Supreme Court of India
KAMALA AND OTHERSversusM.R. MOHAN KUMAR
- Citation
- 2018 INSC 984
- Decided
- 24 October 2018
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- R BANUMATHI
Holding
In Section 125 CrPC proceedings, strict proof of marriage is unnecessary; a presumption of marriage arises from long‑term cohabitation, and the family court’s factual finding of a valid marriage is binding, entitling the wife and her children to maintenance.
Summary
The appellants, Kamala and her two children, claimed maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, asserting that Kamala was the legally wedded wife of the respondent, M.R. Mohan Kumar. The respondent denied any marriage and argued that without a valid marriage, maintenance could not be granted. The family court, relying on the wife’s testimony, birth certificates of the children, photographs and witness statements, held that a valid marriage existed and ordered maintenance for the wife and children. The High Court set aside that order, holding that the wife had not proved a legal marriage. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court, holding that in Section 125 proceedings strict proof of marriage is not required; continuous cohabitation creates a presumption of marriage, and the family court’s findings of fact cannot be re‑examined by a revisional court. Consequently, the wife and children are entitled to maintenance as ordered by the family court.
Issues considered
- Whether strict proof of a legal marriage is required to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
- Whether a presumption of marriage arises from continuous cohabitation and can be relied upon in Section 125 proceedings.
- Whether the High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, can reassess the family court’s findings of fact on the existence of a marriage.
- Whether the appellant qualifies as a "wife" within the meaning of Section 125 CrPC for the purpose of maintenance.
- Whether the children of the alleged marriage are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Legislation cited
Subjects
maintenanceSection 125 CrPCpresumption of marriagecohabitationdefinition of wifefamily court findingsrevisional jurisdictionchildren's maintenance
Judgment
[2018] 13 S.C.R. 505 505
KAMALA AND OTHERS A
v.
M.R. MOHAN KUMAR
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2368-2369 of 2009)
OCTOBER 24, 2018 B
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Maintenance
under, claimed by wife – Standard of proof required to prove
marriage – Marriage between appellant No.1-wife (PW-1) and
C
respondent-husband was solemnized against the wishes of their
parents – Appellant No.2-daughter and appellant no.3-son were
born out of the wedlock – However, after some time respondent
allegedly started harassing the appellant no.1 and neglected the
children – Appellant no.1 claimed maintenance – Respondent denied
the factum of marriage – Family Court allowed the appellant’s claim D
and ordered maintenance of Rs.3,000/- p.m to appellant No.1 and
Rs.2,500/- p.m to each of the appellants nos.2 and 3 – High Court
set aside the order holding that appellant no.1 was unable to prove
that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent – Held: Based
on the evidence of PW-1 and the birth certificates of the children
E
and the photos, the Family Court rightly held that appellant no.1
has proved valid marriage between her and the respondent – Unlike
matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential,
in the proceedings u/s.125 CrPC, such strict standard of proof is
not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy
– Law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage F
when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a number
of years – Based upon oral and documentary evidence, when the
Family Court held that there was a valid marriage, the High Court
being the Revisional Court had no power to reassess the evidence
and substitute its views on findings of fact – Appellant No.1 being
G
the wife and appellants no.2 and 3 being their children are entitled
to claim maintenance u/s.125 CrPC – Respondent to pay arrears of
maintenance as directed by the Family Court within two months
and also continue to pay the maintenance to the appellants –
Appellants at liberty to move the Family Court for enhancement of
the maintenance. H
505
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Based on the evidence of PW-1 and the number
of documents in particular, the birth certificates of the children
(Exts.P7-P8) and the photos (Exts.P1 to P3), the family court
rightly held that appellant No.1 has proved valid marriage
B between her and the respondent. It is established that appellant
No.1 and the respondent cohabitated as husband and wife and
that the people around them treated them as husband and wife
and the family court rightly held that appellant No.1 being a wife
and appellants No.2 and 3 being their children are entitled to
claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. [Para 14]
C [511-G-H; 512-A-B]
1.2 Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of
marriage is essential, in the proceedings under Section 125
Cr.P.C., such strict standard of proof is not necessary as it is
summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy. When the parties
D live together as husband and wife, there is a presumption that
they are legally married couple for claim of maintenance of wife
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Applying the well-settled principles,
in the case in hand, appellant No.1 and the respondent were living
together as husband and wife and also begotten two children.
E Appellant No.1 being the wife of the respondent, she and the
children appellants No.2 and 3 would be entitled to maintenance
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The law presumes in favour of marriage
and against concubinage when a man and woman have cohabited
continuously for a number of years. [Paras 15, 16] [512-C, E-G]
F 1.3 On the basis of the evidence of appellant No.1 (PW-1),
birth certificates of appellant Nos.2 and 3 (Exts. P7-P8 dated
25.05.2001 and 06.08.2003), other documentary evidence, oral
evidence of PW-2 who was co-worker of appellant No.1 and PW-
3-landlord, the family court held that appellant No.1 and the
respondent were living together as husband and wife and there
G is sufficient proof of marriage. The family court rightly drew the
presumption of valid marriage between appellant No.1 and the
respondent and that they are legally married couple for claiming
maintenance by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is
summary in nature. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with the birth
H certificates of appellants No.2 and 3 and other evidences clearly
KAMALA AND OTHERS v. M.R. MOHAN KUMAR 507
established the factum of marriage. Based upon oral and A
documentary evidence, when the family court held that there was
a valid marriage, the High Court being the revisional court had
no power reassessing the evidence and substitute its views on
findings of fact. The High Court did not keep in view that in the
proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., strict proof of marriage
B
is not necessary. The findings recorded by the family court as to
the existence of a valid marriage ought not to have been interfered
with by the High Court. [Paras 20, 21] [515-C-G]
1.4 The respondent shall pay arrears of maintenance as
directed by the family court to the appellants within a period of
two months. Additionally, the respondent shall also continue to C
pay the maintenance to the appellants as directed by the family
court on or before 10th of every English calendar month. The
appellants are also at liberty to move the family court for
enhancement of the maintenance. [Para 22] [515-G; 516-A]
Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit D
(1999) 7 SCC 675 : [1999] 3 Suppl. SCR 684 –
relied on.
Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav
and Another (1988) 1 SCC 530 : [1988] 2 SCR 809 ;
Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha E
(2011) 1 SCC 141 : [2010] 12 SCR 223
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1988] 2 SCR 809 referred to Para 7 F
[1999] 3 Suppl. SCR 684 relied on Para 15
[2010] 12 SCR 223 referred to Para 16
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal G
Nos. 2368-2369 of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.06.2009 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.P.F.C. No. 103 of 2008 and 21
of 2009.
H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A Girish Ananthamurthy, Harisha S. R., Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish,
Advs. for the Appellants.
M. N. Rao, Sr. Adv., P. R. Ramasesh, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment
dated 16.06.2009 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore
in R.P.F.C. Nos. 103 of 2008 and 21 of 2009 in and by which the High
Court has set aside the judgment of the family court which has directed
the respondent to pay maintenance to the appellants – wife and children.
C 2. Case of the appellants is that marriage between appellant No.1
and respondent was solemnized on 18.07.1998 against the wishes of
their parents at Karrighatta temple near Sri Rangapattana and appellant
No.2-daughter and appellant No.3-son were born out of the wedlock on
09.05.2001 and 18.07.2003 respectively and they lived in a house on
rent in Saraswasthipuram, Mysore. Further case of the appellants is that
D while the marriage between appellant No.1 and respondent was subsisting,
the respondent married one Archana, who was his colleague on
01.04.2005, after which the appellants were neglected by the respondent
and he was harassing appellant No.1. Being aggrieved of such treatment
from respondent, appellant No.1 filed a police complaint and upon the
E direction of police, the respondent was paying Rs.3,000/- per month to
the appellants towards their maintenance. It is further averred that when
they shifted from Saraswathipuram to Chamundipuram, the respondent
continued to neglect them. Since appellant No.1 could not maintain
herself and her children, she filed a Criminal Miscellaneous No.297/
2006 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and
F the children from the respondent.
3. The respondent resisted the maintenance claim contending that
he has never married appellant No.1 and denied her contention that
appellants No.2 and 3 were born out to him and appellant No.1. The
respondent contended that when there is no valid marriage between the
G parties, petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be
maintained.
4. Upon consideration of evidence, the family court held that
appellant No.1 has proved that there is husband-wife relationship between
appellant No.1 and respondent and that appellants No.2 and 3 are the
H
KAMALA AND OTHERS v. M.R. MOHAN KUMAR 509
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
children born out of the said wedlock and that the respondent was giving A
her a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month. The family court
further held that the case of the appellants is supported by the evidence
of PW-2 and PW-3 which clearly establish that they lived under the
same roof and the society also accepted them as husband and wife. On
those findings, the family court vide its order dated 12.08.2008 allowed
B
the appellant’s claim and ordered maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month
to appellant No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month to each of the appellants
No.2 and 3 from the date of petition till the date of judgment i.e.
12.08.2008. From the date of judgment i.e. 12.08.2008, the respondent
was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month each to
appellants No.1 to 3. C
5. In appeal, the High Court has set aside the order of the family
court and held that appellant No.1 was unable to prove that she is the
legally wedded wife of the respondent. The High Court further held
that she has not produced any evidence to show that the marriage was
solemnized as per custom and she, not being the legally wedded wife, is D
not entitled for any maintenance.
6. Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that when the parties live as husband and wife under one roof,
a presumption arises in favour of the person who asserts the existence
of valid marriage. It was submitted that in the instant case, parties have E
entered into a wedlock in a temple and lived together and begot two
children, hence, presumption arises in favour of appellant No.1 and the
respondent failed to rebut the said presumption. The learned counsel
for the appellants further submitted that the family court after analysing
the evidence brought on record, has recorded a finding of fact that
appellant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of respondent and that F
appellants No.2 and 3 are their children born out of the wedlock and the
High Court in exercising revisional jurisdiction ought not to have interfered
with the said findings of fact.
7. Per contra, Mr. M.N. Rao, learned senior counsel for the
respondent submitted that under Section 125 (1)(a) Cr.P.C., an application G
for maintenance can be maintained only by a “wife” who is a legally
wedded wife. It was submitted that no valid marriage had taken place
between appellant No.1 and the respondent and hence, appellant No.1
is not entitled to claim any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It
H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A was submitted that the evidence on record does not disclose any marriage
having taken place between the parties and hence, claim of maintenance
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable and the High Court
rightly reversed the judgment of the family court ordering maintenance.
In support of the contention, reliance was placed upon Yamunabai
Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and another (1988) 1
B
SCC 530.
8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused
the impugned judgment and materials placed on record.
9. In her evidence, appellant No.1 (PW-1) has clearly deposed
C that before marriage she and the respondent were neighbours and they
loved each other and their wedding took place in Karrighatta temple
near Sri Rangapattana according to Hindu rituals on 18.07.1998 and that
both the families were against their marriage. PW-1 further stated that
out of the wedlock, two children a girl and a boy were born on 09.05.2001
and 18.07.2003 respectively. PW-1 further stated that the respondent
D was working as a Manager in Birla Sun Life Insurance Company and
that he had developed illicit relationship with one Archana who was
working with him and thereafter, the respondent gradually started
harassing appellant No.1 and also neglected her children. PW-1 further
stated that she had given a police complaint who had warned the
E respondent and asked him to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the appellants
and thereafter, they shifted from Saraswasthipuram to Chamundipuram
and took a house on rent. PW-1 further stated that the respondent
neglected to take care of the appellants and the appellant No.1 not being
able to maintain herself and her children, filed a petition under Section
125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance.
F
10. To prove the marriage and her claim, appellant No.1 marked
exhibits P1 to P20. Exts.P1 to P3 are the photos of the appellants and
the respondent; Exts.P7-P8 are the birth certificates of the appellants
No.2 and 3 namely the daughter and son and Exts.P9 and P11 are the
copies of the complaint given to the police; other exhibits are the receipts
G acknowledging the maintenance amount given by the respondent; and
other documents.
11. Exts.P7-P8 are the birth certificates of the appellants No.2
and 3 – the daughter and son showing that out of the wedlock, a girl and
a boy were born on 09.05.2001 and 18.07.2003 respectively. In Exts.P7
H
KAMALA AND OTHERS v. M.R. MOHAN KUMAR 511
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
and P8, father’s name is stated as “Mohan Kumar M.R.” and mother’s A
name is stated as “Kamala”. The birth certificates of the children clearly
show that appellant No.1 and the respondent are the husband and wife
and appellants No.2 and 3 are their children. The family court recorded
a finding of fact that the respondent has admitted that Exts.P1 to P3 are
their photos. As rightly observed by the family court, Exts.P1 to P3
B
does not look like brother-sister relationship or simple neighbours
relationship and the said photos lead to an inference that respondent and
appellant No.1 were living as husband and wife. As pointed out earlier,
appellant No.1 gave Ext.-P9-complaint and the police settled the matter
between the parties and asked the respondent to pay maintenance of
Rs.3,000/- per month to appellant No.1. Exts. P13 to P17 are the receipts C
showing that the respondent has been paying money regularly to appellant
No.1. Unless the respondent was the husband of appellant No.1, why
should he pay the amount to appellant No.1 every month. As rightly
observed by the family court, there is no merit in the explanation of the
respondent that appellant No.1 was his neighbour and therefore, he used
D
to help her. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with the documents raise a
strong presumption of a valid marriage.
12. Appellant No.1 has also examined K.R. Narayan Iyengar
(PW-2) who has stated that he was working as Manager in Samruddhi
Finance where appellant No.1 was also working with him. In his evidence,
PW-2 further stated that the respondent used to drop and pick up appellant E
No.1 and that he used to talk to respondent whenever he had time and
have coffee with him. PW-2 further stated that the respondent and
appellant No.1 were living happily as husband and wife and were leading
a happy married life.
13. House owner (PW-3) has also stated that appellant No.1 and F
the respondent were living in his house on rent during 2005 and they
took the house on rent by informing him that they were husband and
wife. PW-3 further stated that appellant No.1 and the respondent stayed
till April, 2006 and that when they came to his house, they had two
children and appellant No.1 and respondent were leading a happy married G
life.
14. Based on the evidence of PW-1 and the number of documents
in particular, the birth certificates of the children (Exts.P7-P8) and the
photos (Exts.P1 to P3), the family court rightly held that appellant No.1
H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A has proved valid marriage between her and the respondent. From the
evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, it is established that appellant No.1 and
the respondent were cohabitated as husband and wife and that the people
around them treated them as husband and wife and the family court
rightly held that appellant No.1 being a wife and appellants No.2 and 3
being their children are entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125
B
Cr.P.C.
15. Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage
is essential, in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., such strict
standard of proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to
prevent vagrancy. In Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava
C Dixit(1999) 7 SCC 675, this Court held that “the standard of proof of
marriage in a Section 125 proceeding is not as strict as is required
in a trial for an offence under Section 494 IPC. The learned Judges
explained the reason for the aforesaid finding by holding that an
order passed in an application under Section 125 does not really
D determine the rights and obligations of the parties as the section is
enacted with a view to provide a summary remedy to neglected wives
to obtain maintenance. The learned Judges held that maintenance
cannot be denied where there was some evidence on which
conclusions of living together could be reached.” When the parties
live together as husband and wife, there is a presumption that they are
E legally married couple for claim of maintenance of wife under Section
125 Cr.P.C. Applying the well-settled principles, in the case in hand,
appellant No.1 and the respondent were living together as husband and
wife and also begotten two children. Appellant No.1 being the wife of
the respondent, she and the children appellants No.2 and 3 would be
F entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
16. It is fairly well settled that the law presumes in favour of
marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have
cohabited continuously for a number of years. After referring to various
judgments, in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011)
G 1 SCC 141, this Court held as under:-
“11. Again, in Sastry Velaider Aronegary v. Sembecutty Vaigalie
(1881) 6 AC 364, it was held that where a man and woman are
proved to have lived together as man and wife, the law will
presume, unless the contrary is clearly proved, that they were
H
KAMALA AND OTHERS v. M.R. MOHAN KUMAR 513
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
living together in consequence of a valid marriage, and not in a A
state of concubinage.
12. In India, the same principles have been followed in
Andrahennedige Dinohamy v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige
Balahamy AIR 1927 PC 185, in which the Privy Council laid
down the general proposition that where a man and woman are B
proved to have lived together as man and wife, the law will
presume, unless, the contrary is clearly proved, that they were
living together in consequence of a valid marriage, and not in a
state of concubinage.
13. In Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan AIR 1929 C
PC 135 the Privy Council has laid down that the law presumes in
favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and
woman have cohabited continuously for number of years.
14. In Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari AIR 1952 SC 231, this
Court held that continuous cohabitation of man and woman as D
husband and wife may raise the presumption of marriage, but the
presumption which may be drawn from long cohabitation is
rebuttable and if there are circumstances which weaken and
destroy that presumption, the Court cannot ignore them.
15. Further, in Badri Prasad v. Director of Consolidation E
(1978) 3 SCC 527, the Supreme Court held that a strong
presumption arises in favour of wedlock where the partners have
lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. Although the
presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks
to deprive the relationship of legal origin.
F
16. Again, in Tulsa v. Durghatiya (2008) 4 SCC 520, this Court
held that where the partners lived together for a long spell as
husband and wife, a presumption would arise in favour of a valid
wedlock.”
This Court in Chanmuniya case further held as under:-
G
“24.Thus, in those cases where a man, who lived with a woman
for a long time and even though they may not have undergone
legal necessities of a valid marriage, should be made liable to pay
the woman maintenance if he deserts her. The man should not be
H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A allowed to benefit from the legal loopholes by enjoying the
advantages of a de facto marriage without undertaking the duties
and obligations. Any other interpretation would lead the woman
to vagrancy and destitution, which the provision of maintenance
in Section 125 is meant to prevent.” [underlining added]
B 17. Chanmuniya case referred to divergence of judicial opinion
on the interpretation of the word “wife” in Section 125 Cr.P.C. In paras
(28) and (29) of Chanmuniya case, this Court referred to other
judgments which struck a difficult note as under:-
“28. However, striking a different note, in Yamunabai Anantrao
C Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988) 1 SCC 530, a two-
Judge Bench of this Court held that an attempt to exclude altogether
personal law of the parties in proceedings under Section 125 is
improper (see para 6). The learned Judges also held (paras 4 and
8) that the expression “wife” in Section 125 of the Code should
be interpreted to mean only a legally wedded wife.
D
29. Again, in a subsequent decision of this Court in Savitaben
Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005) 3 SCC 636, this
Court held that however desirable it may be to take note of plight
of an unfortunate woman, who unwittingly enters into wedlock
with a married man, there is no scope to include a woman not
E lawfully married within the expression of “wife”. The Bench held
that this inadequacy in law can be amended only by the legislature.
While coming to the aforesaid finding, the learned Judges relied
on the decision in Yamunabai case (1988) 1 SCC 530.”
18. After referring to the divergence of judicial opinion on the
F interpretation of the word “wife” in Section 125 Cr.P.C., speaking for
the Bench A.K. Ganguly J. held that the Bench is inclined to take a
broad view of the definition of “wife”, having regard to the social object
of Section 125 Cr.P.C.
19. In Chanmuniya case, this Court formulated three questions
G and referred the matter to the larger Bench. However, after discussing
various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, this Court held that
a broad and extensive interpretation should be given to the term “wife”
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and held as under:-
H
KAMALA AND OTHERS v. M.R. MOHAN KUMAR 515
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
“42. We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive A
interpretation should be given to the term “wife” to include even
those cases where a man and woman have been living together
as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and
strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for
maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, so as to fulfil the true spirit
B
and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under
Section 125. We also believe that such an interpretation would be
a just application of the principles enshrined in the Preamble to
our Constitution, namely, social justice and upholding the dignity
of the individual.”
20. On the basis of the evidence of appellant No.1 (PW-1), birth C
certificates of appellant Nos.2 and 3 (Exts. P7-P8 dated 25.05.2001 and
06.08.2003), other documentary evidence, oral evidence of PW-2 who
was co-worker of appellant No.1 and PW-3-landlord, the family court
held that appellant No.1 and the respondent were living together as
husband and wife and there is sufficient proof of marriage. The family D
court rightly drew the presumption of valid marriage between appellant
No.1 and the respondent and that they are legally married couple for
claiming maintenance by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is
summary in nature. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with the birth
certificates of appellants No.2 and 3 and other evidences clearly establish
the factum of marriage. E
21. Based upon oral and documentary evidence, when the family
court held that there was a valid marriage, the High Court being the
revisional court has no power reassessing the evidence and substitute its
views on findings of fact. The High Court did not keep in view that in
the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., strict proof of marriage is F
not necessary. The findings recorded by the family court as to the
existence of a valid marriage ought not to have been interfered with by
the High Court.
22. In the result, the impugned judgment of the High Court in
R.P.F.C. No.103 of 2008 and R.P.F.C. No.21 of 2009 dated 16.06.2009 G
is set aside and these appeals are allowed. The respondent shall pay
arrears of maintenance as directed by the family court, Mysore to the
appellants within a period of two months. Additionally, the respondent
H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A shall also continue to pay the maintenance to the appellants as directed
by the family court on or before 10th of every English calendar month.
The appellants are also at liberty to move the family court for enhancement
of the maintenance.
B Divya Pandey Appeals allowed.
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "maintenance"Sign in to search