Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
User Queries
View the actual judgment from court
Delhi High Court
Kishan Lal Bhalla vs Usha Bhalla & Anr. on 18 October, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~1 & 2

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+   CRL.M.C. Nos. 2240/2011 & 2241/2011

%         Judgment delivered on: 18th October, 2011

    CRL.M.C. No. 2240/2011

    KISHAN LAL BHALLA                      ..... Petitioner

                     Through : Mr. R.C. Bhalla, Adv.

          versus

    USHA BHALLA & ANR.                      ..... Respondent

                     Through : Mr.Subhash Chand, Adv.
                     for respondent no. 1 & 2.
                     Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC for UOI
                     with Ms. Gayatri Verma, Adv. and Mrs.
                     Deepa Bajwa, Addl. Director General,
                     Defence Estates, Ministry of Defence
                     and Ms. Sujatha Gupta, Defence
                     Estates, Officer, Ministry of Defence.

                     AND

    CRL. M.C. No. 2241/2011

    KISHAN LAL BHALLA                  ..... Petitioner
                  Through : Mr. : Mr. R.C. Bhalla, Adv.

               versus

    USHA BHALLA & ANR.                         ..... Respondent
                         Through : Mr. Through : Mr.Subhash
                         Chand, Adv. for respondent no. 1 & 2.
                         Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC for UOI with Ms.
                         Gayatri Verma, Adv. and Mrs. Deepa
                         Bajwa, Addl. Director General, Defence
    Crl.M.C. 2240-41/2011                        Page 1 of 7
                             Estates, Ministry of Defence and Ms.
                            Sujatha Gupta, Defence Estates, Officer,
                            Ministry of Defence.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
        may be allowed to see the judgment?              NO
     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?               NO
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported          NO
        in the Digest?

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

+ CRL. M.C. Nos. 2440/2011 & 2241/2011

1. Both these petitions are being disposed of by a common order. Vide the instant application, the Petitioner has prayed to set aside the impugned Judgment dated 24.05.2011 in Crl. Rev. No. 56/2010 passed by Ld. ASJ-1 (East), Kakardooma Courts, Delhi.

2. Vide Judgment dated 24.11.2009, Ld. MM has directed the Petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in favour of Petitioner no. 1 and Rs.1,200/- per month to the petitioner no. 2 till she join majority.

3. The aforesaid order was challenged by both the parties.

4. Ld. ASJ vide a common Judgment dated 24.05.2011 Crl.M.C. 2240-41/2011 Page 2 of 7 while modifying the Order passed by Ld. MM has enhanced Rs.1,200/- per month to Rs.2,000/- till respondent no. 2 is married.

5. Vide the instant Petition, the Petitioner submits that at the time of passing of the impugned Judgment, he was getting a salary of Rs.36,000/- per month. Therefore, he was able to pay the amount as directed by the Ld. MM.

6. Thereafter, the Petitioner has been superannuated on 30.8.2011 and therefore he is unable to pay the amount of Rs.12,000/- per month being Pensioner.

7. It is recorded in Order dated 30.09.2011 that till date, neither he received any retirement benefit not the Department has started disbursing the pension.

8. Vide order dated 30.09.2011, Defence Estate Officer (Delhi Circle), Delhi Cantt. was directed to file the details about the amount to which the Petitioner was entitled to get his retirement benefit and pension. Somehow, the report was not filed by the Said Officer.

9. Ld. Standing Counsel Mr. Sachin Dutta is present, who has filed an affidavit on 17.10.2011, whereby, he has stated that the Petitioner has already been submitted in the Crl.M.C. 2240-41/2011 Page 3 of 7 document along with the information delivered in the Office of Registrar General, amount of Rs.12,63,550/- has already been paid to the Petitioner in September, 2011 as final payment in lieu of his GPF entitlement. Besides this, the Petitioner is estimated to receive the following emoluments:

1. Commutation of Pension : Rs.3,96,458/-

2. Retirement Gratuity : Rs.5,02,293/-

3. Earned Leave Encashment : Rs.3,12,580/-

4. CG Employee Insurance Scheme : Rs.35,000/-

In addition to that, the Petitioner is also entitled to monthly family Pension of Rs.10,080/-, which is subject to order being passed by the PCDA (P) Allahabad.

10. Further submits that Rs.3,12,580/-, earned leave encashment and Rs.35,000/- Central Government Employees Insurance Scheme is being paid within 15 days from today.

11. The respondent no. 1 admittedly is not a earning member. Respondent no. 2 is pursuing MA in English. The Petitioner no. 1 is having 2 more sons aged about 29 & 32 years. The elder son is married and living separately. He has no help to the respondents. The another son, is unemployed Crl.M.C. 2240-41/2011 Page 4 of 7 and staying with her.

12. Therefore, respondent No. 1 has to settle both the children and marry them. On the other hand, the Petitioner is staying on rent and paying Rs.2,500/- per month including the electricity charges. He has no other liabilities.

13. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner is alone. He met with an accident, due to which he has to take periodical treatment. Therefore, he requires money for his treatment.

14. Admittedly, the Petitioner is retired from the Central Government, therefore, the treatment shall be taken care of by the CGHS. No other liability he is having, except to maintain himself.

15. Respondents on the other side has to maintain her daughter further to her marriage and one son who is unmarried and unemployed is to settle in life.

16. In these circumstances, as agreed by both the parties, whatever amount the Petitioner is received from the Department as retirement benefits or a pension, the same shall be divided into three parts. The Petitioner will keep one part and 2 parts shall be disbursed to respondent no. 1 & 2. Crl.M.C. 2240-41/2011 Page 5 of 7

17. As agreed further, the respondents shall be entitled for 2/3rd of the pension of the petitioner instead of the amount as directed by the Ld. MM and Ld ASJ as well.

18. In these circumstances, I modify the impugned order passed by Ld. ASJ and direct the Defence Estate Officer (Delhi Circle), Delhi Cantt to calculate the amount and accordingly disbursed the same in favour of the respondent no. 1. Same shall be kept in the joint account of respondent no.1 & 2.

19. PCDA (P) is further directed to disburse the amount pending in three equal proportion as directed above.

20. PCDA (P) is further directed to disburse 50% of the pension, to the Petitioner 50% in the name of the respondent No.1. The respondents shall open account if, they have no account. Thereafter, furnish the details to the Defence Estate Officer (Delhi Circle), Delhi Cantt. The said office is further directed to intimate the said account to all concerned.

21. The Petitioner has already received Rs.12,63,500/-. Accordingly, the Petitioner shall issue a cheque in the name of the respondent no. 1 on 2/3rd basis of the said amount. Crl.M.C. 2240-41/2011 Page 6 of 7

22. Since the Petition has been disposed of, the notice of the Contempt Proceedings vide order dated 17.10.2011 also recalled.

23. In view of the main Petition having been disposed of, Crl. M.A. No. 8132/2011 & Crl. M.A. 11789/2011 in Crl. M.C. 2240/2011 and Crl. M.A 8134/2011 and Crl. M.A. 11798/2011 in Crl. MC 2241/2011 and become infructuous and are dismissed as infructuous.

24. No orders as to cost.

                                     SURESH      KAIT,J

OCTOBER 18, 2011

JG




      Crl.M.C. 2240-41/2011                Page 7 of 7