RADHIKA DHIR Vs. J C DHIR RETD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for maintenance filed by the two unmarried daughters against theirfather, a retired Army Officer. The father and mother of the two plaintiffs are notstaying together and the plaintiffs are staying with their mother. In an Order passed bythis Court in S.No. 906/97, this Court has restrained the defendant from entering theresidence of the plaintiffs and their mother. The plaintiffs have averred that they ortheir mother does not have any movable or immovable property and the plaintiffshave averred that besides 5 items of immovable property detailed by them in theirapplication the defendant has income of Rs. 10,000.00 per month from investmentsand the pension of about Rs. 7,500.00 per month.

(2.) During the course of the pendency of this matter, the parties were required to filetheir affidavit of income and the affidavits of income of both the parties have beenfiled. From the affidavit of the plaintiffs' mother it is seen that the income of theplaintiffs' mother is at present Rs.8,000.00 per month and the defendant as per hisaffidavit is having an income of Rs.86,625.00 per annum and it is further seen that thedefendant has immovable properties though he has denied the fact that the immovableproperties are earning any income. The mother of the plaintiffs has stated that thedaughters/plaintiffs stay with her and she is staying in a rented house at Masjid Mothfor which she is paying the rent of Rs.4,000.00 per month and the rent receipt to thateffect has been filed. The plaintiffs have contended that they are students and the 1stplaintiff is an under graduate student and the second plaintiff is a school student.

(3.) The plaintiffs' mother basic salary is Rs.3.700.00, house rent allowance of Rs.2,300/and Conveyance Allowance of Rs.2,000.00. The defendant inter-alia while denyingany income from the immovable property has further stated that he does not have anyincome from the godown at Chandigarh or the Shop in Palam Vypar Kendra, PalamVihar, Gurgaon for which the possession has not been taken. He has also contendedthat the first plaintiff is earning a lot of money by modelling assignments. However,there is no detail given of the modelling income. In fact the first plaintiffs' case is thatshe had modelled in a show in her educational institute but that did not generate anyincome. I am thus satisfied that the defendant has not been able to prove any incomeon the basis of modelling by any of the plaintiffs. Since the plaintiff No. 1 is in thesecond year of her undergraduate course and is also studying in a polytechnic andthe second plaintiff is a school student the defendant's averment that she wasworking cannot be believed especially when no details are given. The requisite billsfor the fees of the two plaintiffs have been filed alongwith the affidavit of their mother.