IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI CM(M) No.880/2006 # Ashok Kumar Bhalla ........ Petitioner ! through: Mr.Rajat Aneja, Advocate VERSUS $ Smt.Roopa Bhalla & Ors. ........ Respondents ^ through: Mr.Varun Goswami, Advs. for respondents 1 to 3 % DATE OF DECISION: 11.01.2008 CORAM: * Hon'ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Y 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Y 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Y : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. * 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 Page 1 of 6 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. To put it pithily, the gross monthly salary of the wife has been taken at Rs.19,000/-. The gross monthly earnings of the husband have been taken at Rs.40,000/-. The monthly expenses of the 2 children, in relation to the fee payable at the respective institutes where the children are studying, plus other normal expenses have been determined at Rs.15,000/- per month. Since the earnings of the husband and wife are in the ration of 2:1, learned Judge has held that the 2 would be liable to share the same in the ratio 2:1. In this manner, petitioner has been held liable to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to his wife for upkeep of the 2 children. 4. 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 Page 2 of 6 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. 5. With reference to the first point urged by learned counsel for the petitioner I would note that the respondent has placed before this court various lease and hire agreements executed by the petitioner. They pertain to the basement, first floor and second floor of the property bearing No.E-188, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi. 6. On 6.9.2000, petitioner executed a lease agreement in respect of the second floor at a monthly rent of Rs.7300/- per month. On 6.4.2000 he executed a lease deed in respect of the first floor at a rent of Rs.4000/- per month. By another agreement of even date, pertaining to fittings and fixtures on Page 3 of 6 the first floor, petitioner executed a hire agreement where under he was receiving Rs.4000/- per month. On 11.12.2001 he let out the basement at a monthly rent of Rs.7000/- per month. 7. The aforesaid lease and hire agreements evidence 2 things. Firstly they evidence that the petitioner had been acting as the sole owner of the entire building. Secondly, they evidence that the petitioner was receiving rent and hire charges in sum of Rs.22,000/- per month. This amount is in excess of Rs.20,000/- vis-a-vis the rental income treated by the learned court below 8. Thus, I find no merit in the first submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. On the second point urged that after the order was passed the wife and children have shifted to the first floor and rental income therefrom has ceased to accrue and hence a reduction should be ordered, suffice would it be to state that to get benefit of said fact, petitioner ought to have truthfully disclosed to the court the current rental income which he is deriving from the basement and the second floor. 10. It is a matter of common knowledge that rentals have increased by 30% to 50% since the year 2002 and till date. 11. Taking the rental income in respect of the basement Page 4 of 6 and the second floor and as noted hereinabove and increasing the same by approximately 30% would yield the monthly income of Rs.20,000/- from the basement and the second floor. Thus, the effect of the wife and the 2 children shifting to the first floor makes no difference. 12. In respect of the third contention urged it may be noted that the 2 children were born on 2.2.1988 and 16.7.1989 respectively. They attained the age of majority in the year 2006 and 2007. 13. It is open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the learned Trial Judge bringing said fact to the notice of the court and thereunder praying that due to aforesaid fact he be relieved from the obligation to pay monthly maintenance in respect of the children. 14. In said eventuality, issue would have to be considered with reference to the current income of the respective spouses and how the 2 should share the same with reference to the fact that the fundamentals on which the impugned order was passed stand substantially altered due to passage of time. 15. When passed, keeping in view the material before the learned Trial Judge, impugned order cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity of the kind which necessitates Page 5 of 6 intervention by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. I find no merits in the petition. 17. Dismissed. 18. No costs. January 11, 2008 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. vg Page 6 of 6