ZARA LALL Vs. ATUL DUSHYANT LALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order I shall dispose of an application for grant of interim maintenance made by the petitioners/plaintiffs. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed this petition/suit under Section 18, 20 & 23 of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 against the respondent/defendant. Petitioner No.1 is daughter of respondent and is aged 5 years now. Petitioner No.2 is wife of the respondent. For considering the interim maintenance application, I need not go into the allegations made by the petitioner no.2 (wife) against the respondent giving details as to how respondent treated her and left the petitioners. Suffice it to say that the petitioner alleged that the respondent was leading a lavish lifestyle. He was earlier working in hotel The Claridges as General Manager of the hotel and was living with petitioners in D-203, First Floor, Defence Colony, a rented accommodation provided to him by the hotel. The rent of the accommodation was Rs.1,35,000/- per month. She alleged that the respondent was getting a salary, apart from the accommodation, of approximately Rs.4 lac per month from The Claridges Hotel. At the time of filing petition by the petitioners the respondent was in the process of leaving The Claridges and had intended to shift to Mumbai and take up service with Berggruen Hotel, Span Centre, South Avenue, Santacruz (W), Mumbai as Chief Executive Officer. The petitioners alleged that the salary of respondent when he joins Mumbai hotel may be around Rs.6 lac per month. At the time when this petition was filed, the respondent had not yet joined the Berggruen Hotel at Mumbai and had to join the new job after 15th August, 2007. The petitioner no.2 claimed a monthly maintenance of Rs.1,50,000/- for herself and same for the daughter. The petitioners also prayed for issuance of a permanent injunction restraining respondent from turning them out of house no. D-203, First Floor, Defence Colony and sought a decree directing respondent to continue paying Rs.1,35,000/- as rent for the house.

(2.) THIS Court while entertaining petition on 3rd August, 2007 passed an order restraining respondent from surrendering the tenancy or handing over possession of the premises bearing no. D-203, First Floor, Defence Colony, to any third party or forcibly dispossessing the petitioners. The respondent was also restrained from removing any movable articles housed in the said premises. At that time, the respondent was having a bank balance in his ICICI bank account Jorbagh Branch to the tune of more than Rs.6 lac. The respondent was restrained from withdrawing an amount of Rs.5 lac and he was allowed to operate the bank account only beyond the amount of Rs.5 lac. This was done at the instance of petitioners, who expressed an apprehension that with an intention of compelling the petitioners to accede to the unlawful demands of the respondent, he could stop paying the rental to the landlord and deprive the petitioners of their legitimate claim of maintenance.

(3.) THERE is no counter affidavit filed by the petitioner refuting the assertions made by the respondent about his salary and income. Nor any material has been placed by petitioner on record to show what was stated by respondent was not correct. At this stage, I, therefore consider that Court has to decide interim maintenance on the basis of disclosure made by the respondent in his affidavit, supported by documents.