RAJIV KAPOOR Vs. SEEMA KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide judgment and decree dated 20.5.05, the learned Additional District Jude, Delhi partially allowed the petition filed by Smt.Seema Kapoor and the minor child against her husband Sh.Rajeev Kapoor under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') granting Rs.3,500/- per month each to both the petitioners as monthly maintenance. The legality and correctness of this judgment is questioned by Sh Rajeev Kapoor in this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the following grounds ;

(2.) Respondent no.1 was married to the appellant on 26.11.92 according to Hindu rites and customs. Master Vaibhav was born from this wedlock on 20.11.93. It appears that the matrimonial relations between the husband and the wife got strained and according to the respondent no.1, she was thrown out of the matrimonial home and is presently residing with her parents. The appellant is stated to have neglected to maintain the respondents and since 7.6.94, nothing was paid to them towards maintenance. In regard to means of the appellant, it was the case of the respondent that he was carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s Kapoor Agencies from his residence and his employees or servants were maintaining scooters and he has a income of Rs. 40,000/- per month. It was stated that the appellant was maintaining a car. Master Vaibhav is stated to be studying in a school and the respondents needs at least Rs.5,000/- per month for taking an accommodation on rent so that they can reside comfortably. On these scores, a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month was claimed as maintenance by the wife and son of the appellant.

(3.) The factum of marriage was not disputed nor paternity of the child, however, it was stated that the wife was guilty of desertion and neglect and had no reason to claim any maintenance. A petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed and in that petition, vide order dated 24.2.97 the husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month to the petitioners. In fact, the grievance of the appellant was also that he was being deprived of the company and affection of his son. Another stand taken by the appellant was that a false complaint was lodged and case was registered under Section 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and his parents by the respondent no.1. It was specifically denied that the appellant was carrying on business under the above named firm from his residence, in fact, it is stated that he was employed with M/s Kapoor Agencies and was getting a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month and in these circumstances, he pray for the dismissal of the petition filed before the Trial Court on the ground that sufficient maintenance had already been awarded in terms of the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court had framed the following issues: "1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which date 2. Relief."