IMPORTANT POINT
“Reasonable Expenditure” in context of expenditure on marriage of unmarried daughter will mean fair and not too high, Court will have to reach to a sum primarily considering financial status of parties.

G.P.Mittal, J.—This suit (in the form of a Petition as an indigent person) has been filed by the two Petitioners; Petitioner no. 1 is the wife and Petitioner no. 2 is the daughter of the Respondent.

2. In the main petition, maintenance on account of Respondent’s cruelty and neglect to maintain the Petitioners has been claimed. It is averred that Petitioner no. 1 was married to the Respondent on 31.10.1982. A daughter i.e. Petitioner no. 2 and a son were born to Petitioner no. 1 from the loins of the Respondent. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Respondent had been treating Petitioner no. 1 with cruelty ever since the inception of marriage. In the year 2011, the cruelty inflicted upon Petitioner no. 1 escalated to such an extent that she had to leave her matrimonial home at Sainik Farm and start living with her brother. Similarly, the Respondent and his son are also not on talking terms with each other because of the cruelty bestowed upon the said son. The son along with his wife are also living separately from the Petitioners and the Respondent.

3. It is averred that Petitioner no. 2 returned to Delhi after completing her studies in Bangalore in the year 2013. The Respondent perpetuated physical violence upon her and she too had to leave her father’s house and stay with Petitioner no. 1 at the house of Petitioner no.1’s brother.

4. While the inquiry whether the Petitioners are entitled to sue as indigent persons or not is pending before the Court, the instant application has been moved by Petitioner no. 2 claiming a sum of Rs. 66,25,000/- for meeting the expenditure on her wedding i.e. for sagan, mehendi, wedding, gifts, etc. etc. It has been averred in the application that Petitioner no. 2 got engaged to one Dashmesh Aulakh and rokka ceremony was held on 13.04.2014. Petitioner no. 1 had to borrow money from her family members and friends for the said ceremony and also for making advance payments towards functions like Anand Karaj, Sagan, etc. It has been stated that mehendi, sagan and wedding are scheduled to be held on 25th, 26th and 27th of December, 2014 respectively.

5. According to the averments made by the Petitioners, the Respondent possesses 5 cars which are Mercedes Benz E-250, BMW 3 Series, Toyota Fortuner, Hyundai Verna and Hyundai I10. He also owns a bungalow in Sainik Farm admeasuring 1100 sq. yards which has all the modern facilities, landscaped lawns, servants, garages etc. Further, Respondent’s family owns a property opposite Filmistan Theatre and also a flat on ground floor at GK-II, New Delhi. The Respondent has also purchased shops at Masjid Moth; he owns a godown in Tuglakabad and is fetching rent from the said shops and godown. It is urged that the Respondent has also purchased a 3 acre farmhouse at Uppal Farms at Bilaspur on Jaipur Highway. The Respondent had been carrying on business in the name and style of Gujarat Tent Services, Gujarat Samiana, Tulip Caterers, Select Tours and Talsoft Information Technology. The Respondent has also opened a Mughlai Restaurant in the name and style of Shan-e-Delhi and has hired a chef from Taj Mansingh Hotel to run the same. The Respondent is alleged to have initially started a five star resort in the name and style of ‘DE VIVENDI’ resort at Manali with only 15 rooms. However, now the said resort has flourished and has more than 40 rooms alongwith Discothèque, Conference Room, 2 gymnasium, gardens and 4-5 rooms even have the facility of Jacuzzi.

6. To show the means of the Respondent, the Petitioners have further averred that the Respondent has given an interest free unsecured loan of about Rs. 2.5 crores to his friends and relatives. The Respondent is a man of sufficient means and that is why he spent sum of about Rs. 10 lacs on a family trip to Turkey which included the Petitioners and the Respondent. The Respondent also incurred expenditure of around 1500 Euros for Petitioner no. 2’s educational trip to France. The details of bifurcation of the amou