he confront the wife with reference to any details. It is, therefore, clear that she has no means of her own. We are told that the child is studying in matriculation. Undoubtedly it is imperative that the child must received further and full education and then thereafter be settled in life. We have considered all the aspects of the matter and propose to issue an appropriate direction regarding maintenance and incidental matters under Sec.25 and 26 of the Act.
1. We dispose the appeal as followed :- (i) Decree for dissolution of marriage is confirmed.
(ii) The direction of the trial Court to pass appropriate orders regarding maintenance on the application of the present appellant is set aside. (iii) Respondent shall pay a sum of Rs. 750.00 per month as permanent alimony and maintenance to the appellant with effect from 1.10.1994 and shall pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/-p.m. on account of the child till the child settles down in life by marriage or otherwise. The maintenance due on account of the child shall be paid in the hands of the mother."
3. Thereafter various applications have been filed with regard to execution of the said order. They have melted into insignificance as we have been apprised that the amount fixed therein has been paid, though in a belated manner after intervention of this court.
4. The present application has been filed for enhancement of maintenance allowance. It is submitted by Ms. Chand Grover and Ms. Gunjan Grover who have appeared in person that they should be paid substantial amount to sustain themselves. Ms. Gunjan Grover has submitted that she is not in a position to sustain herself and is going under immense difficulty. It is submitted by Ms. Gunjan Grover that they belong to a respectable family but a situation has come that they are not able to meet their basic requirements. It is also submitted by her that with lot of difficulty she has become a law graduate. But she has not been able to become successful in the profession. It is further canvassed by her that life is worth living and she is unable to get good and shelter and therefore it would be difficult on her part to sustain herself. Ms. Chand Grover canvassed that in the LPA the Division Bench has passed the order in the year 1994 and the same requires to be modified. It is also highlighted by both of them that respondent Mr. Sunil Grover is a high ranking officer and is getting pension more than Rs.10,000/- and has also got landed property. It is put forth by them that there is possibility of income being increased. It is also said forth by them erroneous stand has been taken by Mr. Sunil Grover. In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made for enhancement of quantum regarding maintenance.
5. Mr. Rajesh Mainderatta, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Sunil Grover in presence of Sunil Grover submitted that he is a retired Engineer who is getting pension of Rs.10,675/-. It is also urged by them apart from the income that is obtained from pension, there is no other source of income. It is clarified by Mr. Rajesh Mainderatta that the respondent is living in a rented premises.
6. In reply Ms. Chand Grover and Ms. Gunjan Grover have submitted that the respondent has not made statement in clear cut terms. He has a house in his own name but effort has been made not to speak the truth before the Court. It is also submitted by them that he has got properties outside the country and also got jewelery, utensils and cutlery that was given to him at the time of marriage which is known to the whole world.
7. Ordinarily we would have asked the petitioners to approach the family Court but we have though it appropriate, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, to modify the order passed in the LPA as regards maintenance because Mr. Sunil Grover wanted the controversy to be put to rest. It is submitted by him that the amount which he is getting as pension is the only source of income. At this juncture, Ms. Chand Grover and Miss Gunjan Grover submitted that despite the order passed in the LPA the amount was not paid on time and that is why they are compelled to move this Court. Mr. Sunil Grover has agreed to pay Rs.3200/-towards maintenance to Ms.Chand Grover and Ms. Gunjan Grover in toto per month. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed as under :-
(a) The respondent Mr. Sunil Grover shall deposit Rs.3200/- per month by 5th of each succeeding month in the account in which he has been depositing so far. The same shall commence 5.6.2006.
(b) The date that has been fixed may extend upto 7th if there is holiday in between.
(C) If there would be no holiday, under no circumstances the time would extended beyond 5th. (d) If the time goes beyond 7th of each month the respondent would face severe consequences. The application stands disposed of.
8. It is the contention of the petitioners that by the aforesaid order both the petitioners were allowed alimony at the rate of Rs.3200/- per month but now the aforesaid amount is insufficient to maintain both the petitioners. Apart from this petitioner no.1 is also sick and additional amount is required for her treatment.
9. The respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that the order dated 26.4.2006 was passed on consent. The petitioner No.2 Ms. Gunjan Grover is an advocate and practicing in the Court so she is not entitled for any maintenance.
10. On being raised a quarry from the respondent, it is stated by the respondent that on 26.4.2006 when the aforesaid order was passed, he was getting pension at the rate of Rs.12,000/-p.m. As on date the respondent is getting pension between Rs.29,000/- and Rs.30,000/-. It is stated by the respondent that the respondent is not liable to make any enhancement to the petitioners.
11. From the perusal of the aforesaid order we find that though the aforesaid order was passed on the consensus of the respondent but after passing of the aforesaid order circumstances have changed. As per the case of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 is sick and is under treatment. So far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, though it is alleged by the respondent that she is a registered Advocate and is practicing but the aforesaid position is factually disputed by petitioner No.2 who submitted that though she is registered herself as an advocate but is not earning anything and is fully dependent on the maintenance amount.
12. From the perusal of the aforesaid fact, it is apparent that at the time of passing of the order dated 26.4.2006, the respondent was getting Rs.12,000/- p.m. by way of pension but now it has increased to Rs.29,000/-. In these circumstances an appropriate increase in the amount of maintenance deserves to be made.
13. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, though this fact is not disputed that she has registered herself as an Advocate but in respect of her income, there is nothing on record. As per the respondent she is not entitled for any future maintenance while petitioner No.2 is claiming maintenance from her father. In these circumstances without making any direction in this regard, we find that the petitioner No.1 is entitled for enhanced maintenance and considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, we direct that the maintenance amount which was fixed earlier on 26.4.2006 be enhanced to the extent of Rs.6000/- [Rupees six thousand only] per month. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, as the controversy has been raised by the respondent that she is not entitled for maintenance, the petitioner No.2 may approach to the family Court for seeking appropriate direction in this regard.
14. This order shall be effective from 1st of April,2011 and accordingly the respondent shall make payment of the aforesaid amount to the petitioner No.1. With the aforesaid directions this M.C.C. is finally disposed of.