ASHOK KUMAR BHALLA Vs. ROOPA BHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has been directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/-to respondent No.1 who is in custody of the son and daughter born to the parties. At the time when the impugned order dated 22.10.2005 was passed the son was a student of engineering at an Institute at Faridabad and the daughter was a student of Class XI in Cambridge School, Sriniwas Puri.

(2.) THE learned Judge has accepted the case of the first respondent and believed her version to the effect that she was employed with LIC and was receiving a gross salary of Rs. 19,000/-. After statutory deductions her net take home salary was Rs. 16,000/- per month. As regards the petitioner, he being an employee with the Central Bank of India his gross salary of Rs. 22,000/-per month has been accepted. Net take home salary has been determined at Rs. 20,000/- per month. Rs. 20,000/-per month as rental income from property bearing No.E-188, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi has been added on to the monthly income of the husband.

(3.) A threefold contention was urged at the hearing in the instant petition. Firstly, it was urged that the house at Lajpat Nagar was jointly owned by the petitioner and his mother. That the respondent and her children were residing on the ground floor. That the rental income was accruing to the mother of the petitioner. Additionally, on the issue of the rental income, it was urged that there was no material to show that the rental income was in sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The second point urged was that after the passing of the impugned order, the respondent and her children shifted to the first floor and rental income therefrom ceased to exist. It was submitted that the petitioner continues to occupy the ground floor. Lastly, it was urged that both children having attained the age of majority, petitioner would not be liable to pay any maintenance for the upkeep of the 2 children.