Back
1995 Supreme(Del) 650
High Court Of Delhi
MASTER VISHAL SETHI - Appellant
Versus
VINOD KUMAR SETHI - Respondent
Interim Application 1392 of 1989
Decided On : 08/24/1995
PINKY ANAND
The liability of a father to maintain his children does not end upon payment of a lump sum to their mother in a compromise decree in a matrimonial dispute.
Headnote:
MAINTENANCE - HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956 - SECTION 22(2) - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - ORDER XXXIII, RULE 1 - INTERIM MAINTENANCE - ENTITLEMENT OF MAJOR CHILDREN TO MAINTENANCE - LIABILITY OF FATHER TO PAY MAINTENANCE TO MAJOR CHILDREN - INTERPRETATION OF CONSENT TERMS IN A MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE - CONSIDERATION OF INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND OTHER EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE INCOME - AWARD OF INTERIM MAINTENANCE TO MINOR CHILDREN AND MAJOR CHILDREN UP TO THE DATE OF THEIR MAJORITY.
Fact of the Case:
Three minor children filed a suit under Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking maintenance and marriage expenses from their father. They also filed an application for interim maintenance, claiming that their father had a monthly income of over Rs. 15,000. The father contested the application, arguing that he had already paid Rs. 2.50 lakhs to their mother in a compromise decree in a matrimonial dispute, and that he had no obligation to pay maintenance to the children. He also claimed that his monthly income was only Rs. 1,500.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the consent terms in the matrimonial dispute did not mention that the father's liability to maintain his children would end upon payment of the Rs. 2.50 lakhs to the mother. The court also found that the father's claim that he had no income from his business was not credible, considering his mother's statement that he was giving her Rs. 5,000 per month towards household expenses and the sale proceeds of his business.
Issues: 1. Whether the father's liability to maintain his children ended upon payment of Rs. 2.50 lakhs to their mother in a compromise decree in a matrimonial dispute? 2. Whether the father's claim that he had no income from his business was credible? 3. Whether the major children were entitled to interim maintenance?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the consent terms in the matrimonial dispute did not mention that the father's liability to maintain his children would end upon payment of the Rs. 2.50 lakhs to the mother. The court also found that the father's claim that he had no income from his business was not credible, considering his mother's statement that he was giving her Rs. 5,000 per month towards household expenses and the sale proceeds of his business. 2. The court held that the major children were entitled to interim maintenance up to the date of their majority, as per Section 22(2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Final Decision: The court awarded interim maintenance to the minor children at the rate of Rs. 600 per month each from the date of the application, and to the major children at the rate of Rs. 600 per month each up to the date of their majority.
( 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.
( 4 ) WHEN this application came up for hearing before me, neither the respondent nor his Counsel were present. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, who has taken me through all the documents on record as well as the pleadings of the parties. The main contention of respondent No. 1 for opposing the present application is that in view of the payment of Rs. 2. 50 lakhs to the mother of the petitioners he is not liable to pay any maintenance. The petitioners have produced a copy of the consent terms which are executed between the respondent No. 1 and Ms. Prem Varsha Sethi. The said document clearly shows that the Special Leave Petition was pertaining to a matrimonial case between respondent-Vinod Kumar Sethi and his wife Prem Varsha Sethi. The present petitioners were not a party to the said Special Leave Petition as well as the original proceedings. No doubt the said consent terms do show that the respondent has agreed to pay Rs. 2. 50 lakhs to Prem Varsha Sethi as per the said consent terms, it is also an admitted fact that the present respondent has made payment of the said amount of Rs. 2. 50 lakhs to the mother of the present petitioners, but merely because of the payment of the said amount of Rs. 2. 50 lakhs by him to the mother of the petitioners, it could not be said that the liability of the respondent towards the maintenance of his children has come to an end. The consent terms mention in term No. 3 as under :
"upon the payment being made in full, as aforesaid, no party will have any rig
