VISHAL SETHI Vs. VINOD KUMAR SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed by the petitioners who had filed this Suit No. 82/92 under the provisions of Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure as indigent persons. Alongwith their application under Rule 1 of Order XXXIII they had filed this application to get interim maintenance as they had filed the suit against their father Shri Vinod Kumar Sethi to get a decree for maintenance and the amount for the marriage expenses of petitioner No. 3, Deepali. It is the claim of the applicants/petitioners that the monthly income of their father is more than Rs. 15,000.00 . All the petitioners are minor. They are taking education and they are living with their mother.They have sought a permanent decree of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000.00 per month per petitioner and Rs. 2.00 lakhs towards the marriage expenses of petitioner No. 3 Deepali.

(2.) In this application they have averred that they are unable to maintain themselves. Their mother is working as a teacher and her earnings as a teacher are not sufficient for the maintenance of the three petitioners and their mother. As against this their father is having monthly income of Rs. 15,000.00 and, therefore, in these circumstances, they should be granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000.00 per month per petitioner.

(3.) The claim of the petitioners is contested by the respondent by filing his written statement to the suit as well as by his reply to the interim application. It is the contention of the respondent that there were proceedings of Special Leave Petition (Civil) 10804/ 84 before the Supreme Court between the petitioners' mother Ms. Prem Varsha Sethi and respondent Vinod Kumar Sethi and that proceeding was settled by a compromise decree and as per the said compromise decree the respondent had paid a sum of Rs. 2.50 lakhs to Ms. Prem Varsha Sethi and, consequently, the present petitioners are not entitled to claim and get any maintenance from him. He has further contended that the claim of petitioners that he is having monthly income of Rs. 15,000.00 is false. According to him he has no business and no shop and his monthly income is not more than Rs. l,500.00 per month. He has further claimed that he has also to maintain his own parents, his second wife and a child and, therefore, in these circumstances, he cannot afford to pay any maintenance. Therefore, in these circumstances, this interim application should be rejected.