BABY RUPALI Vs. RAJESH GROVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs had in this suit made an application for the grant of interim maintenance. By an order dated 11th July, 2001, this Court had, with the consent of the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month to plaintiff No. 1. That order did not make any provision for plaintiff No. 2 who happens to be the mother of plaintiff.No. 1. IA No. 13002/2000 filed by the mother seeking a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance for plaintiff No. 2 was heard and disposed of by this Court in terms of a separate order dated 19th December, 2001. This Court had, looking to the averments made by the parties in their respective pleadings and the submissions made in support thereof, held that a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month from the date of the filing of the application towards maintenance of plaintiff No. 2 would suffice. The plaintiff wife was not satisfied with the said order and challenged the same in FAO (OS) 34/2002 before a Division Bench of this Court. By an agreed order dated 28th July, 2003, passed by the Appellate Court, the appeal was allowed and the matter remitted back to this Court for fresh orders on IA 13002/2000 taking into consideration the documents already on record and those that may be placed on record by the parties. That is precisely how the matter has once again been argued before me by Counsel for the parties.

(2.) Mr. Jauhar, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs argued that both the plaintiffs were without any independent source of income or means to maintain themselves. The fact that the plaintiff No. 2 was a housewife, unable to support herself financially was, according to the learned Counsel, evident from the pleadings on record. It was also evident from the fact that the defendant husband had, by conceding payment of Rs. 1,500/- per month towards maintenance, impliedly accepted the inability of the wife to support herself. It was contended that the question that fell for consideration of this Court was not whether the plaintiff No. 2 was entitled to any maintenance. The question was as to what the amount of maintenance should be. He urged that the defendant husband was a prosperous and wealthy businessman who was leading an opulent life-style sufficiently indicative of his financial capacity to pay a reasonable amount to plaintiff No. 2, his wife. This payment has, according to the plaintiff to be commensurate with the status of the husband and the comforts which he and his other family members are enjoying. The material on record, argued Mr. Jauhar, was sufficient to justify the award of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- claimed by tile plaintiff towards maintenance.

(3.) For the husband defendant, on the other hand, it was submitted that while the incapacity of the wife to support herself was not in dispute, the evidence introduced by the respondent show that she was not in real need of any financial assistance from the husband. It was submitted that she is the daughter of a wealthy businessman who was leading an ostentatious and extravagant lifestyle. The defendant husband was, on the contrary, in financial doldrums on account of his ill-health and business losses. The allegation that the defendant is carrying on business in different names is also, according to the learned Counsel, false and unsupported by any material. The defendant husband's income was, according to the learned Counsel for the defendant, limited to a rental income of Rs. 10,000/- per month apart from a meagre income coming from the business which the defendant has recently started. Reliance in support of that submission was placed upon the income tax returns for the years 1994-95 onwards in which the income of the defendant ranges between Rs. 38.0311- and Rs. 1,59,9611- per year. Reliance is also placed upon copies of certain documents produced by the defendant to show that M/s. Ram Lal Grover & Sons where the defendant had 114 share till 27th May, 1998 stood dissolved and the firm had, for a year or so, suffered losses also.