RAKESH Vs. MASTER AKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 6. 8. 2007 passed by the court below on an application made by the respondents for enhancement of interim maintenance in a suit for maintenance and separate residence under sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

(2.) THE respondents in this case are two minor sons and wife of the petitioner. They were granted a maintenance of Rs. 3500/- earlier. On an application for enhancement of maintenance, the court below enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 2500/- per month for each respondents keeping in view the growing age of the two children who were aged 12 and 13 years and keeping in view the increase in cost of living. The petitioner's contention is that he was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 3500/- by working at a shop and he could not afford to pay this maintenance. The contention of the petitioner was taken into account by the court below and it was found that the petitioner has claimed to be an employee at his mother's shop; whereas the respondents have stated that this shop was being run by the petitioner himself. The shop was a dry-cleaner shop in the name of M/s Mohan Sons Dry Cleaners at R. K. Puram. It was also stated that the petitioner had recently constructed a palatial 2 " storey house in Sector 47 NOIDA. He was maintaining two air conditioned cars. Apart from that, the petitioner was having two more houses in Kalkaji. House No. 43/1076, dda Flats, Kalkaji was being used for washing, dry-cleaning and for laundry business being run by the petitioner and other house was being used for residence.

(3.) THE petitioner though claimed that he was only an employee and also relied upon a salary certificate issued by his mother, but did not place on record of the Court the accounts of the dry cleaning business, balance sheets, annual return etc. showing how much was the income from this business, what salary was being paid to other employees, how many employees were employed and what was the stake of different family members in the business. He has also not placed on record the title deeds of different properties mentioned by the respondents. He had not denied existence of the properties and family business. The trial Court rightly disbelieved the contention of the petitioner that he was merely an employee under his mother. There is no gainsaying that the petitioner being father of the two respondents and husband of third respondent, has a liability to maintain them and provide residence.