w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Kusum Bhatia v/s Sagar Sethi


Company & Directors' Information:- KUSUM LTD. [Active] CIN = L15142WB1983PLC036019

Company & Directors' Information:- SAGAR (INDIA) PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74210AS1997PTC005100

Company & Directors' Information:- S N BHATIA AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999DL1976PTC008293

Company & Directors' Information:- SAGAR AND SAGAR CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1987PTC029481

Company & Directors' Information:- BHATIA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70109DL1986PTC024822

Company & Directors' Information:- KUSUM LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1952PLC020495

Company & Directors' Information:- K. SAGAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U52110BR2016PTC032073

Company & Directors' Information:- K. BHATIA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51420MH1960PTC011708

Company & Directors' Information:- SETHI AND COMPANY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999RJ1948PLC000620

    Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 16051 of 2017

    Decided On, 16 September 2019

    At, Supreme Court of India

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

    For the Petitioner: Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Advocate with Rajeev Saxena, Shefali Jain, Ramya Khanna, Vaishali Gupta, Yusuf, Advocates. For the Respondent: Rajesh Goyal, AOR, Inderdeep, A. Kapil, Advocates.



Judgment Text


1. Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides on merits, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. In our considered opinion, the interest of justice would be met if the child, Kumari Preksha (aged about 16 years as of now) is awarded maintenance. Since, the petitioner is a working lady with sufficient salary, we decline to award any maintenance in her favour.

2. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on instructions, submits that he is ready to deposit a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lac only) towards maintenance of the child, namely, Kumari Preksha. However, the Court suggested that an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- needs to be deposited by the respondent towards marriage and other expenses of the child. Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that it would be very difficult for him to pay such amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lac only).

3. Be that as it may. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to pass the following order:

(1) The special leave petition stands dismissed. However, the daughter of the parties, namely Kumari Preksha, is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lac only). The amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lac only) be deposited within eight weeks from today.

(2) The respondent, Sagar Sethi, the father of the child shall pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lac only) towards marriage and other expenses of the child. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lac only) shall be paid by him to the child directly by way of demand draft within two years from today. The remaining amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lac only) shall be paid by him within four years from today.

(3) We direct the petitioner to keep the entire amount received by way of maintenance in favour of Kumari Preksha child in fixed deposit for four years. It is open for the petitioner to use the interest portion towards maint

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

enance and other expenses of the child. (4) All the litigations between the parties including FIR No. 49/2007 lodged at Police Station, Vikas Puri stand quashed in view of this order. Ordered accordingly.
O R