SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

(ORAL) FAO (OS) No. 119/2008 & CM APPL. No. 16697/2008

1. The dispute is an unfortunate one where the appellant/husband is arrayed on one side and the respondent/wife on the other side whereas the two minor children arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The appeal has been filed by the husband aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.01.2008 determining the issue of interim maintenance and facilities to be extended to the respondents for their residence. The respondents have also filed cross objections albeit after a delay of 39 days.

2. We may note at the inception that averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay of 39 days filed by the respondents for taking on record the cross objections do not evoke the confidence of the Court. The reason given is that there was a fracture in the left ankle of respondent no. 1 which caused some delay and thereafter some time was taken to draft the cross objections. During this period of time, the respondents were already legally advised through counsel who was appearing before the learned Single Judge and in fact the case of the appellant is that the respondent No. 1 was even attending to legal proceedings and her presence was recorded in Court proceedings. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant contends that the appropriation of maintenance determined in terms of the impugned order itself shows that the respondent No. 1 accepted the order and the filing of the cross objections is clearly an afterthought. Respondents had gone as far as to even file execution proceedings and at no stage reserved their right to file cross objections.

3. We find force in the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the appellant. Despite this we have examined the rival contentions of the parties on the plea of maintenance and the living arrangements for the respondents taking into consideration that ultimately it is a dispute between one unit of the family and the object of any order can only be to ensure that sufficient means are available for the maintenance of the wife and the children keeping in mind the financial means of the appellant.

4. It is not in dispute that the only residential property owned by the appellant is the first floor of house No. 8/15 WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The appellant is running a Guest House known as Royal Palace located near Ganga Ram Hospital which is his source of income and is using a Hyundai Santro Car. The aspect of the earning capacity of the appellant has been examined by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order in Paras 4 and 5. The learned Judge has taken note of the fact that even earlier the appellant was making available funds to the respondents for their needs even though there were strained relations. The need has increased over a period of time and taking into consideration the fact that even the income tax returns do not reflect the accurate income of the person, the learned Single Judge determined a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month as payable for the maintenance of the respondents. This amount arrived at by the learned Single Judge in his discretion after looking into the documents placed on record and hearing the parties thus, does not call for any interference.

5. We must also take note of the fact that this amount is not in isolation as the only amount being paid to the respondents. The directions passed by the learned Single Judge are as under: “Considering the income of the defendant No. 1 during pendency of this suit, defendant No. 1 shall continue to:

i. bear electricity charges of the house bearing number 8/15 WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi subject to a maximum of Rs. 5,000/- per month.

ii. He shall continue to pay the school fees/tuition fees and other expenses for the education of the two children.

iii. He shall pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month to plaintiff No. 1 on account of household expenses and other misc expenses.

iv. He shall not dispossess plaintiffs from the first floor of House no. 8/15