S. Jagjit Singh Bhatia vs S. Balbir Singh Bhatia And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 552 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. By the present application, defendant No. 4, Smt. Iqbal Kaur, aged about 80 years, seeks a restraint against her sons, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and their children from interfering with her possession of second floor of house No. A-36, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, where she is residing. She further seeks to restrain the defendants from interfering with her free access to the premises. Defendant No. 4 also prays for directions to the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3, who are her sons, to pay a maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 10,000/- by each of them till the disposal of the suit.

2. Defendant No. 4, Smt. Iqbal Kaur, is the mother of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 being widow of late Sardar Amar Singh Bhatia. The present application has been filed in a suit for partition, dissolution of partnership firms and rendition of accounts.

3. Vide interim order dated 8.11.2001, passed in IA.10485/2001 parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of suit properties mentioned in schedule-I to the plaint. On 8.5.2002, in the present application, prayer against dispossession of the applicant was granted, observing that address given by the plaintiff of defendant No. 4 in the suit itself is of second floor, A-36, New Friends Colony, New Delhi.

4. Mr. S.K. Luthra, counsel for defendant No. 4/applicant submits that her late husband, Sardar Amar Singh Bhatia, had built up the extensive properties and businesses, which the plaintiff and defendants are enjoying. The sons and their family have turned hostile to her. At this advance stage of her life, she is being denied the maintenance amounts required to look after herself. It is stated that on account of his religious disposition late Sardar Amar Singh Bhatia had made commitments towards contribution to religious organizations and other charities. Defendant No. 4, with a view to commemorate the memory or her husband continued to honour the said commitments with the consent of her children. It is submitted that defendant No. 4 has a personal rental income of Rs. 13,682/-. Her water and electricity bills were paid by the family. She requires a chauffeur driven car, a servant and telephone as basic amenities. It is alleged that defendant Nos. 1 and 3 have altogether stopped contributing towards her maintenance. Plaintiff and defendant No. 2 give small amounts irregularly.

5. Mr. V.K. Makhija, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff, Sardar Jagjit Singh Bhatia submits that the plaintiff has been paying Rs. 5,000/- per month as his share of the monthly maintenance as per the family settlement and would continue to do so.

6. Mr. H.C. Dhall on behalf of defendant Nos. 3 and 7 submitted that defendant No. 4 was not in possession of the entire 2nd floor of House No. A-36, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. It is claimed that defendant Nos. 3 and 7 had their belongings in one room and IInd floor was in joint use. It was denied that any threat or attempt of dispossession was made. Regarding maintenance, it was admitted that sons had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- i.e. Rs. 5000/- each as per family arrangement/settlement. It is claimed that a sum of Rs. 5000/- was being paid earlier by cheque, later on by cash. Mr. H.C. Dhall submits that plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have given the most non-lucrative part of the business and enterprises to defendant Nos. 3 and 7. This has left the defendant Nos. 3 and 7 high and dry without any resources to make any contribution towards the maintenance of defendant No. 4. He submits that defendant No. 4 is possessed of her own means and she has been given a fixed deposit of Rs. 6 lacs. The crux of the submission of Mr.Dhall is that due to raw deal handed over to defendant Nos. 3 and 7, they are left with no resources to contribute for maintenance of defendant No. 4. The claim of Rs. 40,000/- as maintenance while having personal admitted income of Rs. 13,682/- per month for a single lady with facility of accommodation, free water and electricity etc. was excessive. To sum up, the legal obligation to pay maintenance at agreed rate of Rs. 5000/- per month was not denied, except for pleading financial hardship.

7.It was put to Mr.Sandeep Sethi, counsel for defendant No. 1 and 2, whether defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had any objection to similarly contributing equal amounts towards maintenance of defendant No. 4 as by plaintiff and defendants 3 and 7. Mr.Sethi submits that the present application, seeking maintenance is not maintainable. The suit, as filed, was a suit for partition and not one for maintenance. It was open to the plaintiff to seek substantive relief by filing a petition for maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Mr.Sethi further submitted that the properties in possession of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were properties, which were individual properties. Similarly, businesses were run and controlled either by the partnership concern or sole proprietor, owned by the plaintiff or defendant Nos. 1 to 3. In these circumstances, there was no business or property which belonged to the HUF, from which defendant No. 4 could claim her share. Counsel laid considerable emphasis on the terms of the family settlement under which defendant No. 4 was required to relinquish her 1/5th share in A-36, New Friends Colony, New Delhi to defendant Nos. 1 and 2, under the settlement. Defendant No. 4 was to get the life estate in the said property but her 1/5th share was to be relinquished in favor of defendants 1 and 2. Mr.Sethi submits that defendant No. 4 had failed to perform her part of obligation in terms of family settlement. Nevertheless, she seeks to rely on the terms providing for her maintenance to be implemented. He submits that defendant No. 4, who demands maintenance, must perform her part under the family settlement. He further submits that defendant No. 4 was possessed of sufficient movable assets and even otherwise, she has rental income to the tune of Rs. 13,682/- or so and, therefore, was not in the need of any support or maintenance, specially, when she had been provided with chauffeur driven car with fuel and accommodation.

8. The objection that a separate application should have been filed under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and the present application was not maintainable, is without merit. The relief for which provision is made by Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act can be sought by the affected party in the proceedings in a partition suit.

9. Having noted the rival contentions and the factual matrix, the position which emerges is that defendant No. 4, whose husband has laid the foundation and built the entire properties and businesses, which the progeny is enjoying is left in a state at her ripe age to fend for herself.

10. What would be an adequate amount of maintenance for an individual would depend upon the health and other requirements, living standards, commensurate with way of life which the person has been living and the available resources. Based on the admitted position with regard to the businesses and properties, it is seen from the plaint that there are about 7 businesses, including commercial shops, guest houses etc., which the plaintiff and defendants are running. There are 23 properties, including a number of commercial ones and others valued localities such as Lajpat Nagar, South Delhi and in Mumbai. These are set out in para 6 of the plaint. There are 8 cars available. The rental income, as given for the parties, is as under:-

  a. Iqbal Kaur  12,867.00
b. Balbir Singh  96,925.00
c. Gurdev Singh  86,948.00
d. Nirmaljit Singh     1,04,727.00
e. Jagjit Singh  55,121.00

 

11. Defendant No. 4 very candidly admits having a rental income of Rs. 13,682/-. She states that she needs a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month to honour the commitments for charities and others as well as for her medical treatment and household expenses. In this connection, reference may also be made to the Family Settlement, agreed to between the parties. The Family Settlement has been signed by the plaintiff and three defendants, except the applicant. The memorandum of settlement itself describes the various properties, belonging to the family.

12. In this view of the matter, the argument that the application is not maintainable and as there are no family properties, cannot be accepted. In terms of family settlement, each of the sons had undertaken to make a fixed deposit receipt of Rs. 6 lacs, totalling Rs. 24 lacs to enable defendant No. 4 to have interest income of Rs. 20,000/-. The refusal of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as well as defendant Nos. 3 and 7 to contribute for the maintenance on the ground either of defendant No. 4 having not relinquished her share or a plea of lack of resources reflects the degeneration of values with onset of materialism. Even otherwise, the legal position is that a Hindu is under a legal obligation to maintain his wife, his minor son, his unmarried daughter and his aged parents, whether he is possessed of any property or not? The obligation to maintain these relations is personal, legal and absolute in character and arises from the very relationship of parties. Further, son is under a personal obligation to maintain his aged father. He is also under a similar obligation to maintain his aged mother and is bound to maintain whether or not he has inherited his father's estate. While it is true that the obligation under sub-section 3 of Section 20 of the Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act arises when the parent or unmarried daughter is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings. In the instant case, I am of the view that given the commitments claimed to have been made by defendant No. 4's husband for charity and others, which she continued to commemorate the memory of her husband as also her medical needs, standard of life she is used to maintain, her personal income of Rs. 13,682/- would not be sufficient. This is exactly what the parties had found themselves and recorded in the family settlement, signed by the plaintiff and three defendants. The family settlement of April, 2000, provided for creation of four FDRs of Rs. 6 lacs each, totalling Rs. 24 lacs to provide for the interest income of Rs. 13,682/- to the applicant, which was known to all. It is not necessary for me to dwell into the reasons why defendant No. 4 has not signed the family settlement. Be that as it may, the amount mentioned there, provides a safe indicator. Keeping in mind the numerous family properties as admitted and noticed in the family settlement itself, personal incomes of the sons from properties and businesses, the standard of life which members of the family maintain and considering that the maintenance was agreed in April, 2000 and sufficient time has since elapsed, I am of the view that a marginal increase in maintenance to meet the inflation is also warranted. Accordingly, I direct that plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 would pay to defendant No. 4 a sum of Rs. 5,500/- each per month with effect from August, 2002 and also the arrears, if any, at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month be also paid from April, 2000 i.e. date of the family settlement. The order regarding restraint of dispossession of defendant No. 4 is also confirmed.

IA. No. 4473/2002 stands allowed in the above terms.