Delhi High Court
Sarbjyot Kaur Saluja And Ors. vs Rajender Singh Saluja And Anr. on 30 January, 2008
Author: S N Dhingra
Bench: S N Dhingra
ORDER
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
IA No. 14322/2007
1. By this order, I shall dispose of an application for fixing interim maintenance for the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 1 is the wife of defendant No. 1 and plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are minor children of defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs have claimed a regular maintenance of Rs. 1.5 lac per month in the suit and also sought right to live in the house No. 8/15 WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi, where they are presently residing.
2. It is undisputed that the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3, the minor children are school going. The marriage between plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 had taken place on 18th November 1990. The first child i.e. plaintiff No. 2 was born on 16th December 1991 and the second child i.e. plaintiff No. 3 was born on 29th January 1995. Plaintiff No. 1 made various allegations in the plaint justifying as to why it was not possible for her to live in the company of defendant No. 1 and why she was constrained to live with her two minor children separately from defendant No. 1. No doubt the house is the joint matrimonial house of the parties where the plaintiffs lived all along.
3. Plaintiff No. 1 contended that she was not able to maintain herself and she had no source of income while defendant No. 1 was running a hotel "Royal Palace" at 1/62, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi near Ganga Ram Hospital. He is having Hyundai Santro Car bearing No. DL 6CG 3594. He has having shares in the companies and many other properties and assets unknown to the plaintiffs.
4. The defendant in the written statement had denied the various allegations made by the plaintiffs against him and had made counter allegations which need not be gone into at the stage of deciding this application. However, defendant No. 1 stated that he never escaped his obligation to maintain his wife and children in accordance with his position and status. He admitted that in the above property, the first floor was owned by defendant No. 1 and alleged that the intention of the plaintiff seemed to be to grab the property. He was compelled to leave his own home. He had been living in this property along with his family but now he was not being allowed to live in that house. The plaintiffs were not allowing him to enter into the house belonging to him and his only residence. Regarding maintenance, it is submitted that he was regularly paying to the plaintiffs sufficient amount to run the house. He was earlier paying Rs. 10,000/-, then Rs. 15,000/- and presently he was paying Rs. 20,000/- per month to plaintiff No. 1 for running the house. He was also paying electricity bill of the house. He was paying school fees and other education expenses of the children.
5. During arguments, the above facts were not disputed. It is submitted that considering the income and status of defendant No. 1, the maintenance was not just and proper. The defendant No. 1 is owner of "Royal Hotel" near Ganga Ram Hospital. This hotel was having 15 rooms, rent for each room per day is Rs. 1800/- + taxes. Since the hotel is situated just near Ganga Ram Hospital, a well known hospital, the occupancy rate of the rooms was above 90%. Photocopies of occupancy register have been filed by the plaintiff to show that all the rooms of the Hotel normally used to remain occupied. It is alleged that the earnings of the defendant No. 1 from the hotel and other sources was around Rs. 6 lac per month. The plaintiff have claimed only Rs. 1.5 lac per month and this amount should be allowed as interim maintenance. On the other hand, it is stated by counsel for defendant No. 1 that the defendant No. 1 has filed income tax returns showing that his annual income was less than Rs. 3 lac. About hotel, it is stated that the hotel was an illegal hotel and the occupancy was not as high as claimed. The rate of rent, as stated by the plaintiff, is not disputed. During arguments, an offer was made to the defendant No. 1 by plaintiff No. 1 that the plaintiff was prepared to manage the hotel and was ready to give Rs. 3 lac per month out of the hotel income, to the defendant No. 1, If he was ready to hand over the management of the hotel to the plaintiff. It was also stated that the ownership of the hotel would be that of the defendant No. 1 and only the management should be given to the plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiff No. 1 would not claim any further maintenance from defendant No. 1, if she was allowed to manage the hotel and would pay a lumpsum payment to defendant No. 1. The entire administrative expenses and other expenses would be met by the plaintiff No. 1 out of the gross income of the hotel. This offer was not accepted by defendant No. 1 who took the plea that it would not be in his dignity that he ceased to be the owner of hotel or management of the hotel was taken away.
6. It is obvious that the real income of defendant No. 1 is not reflected in the income tax returns filed by defendant. It is defendant's own case that he has been paying plaintiffs about Rs. 20,000/- per month. He has been meeting expenses of education of the children. He has also been paying electricity charges of the above house.
7. Considering the income of the defendant No. 1 during pendency of this suit, defendant No. 1 shall continue to:
i. bear electricity charges of the house bearing number 8/15 WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi subject to a maximum of Rs. 5,000/- per month.
ii. He shall continue to pay the school fees/tuition fees and other expenses for the education of the two children.
iii. He shall pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month to plaintiff No. 1 on account of
household expenses and other misc expenses.
iv. He shall not dispossess plaintiffs from the first floor of House No. 8/15 WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
v. He shall purchase full medical coverage insurance policy for all the three plaintiffs and shall get the same renewed year after year, during pendency of the instant suit.
8. With above directions, the application stands disposed of.
IPA No. 15/2005
