Sunil Mehra Vs. Baby Rashmi Mehra and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- labour & services disability pension: [vikramajit sen, sanjiv khanna & s.l.bhayana,jj] army act (46 of 1950), section 192 & pension regulations for the army (1961), regulation. 173 claimant was on casual leave sustained injury which contributed to invalidation for military service claim for disability pension held, to claim disability pension by military personnel it requires to be established that the injury or fatality suffered by the concerned claimant bears a causal connection with military service. secondly, if this obligation exists so far as discharge from the armed force on the opinion of a medical board the obligation and responsibility a fortiori exists so far as injuries and fatalities suffered during casual leave are concerned. thirdly, as a natural corollary it is irrelevant whether the concerned personnel was on causal or annual leave at the time or at the place when and where the incident transpired. this is so because it is the causal connection which alone is relevant. fourthly, since travel to and fro the place of posting may not appear to everyone as an incident of military service, a specific provision has been incorporated in the pension regulations to bring such travel within the entitlement for disability pension if an injury is sustained in this duration. fifthly, it cannot be said that each and every injury sustained while availing of casual leave would entitle the victim to claim disability pension. sixthly, provisions treating casual leave as on duty would be relevant for deciding questions pertaining to pay or to the right of the authorities to curtail or cancel the leave. lastly, injury or death resulting from an activity not connected with military service would not justify and sustain a claim for disability pension. this is so regardless f whether the injury or death has occurred at the place of posting or during working hours. this is because attributability to military service is a factor which is required to be established. - 10 lakhs is also bad. 5 lakhs for marriage is bad. they are agents for big mills like raymonds, gwalior etc. 2,500/- towards residence) for the period from date of suit up to 31.5.1996 is reasonable and not excessive and does not warrant any interference having regard to the income and share of the appellant in the family estate or his share in the delhi and bombay businesses and the normal maintenance expenses required in a place like delhi for the plaintiffs, having regard to their status. cost of living is high in delhi and without even these sums, it would be or rather would have been difficult for the plaintiff to meet the necessities like food, clothing, normal expenditure including maintenance of their car, expenses for the education of the 1st plaintiff etc.m. jagannadha rao, c.j.1. the appeal is preferred by the 1st defendant against the judgment of the learned single judge in suit no. 290 of 1989 dated 23.5.1996 and cm 855/96 is for stay of operation of the decree.2. the suit was filed in 1989 by baby rashmi mehra and mrs. seema mehra, minor daughter and wife of the appellant. while the appellant was imp leaded as the 1 st defendant, his father and four brothers were imp leaded as defendants 2, 3 to 6. the grandmother of the 1 st defendant was imp leaded as the 7th defendant.3. the appellant was married to the 2nd plaintiff (2nd respondent) on 22.2.1985 and it appears the 1st plaintiff (1st respondent) wasbornon24.12.1985. the reliefs claimed in the suit are :(1) decree for maintenance in a sum of rs. 6,500/- p.m. for both plaintiffs and for periodical increase therefore; (2) decree for separate residence against 1st defendant consistent with status of plaintiffs;(3) decree for making provision for marriage expenses of 1st plaintiff;(4) decree for realizing the above by partitioning the assets of 1st defendant including his share in joint family properties.4. the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. the learned single judge in his judgment dated 23.5.1996 decreed as follows :'(i)(a) maintenance at rs. 2,000/- p.m. for the daughter (1st plaintiff).(b) maintenance at rs. 2,000/- p.m. for the wife (2nd plaintiff).(c) provision for separate residence at rs. 2,500/- p.m.in all rs. 6,500/- p.m. for the period up to 31.5.1996 from date of plaint.(ii) rs. 10.000/- p.m. from 1.6.1996.(iii) deposit of rs. 5 lakhs in a bank on or before 31.12.1996 for 10 years for depositing the fdr in this court towards marriage expenses of the 1st plaintiff.(iv) in lieu of residence,-for future-allotment of plot in greater kailash part ii and the other joint family members need not be consulted and as and when there is a partition, this plot could be allotted to the appellant (i.e. husband's) share and rs. 10 lakhs to be paid to 2nd plaintiff for construction of a house. (rs. 5 lakhs to be paid in 3 months, rs. 2.5 lakhs in 2 months and rs. 2.5 lakhs in another 2 months). appellant to give necessary documents to enable plaintiff 2 to obtain sanction of dda, mcd, l&do; etc.'aggrieved by the above judgment and decree, the 1st defendant has preferred this appeal.5. we have heard the counsel for the appellant mr. arun jaitley and counsel for respondent mr. y.p. narula.6. the contentions urged in the appeal are in a narrow compass and thereforee we are disposing of the appeal itself.7. learned counsel for the appellant, stated that the chances of the plaintiffs 1,2 (wife and daughter) living with the appellant are remote. without going into the various disputes between the parties in this behalf, he concentrated on the objections to the quantum of maintenance awarded and other directions given by the learned single judge and contended that the award of rs. 6.500/- p.m. from date of plaint up to 31.5.1996 and at rs. 10,000/- p.m. from 1.6.1996 towards maintenance is very high having regard to the appellants' share of income from family properties. it is argued that the provision of rs. 5 lakhs for the 2nd plaintiffs marriage is also on the higher side. in any event, the allotment of a plot from joint family property in favor of the wife plus direction to deposit rs, 10 lakhs is not warranted nor the direction that one of the plots of land could,-if there is a partition in the appellant's family,-be allotted to the appellant's share.8. the 1st plaintiff daughter, was born in december, 1985 is now about 11 years and provision is to be made for her and the 2nd plaintiff, her mother.9. we shall mention the manner in which the learned single judge approached the problem. learned single judge has not accepted the net income ofrs. 53,091/-as projected in the income-tax return of the appellant. he observed that, according to the oral evidence of pw 1, the wife, i.e., 2nd plaintiff, the annual income could be rs. 1 crore. he stated that he was 'not inclined to fix the quantum of maintenance accepting in toto the version of pw i'. he then stated that he was making some 'guess work'. he then proceeded to deal with the right to residence and allotted one plot in greater kailash part ii (though it belonged to the joint family of appellant, 4 brothers and father) and directed payment of rs. 10 lakhs (in 3 installments) for construction of a residence. he stated mat the daughter, 1st plaintiff has to be brought up in a decent manner, the money value has been going down, cost of living in delhi is high, quality of education requires a lot of money, that tuition fee etc. are high in schools and colleges - and that having regard to the totality of circumstances and status of the family, he was fixing rs. 6,500/- p.m. from date of suit to 31.5.1996 (i.e., rs. 2,000/- p.m. for 1st plaintiff, rs. 2,000/- p.m. for 2nd plaintiff and rs. 2,500/- p.m. for residence and rs. 10.000/-p.m. from 1.6.1996. he then went on to make provision ofrs. 5 lakhs for marriage expenses of 1st plaintiff.10. it is contended for the appellant that the learned judge, while not accepting the income returned in income-tax returns and not accepting the wife's evidence that income was rs. 1 crore p.a., had no basis to fix the past maintenance for both (including residence) at rs. 6,500/- p.m. or future maintenance for both at rs. 10,000/- p.m. it is argued that the appellant will be reduced to a pauper if these directions are to be complied with and that his share of properties is not sufficient to meet these liabilities. it is contended that the allotment of a plot out of joint family estate is, in any event, illegal and the provision for rs. 10 lakhs is also bad. it is also contended that the provision of rs. 5 lakhs for marriage is bad.11. the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are :(1) whether the learned single judge was right in fixing the maintenance at rs. 6,500/- p.m. from date of suit up to 31.5.1-996 and rs. 10,000/-p.m. from 1.6.1996 for the appellant's wife and daughter ?(2) whether the direction to the appellant to deposit rs. 5 lakhs in a bank for 10 years for meeting the marriage expenses of the 1st plaintiff (his daughter) was right ?(3) whether the allotment of a joint family plot in greater kailash, part ii initially in favor of the plaintiff and directing him to give that house to the plaintiff in lieu of their residence and the further direction to pay rs. 10 lakhs (in installments) for construction of a house, is not correct in law or in the circumstances of the case ?point 1we shall refer to the evidence briefly.12. the 2nd plaintiff's evidence as pw 1 consists of several reasons as to why she is not able to live with her husband. there have been criminal complaints between the parties. she says that appellant's father demanded, in 1985, rs. 50,000/- as dowry. admittedly, rs. 50,000/- stand invested in indira vikas patra in the name of the 1st plaintiff. if indeed the alleged demand was for rs. 50,000/- as dowry is true, then the appellant's evidence that the income is rs. 1 crore appears to us to be wholly exaggerated.13. pw1 stated in her evidence that she had not gone to regular college because of her father's postings in the military in various places but that she attended a vocational college in textile designing. the 1st plaintiff was put in 1992, in springdales school, dhaula kuan. pw1 maintains a car. she stated mat the family business of the appellant is by a family concern called m/s. motilal mehra, delhi, they deal in whole-sale and retail clothes. they are agents for big mills like raymonds, gwalior etc.they have a shop at chandni chowk. the sales, she says, are around 25 to 30 lakhs p.m. profit would be rs. 2.5 or rs. 3 lakhs per month. appellant has a hotel in colaba, bombay, behind taj hotel, gateway of india, bombay. it is a 4 storeyed building owned by her in-laws. on the 4th floor family members are residing, 8 rooms are used for hotel - moti international. hotel's income is rs. 10,000/-per day. she admits staff at the hotel consists of a manager, 2 or 3 errand boys and one chowkidar. there is no food arrangement in die hotel. she says, in fact, it is a lodging house. she states that her husband owns 5 plots in greater kailash, part ii, delhi, 3 houses in greater kailash part i, delhi and 20 plots behind vikram vihar behind vikram hotel. annexure b is list of properties. she says the properties belong to husband's family. it was suggested to pw1 in cross examination that the properties 5/29 to 32 at vikram vihar belong to the 7th defendant, grand-mother of appellant. suggestion is that total rent of all blocks in vikram vihar is rs. 20,000/- p.a. she admits that the lodging house in bombay is run in the ground floor. she does not know who are the partners. it was suggested to her that the room rent was rs.200/-to rs. 400/ -p.m. day and night rs. 800/-or 900/-. pw1 was also cross-examined about her estimate of income at 1 crore and she says that was what her husband told her. she says that the estimates rs. 7,800/- p.m. as the monthly expenditure for her and her daughter.14. appellant, in his evidence, stated as dw1 that he has only 16% share in m/s. mohall mehra firm delhi and his share in hotel moti international, bombay is 20%. he has a 1 /6 share in property in block no. 8, amar colony, 1 /6 share in c-207, greater kailash part i, e-313 greater kailash part i and hs-35, kailash colony market. he has a 1/6 share in vacant plots e-22,303,324, 355,576. in amar colony, there are 8 units, all rented. block no. 5, vikram vihar belongs to his grandmother (7th defendant). appellant has no share therein. appellant does not own e-241, greater kailash part i. ground floor in c-207, greater kailash is in self occupation. first floor is rented out. e-313 is rented. hs-35' is also rented. bombay property in colaba belongs to 2nd defendant, the real brother of his father, late jawahar lal mehra. room charges are 150/- to 200/- per day. staff consists of one sweeper and one more person. business of mohan lal mehra is in rented premises. appellant has only one fd for rs. 2.68 lakhs. his total income is rs.58,920/-for 1993-94. wealth is valued for 1993-94 at rs. 17.30 lakhs (exs. dw 1/1,dw1/2). he never told his wife that his income is rs. 1 crore. in cross-examination, he said that annual turnover of mohan lal firm isrs.391akhs.they deal in raymonds & digjam. profit on sales is about 5 to 6%. value of stocks at a time could be rs. 5 to 10 lakhs. turnover of moti international could be rs. 3.5 lakhs. income from hs-35, kailash colony/is rs.3,800/-p.m. his family owns 2 cars. he does not own one. other members have 4 cars in all. in chandni chowk shop there are 2 employees and are paid rs. 1.500/-, rs. 1,1 oo/- p.m.15. we shall now deal with the directions given by the learned single judge relevant to point 1. taking first the provision for marriage expenses is, we find it reasonable having regard to the status of the family and the joint family estate as disclosed in the evidence. we have already briefly set out the evidence as to the family estate of the appellant and we are of the view that the direction to deposit rs. 5 lakhs for 10 years in an fdr for meeting the marriage expenses of the 1st plaintiff - (who was born in december, 1985) is in order.16. coming to the quantum, we are of the view that the decree granting rs. 6.500/- p.m. (rs. 2,000/- p.m. to the wife, rs. 2000/- to the daughter and rs. 2,500/- towards residence) for the period from date of suit up to 31.5.1996 is reasonable and not excessive and does not warrant any interference having regard to the income and share of the appellant in the family estate or his share in the delhi and bombay businesses and the normal maintenance expenses required in a place like delhi for the plaintiffs, having regard to their status. we feel that for each of the plaintiff a provision at rs. 2.000/- for maintenance is necessary. cost of living is high in delhi and without even these sums, it would be or rather would have been difficult for the plaintiff to meet the necessities like food, clothing, normal expenditure including maintenance of their car, expenses for the education of the 1st plaintiff etc., during the period up to 31.5.1996. the fact that at some stage the plaintiff started living with the 2nd plaintiff's father makes no difference and is by itself not a ground for reduction of maintenance and residence allowance of rs. 6,500/- p.m. the next question relates to the quantum from 1.6.1996.17. it has been however argued that the rate fixed for future maintenance after 1.6.1996 at rs. 10,000/-p.m. is excessive and should be reduced. we are of the view that this part of the decree requires a slight modification.18. we have set out the evidence of the 2nd plaintiff as pw1 and of the appellant as dw1. so far as the oral evidence of pw1 that her husband's family income is about rs. 1 crore is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. she stated in her evidence that this was what her husband told her. appellant has denied in his evidence that he never told his wife that his family income was rs. 1 crore. she claimed that her father-in-law demanded a dowry ofrs. 50/000/-. even going by the rate of maintenance fixed by the learned single judge, it is clear that he has not accepted the figure of rs. 1 crore. otherwise the 1 /6th share in income from the family estate (appellant has a share along with his father and 4 brothers) or his 16% share in delhi business and 20% share in bombay business-would roughly result in his having around rs. 16 lakhs p.a. and the court would then have fixed maintenance at rates more than rs. 6,500/- p.m. or even more than rs. 10,000/-p.m. for future. at the same time learned single judge's approach in not going entirely by the income tax returns of the appellant cannot also be faulted. net taxable income could have been subject to several exemptions. for example, for one fifth of property income exemption is available for repairs. reduction is available for collection charges. interest income is now-a-days exempt up to rs. 13,000/- p.a. we shall revert to this aspect a little jater again.19. but the question is whether from 1.6.1996, the maintenance rate could bers. 10,000/-. there is no doubt an element of estimate or inference to be drawn from the broad general facts relating to share of income from business and share of income from property. we have already referred to the evidence in this behalf.20. under the hindu adoptions and maintenance act, maintenance as defined in sub-clause (b) of section 3 includes provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment so far as wife is concerned. so far as an unmarried daughter is concerned, the word maintenance includes also the reasonable expenses of and incident to her marriage. section 23 gives the amount of maintenance, which reads as follows :'23.(1) it shall be in the discretion of the court to determine whether any, and if so what, maintenance shall be awarded under the provisions of this act, and in doing so the court shall have due regard to the considerations set out in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), as the case may be, so far as they are applicable.(2) in determining me amount of maintenance/if any, to be awarded to a wife, children or aged or infirm parents under this act, regard shall be had to-(a) the position and status of the parties;(b) the reasonable wants of the claimant;(c) if the claimant is living separately, whether the claimant is justified in doing so;(d) the value of the claimant's property and any income derived from such property, or from the claimant's own earnings or from any other source;(e) the number of persons entitled to maintenance under this act. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx'from the above said provisions it is clear mat while determining the amount of maintenance payable to a wife or daughter, the court will have regard to the position and status of the parties, the reasonable wants of the claimant, the value of the claimant's property and any income derived from such property, or from the claimant's own earnings or from any other sources and the number of persons entitled to maintenance under this act.21. in kulbhushan kunwar v. raj kumar, : [1971]2scr672 , their lordships of the supreme court referred to the decision of the privy council in mt. ekradeshwari v. homeshwar air 1929 p.c. 128, and observed that they were in entire agreement with the observations of the privy council that the maintenance depended.'upon a gathering together of all the facts of the situation, the amount of free estate, the past life of the married parties and the families, a survey of the conditions and necessities and rights of the members on a reasonable view of change or circumstances possibly required in the future, regard being, of course had to the scale and mode of living and to the age, habits, wants and class of life of the parties.' after referring to the above passage, the supreme court observed that sub-section (2) of section 23 did not make any departure from principles enunciated by the privy council except perhaps to a limited extent envisaged in sub-clauses (d) and (e) of the said sub-section.22. bearing the above principles in mind, the question is whether from 1.6.1996 the rate of rs.10,000/-per month fixed by the learned single judge requires any modification. we have already stated that the learned single judge had fixed the maintenance at the rate of rs. 6,500/- per month up to 31.5.1996 for both wife and the daughter, earmarking rs. 2,000/- for the wife, rs. 2,000/- for the daughter and rs. 2,500/- towards residence. in addition, the learned single judge required a deposit of rs. 5/00,000/- to be made towards provision for marriage for the daughter. the evidence in the case discloses that the family has business both in delhi any bombay. in delhi, they have shop dealing in wholesale and retail, namely, m/s. motilal mehra, delhi and they are agents for raymonds, gwalior etc. this shop is in chandni chowk. they have a hotel in colaba, bombay. so far as income from these 2 items are concerned, the respondent has given evidence that from delhi shop sales are around rs. 25 to 30 lakhs and the profits would be rs. 2.5 to rs. 3 lakhs per month; and from the bombay hotel, according to her, income is rs. 10,000/-per day. but she admits that the staff of the hotel consists of 1 manager, 2-3 errand boys and 1 chowkidar. it is only a lodging house. there is no food arrangement in the hotel. she also referred to the income from the properties let out in vikram vihar. a suggestion was made to her that the rental income from the property at vikram vihar was only rs. 20,000/- per annum.in his evidence the appellant stated that his share in the delhi shop is 16% and in the bombay lodging house his share is 20%. he stated that the room charges of bombay lodging house are rs. 150/- to rs. 200/- per day, and the staff consists of one sweeper and one more person. his total income for 1992-93 was rs. 60,091/- and net income was rs. 53,091 /-; for 1993-94, total income was as per income tax return is rs. 58,920/-.23. a perusal of the computation of the income as assessed of the defendant for the income as assessment fear 1992-93 reveals, the following :'the defendant's 1/6th share of income from firm m/s. mohan lal mehra is rs. 13,596/- while his share of income from m/s. hotel moti international, bombay is rs.7,247/-. this is apart from rental income and income of interest on rent.' though normally the income as declared and accepted in the tax returns should be given credence and weight, we find that in this case it may not be truly reflective of the available income and resources of the defendant.24. the plaintiff on the one hand has claimed highly exaggerated income, while the defendant has claimed absurdly low figures of income. as per the defendant, the per day room charges for an air-conditioned room in hotel moti international, bombay, vary from rs. 150/- to rs. 200/-. this appears to be extremely low as the prevalent room rates even for a middle class lodging house are far higher in bombay in the range of rs. 600/- to rs. 800/-.25. as regards the rent receipts from lajpat nagar property, the gross receipts are rs. 21,800/-and after making allowance for municipal taxes, 1/6th towards repair and collection charges and share of other co-owners, the income in the hand of the defendant is shown as rs. 2,453/-. similarly, gross receipts from greater kailash property are shown as rs. 72,000/- and after deduction on account of municipal taxes, repairs and collection charges; the defendant's share is shown as rs. 8,247/-. the total income falling to the share of the defendant from these two properties is shown as rs. 10,700/-. curiously, the defendant's income from bank interest on rent accounts for properties is shown as rs. 28,548/-. it is, thereforee, suggestive of either rental income having been suppressed or accumulation of rental in the said account for more than 2/3 decades. defendant has not made disclosure of deposits from which interest income is accruing on rent account, except what can be inferred from tax return.26. the defendant had disclosed fixed deposits of rs. 2.6 lakhs.27. from the foregoing it would appear that total reliance on the income tax assessment may not be reflective of the actual position and, accordingly, corrections would need to be applied to reach at a realistic figure.28. the defendant's net wealth is assessed at rs. 12,16,000/-.29. having regard to the strained relationship between the parties, we are not inclined to give full credit to the version of the wife in regard to the income of the husband's family. at the same time, we are of the view that since the suit is pending since 1989, we cannot strictly go by figures given by the respondent in his evidence, at a later date. there is bound to be an effort to project that the income is less and this could be done in the context of the pending maintenance claim instituted by the wife in 1989. here it may also be noted that on rs. 5 lakhs directed to be deposited towards marriage expenses of daughter, considerable interest will accrue which will also go for the benefit of the daughter at the time of her marriage. the daughter is now around 11 years. we must take into account the fact that sufficient money is required for her education, clothing, tuition etc. we should also bear in mind that cost of living in delhi is high and money value is going down. we are conscious that the wife is the daughter of a military officer and is married into a respectable family. she has also to maintain her car. bearing these factors in mind, we have come to the conclusion that the future maintenance from 1.6.1996 could be rs. 8,000/- per month in place of rs. 10,000 / - as awarded by the learned single judge. the learned judge appears to us to have made a slightly higher provision which in the circumstances, needs modification. point 1 is disposed of accordingly.point-230. the next question is in relation to the direction given by the learned single judge for allotment of a plot to the wife out of the plots held by the husband's family, and the further direction for payment of rs. 10 lakhs in three installments to enable the wife to construct a residential house.31. so far as this direction is concerned, when cash provision is adequately made for the wife and daughter, we do not think that there is any need for making allotment of a plot from the joint family properties of the husband. in fact, there is a claim that some of these properties belong to the grand-mother of the husband. in a suit for maintenance the court makes a provision for maintenance in cash in favor of the wife and the daughter. it is true that the same can also be converted in terms of immovable property, provided the husband and other co-parceners agree to earmark an item of the joint family property towards the residence of the wife. but where there is no such agreement between the husband and the coparceners, it is in our opinion, not open to the court to make a division of the joint family properties and direct allotment of one property to the wife. the maintenance payable to the wife and daughter can, at the most, be made a charge on the undivided share of the husband in the joint family property. the wife and daughter did not have a right in the property i.e. in the undivided share of the husband in the family property. they have only a right to have their maintenance recovered out of the husband's share in the joint family properties by way of a charge. it may be that in a case where there are arrears of maintenance accrued to the wife and daughter, in case there is a sale of the husband's undivided share in the joint family property, the purchaser of the undivided share of the husband may, in a given situation, file a suit for partition and have the property divided and have some specified items allotted in lieu of the undivided share purchased by him. so far as the wife and the daughter are concerned, during the lifetime of the husband, they have otherwise no right in the property of the joint family of the husband as such. as already stated, they have only a right to have their maintenance recovered by way of a charge that may be created by the court on the husband's share in the joint family property. allotment of a specific item by the court in lieu of maintenance in a suit for maintenance is thereforee not correct in law. 4).32. for the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the direction for allotment of a plot and for payment of rs. 10 lakhs in three installments cannot be made in the suit particularly when the court has taken into consideration the provision for residence also while fixing the total amount of maintenance.33. learned counsel for the wife has, however, relied upon a decision of the supreme court in mangat mal v. punni devi, : air1996sc172 . in that case, it was mentioned that any property given to a wife towards residence for life will become absolute under section 14(1) of the hindu succession act, 1956. maintenance necessarily must encompass a provision for residence. if life interest is given to the wife in a property towards her residence, that right would become an absolute right under section 14(1) of the hindu succession act. we are of the view that the above decision has no application to the facts before us. that was a case where the husband died in 191 land there was an agreement between the father-in-law and his widowed daughter-in-law. they referred their disputes to arbitration and the arbitrator was requested to allot some part of the property towards residence of the daughter-in-law. the arbitrator allotted one property towards residence for her life time. the award was that after her death, the property was to revert back to her father-in-law or his heirs. in 1960, after the commencement of the hindu succession act in 1956, the daughter-in-law alienated the property to one mangat mal. but then the reversioners to the estate filed a suit challenging the said sale claiming that the property was given to the daughter-in-law by her father-in-law only as a life estate with a clause that the property would thereafter go to the father-in-law or his heirs. the supreme court held that the property given for residence would become the absolute property of the daughter-in-law under section 14 and that the reversioners could not recover the same. it will be seen, thereforee, that the father-in-law, who had possession of the joint family property agreed to abide by the decision of the arbitrator for allotment of a part of the family property to his daughter-in-law towards her claim for residence the judgment of the supreme court is thereforee not an authority for the proposition that during the life-time of the husband, the court could by itself -without consent of the husband or his co-parceners -allot a specific item of joint family property towards the right of residence.34. in the result, we modify the decree of the learned single judge as follows.35. the maintenance awarded at the rate of rs. 2,000/-for the wife, rs. 2.000/- for the daughter and rs. 2,500/- for residence - in all rs. 6,500/- per month up to 31.5.1996 is confirmed. with effect from 1.6.1996 the maintenance is fixed for the wife at the rate of rs. 3,000/- per month, rs. 2/500/- per month for the daughter and rs. 2,500/- per month for the residence - all it will be rs. 8,000/ - per month. the maintenance of rs. 10,000/- per month awarded by the learned single judge is thus reduced to rs. 8,000/- per month from 1.6.1996. the provision for deposit of rs. 5 lakhs towards marriage expenditure of the daughter is confirmed and the direction for investment thereof given by the learned single judge is confirmed. so far as the allotment of one plot to the wife and further deposit of rs. 10 lakhs in 3 installments are concerned, the said directions are set aside.36. wipermit the defendant to utilise the fors already in the name of the child for making the deposit of rs. 5,00,000/- in terms of the court order.the appeal is partly allowed.