Karnataka High Court
Mr. Harmeet Singh vs Mrs. Juliet Kukreja on 19 March, 2024
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 05.02.2024
Pronounced on : 19.03.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.19560 OF 2023 (GM - FC)
BETWEEN:
MR.HARMEET SINGH
S/O GURMEET SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/A NO.504, BLOCK 17,
SUNCITY APARTMENTS, IBLUR,
BENGALURU - 560 102.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAMOD KATHAVI, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SRI N.GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . MRS. JULIET KUKREJA
D/O P.C.ANTONY,
W/O HARMEET SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
2 . MS. PAHUL KAUR
D/O HARMEET SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS.
2
BOTH OF THEM RESIDING AT:
NO.18, PEE VEES APARTMENT,
6TH CROSS, RA ROAD, EJIPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 047.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS IN
CRL. MISC. 505/2020 PENDING ADJUDICATION BEFORE 6TH ADDL.
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT BANGALORE; B) QUASHING /
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24TH JULY 2023 PASSED BY
THE 6TH ADDL. FAMILY JUDGE AT BENGALURU ON IA NO. 2 IN CRL.
MISC. NO. 505/2020 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
IA NO. 2 IN CRL. MISC. NO. 505/2020.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 05.02.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 24-07-2023 passed by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A.No.II in Criminal Miscellaneous No.505 of 2020 granting the respondents - wife and daughter an interim maintenance at `50,000/- p.m. 3
2. Heard Sri Pramod N. Kathavi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri H. Manjunath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The petitioner is the husband, the 1st respondent is his wife and the 2nd respondent is the daughter born from the wedlock of the petitioner and the 1st respondent. The two get married on 20-07-2008 and the marriage comes to be registered on 24th September, 2008 in accordance with law. From the wedlock, the husband and the wife have a daughter who is now 13 years old.
The relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent / wife appears to have floundered and on floundering of relationship, the wife is said to have moved out of the matrimonial house along with the daughter. The petitioner / husband then initiates proceedings under Guardian and Wards Act in G & W.C. No.71 of 2020 seeking custody of the minor daughter. In the month of August 2020, it is averred, that the petitioner lost his employment owing to the employer - company merging with another company and undergoing restructuring. It is further averred that on 4 04-11-2020, the wife receives a notice in the proceedings initiated under Guardian and Wards Act and immediately thereafter, registers a complaint, which becomes a crime in Crime No.244 of 2020 for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 34 of the IPC. When those proceedings were pending, the wife files a petition invoking Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in Criminal Miscellaneous No.505 of 2020 seeking interim maintenance in a sum of `1,50,000/- p.m. The submission of assets and liabilities statements as required in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAJNESH v. NEHA1 was complied with on 20-02-2023. Written arguments were preferred by the parties and concerned Court on 24-07-2023 allows the application in I.A.No.II and directs payment of a sum of `50,000/- as interim maintenance along with one time litigation expenses at `10,000/-. The husband feeling aggrieved, is before this Court calling in question the said order dated 24-07-2023.
4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner has lost his job. He has no 1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 5 avocation now and, therefore, he is not in a position to pay any amount much less the amount that is directed to be paid by the concerned Court as interim maintenance. It is his contention that the wife has played fraud with the Court by filing vague objections and repeatedly mediation is sought to take the leverage and delay the proceedings and now, to get maintenance for all those delays that have happened. It is his further submission that the petitioner is buried under a home loan; he has to clear the home loan and cannot pay any maintenance to the wife. It is his submission that despite various odds against him he has not shied away from paying child's tuition fee. In effect, the learned senior counsel would submit that the petitioner is not in a position to comply with the order of maintenance as is directed.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent/wife would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the submission of loss of employment will not come in the way of maintenance. Due to restructuring of business organization, the petitioner resigns after rendering more than 15 years of service from the said organization by name Sonus 6 Networks India Private Limited and receives a total amount of `4,49,00,125/- as his relieving package. He would submit that this could be gathered from the income-tax returns also. He would seek to place reliance upon several judgments of the Apex Court and also this Court, to demonstrate that mere loss of employment of the husband will not mean that the wife or the child will not be granted any maintenance.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.
7. The aforementioned facts are not in dispute and link in the chain of events are a matter of record. The order that has driven the petitioner to this Court is an order passed on I.A.No.II in a proceeding instituted by the wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
What is directed to be paid is `50,000/- as monthly maintenance to the wife and the child. The solitary contention of the petitioner is that, he has no employment as on today as he has been terminated from his employment and he is paying the necessary tuition fee of the daughter and the daughter would not require any further 7 maintenance to be granted. In the fact circumstance, I deem it appropriate to notice the line of law as laid down by the Apex Court from time to time. The Apex Court in BHUWAN MOHAN SINGH v.
MEENA2 has held as follows:
"2. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created where under she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able- bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds."
(Emphasis supplied) 2 (2015) 6 SCC 353 8 A little earlier to the said judgment, the Apex Court in the case of SUNITA KACHWAHA v. ANIL KACHWAHA3 has held as follows:
"7. Inability to maintain herself is the precondition for grant of maintenance to the wife. The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her. In her evidence, the appellant wife has stated that only due to help of her retired parents and brothers, she is able to maintain herself and her daughters. Where the wife states that she has great hardships in maintaining herself and the daughters, while her husband's economic condition is quite good, the wife would be entitled to maintenance.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant wife is well-qualified, having postgraduate degree in Geography and working as a teacher in Jabalpur and also working in the Health Department. Therefore, she has income of her own and needs no financial support from the respondent. In our considered view, merely because the appellant wife is a qualified postgraduate, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself. Insofar as her employment as a teacher in Jabalpur, nothing was placed on record before the Family Court or in the High Court to prove her employment and her earnings. In any event, merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.
9. The Family Court had in extenso referred to the respondent's salary and his economic condition. The respondent is stated to be an Engineer in PHE, Kota. He is in government service and according to the pay certificate then produced before the Family Court, he was getting salary of Rs 20,268 per month. In her evidence, the appellant wife has also stated that the respondent owns a very big house of his own in which he is said to have opened a hostel for boys and girls and is earning a 3 (2014) 16 SCC 715 9 substantial income. She has also stated that the respondent owns another house at Talmandi Sabji, Kota, Rajasthan and is receiving rental income of Rs 4500 per month. Having regard to the salary and economic condition of the respondent, the Family Court has awarded maintenance of Rs 3000 to the wife and Rs 2500 to each of the daughters, in total Rs 8000 per month. It is stated that the maintenance amount awarded to the daughters has been subsequently enhanced to Rs 10,000 per month. The maintenance amount of Rs 3000 per month awarded to the wife appears to be minimal and in our view, the High Court ought not to have set aside the award of maintenance. The learned counsel for the appellants prayed for enhancement of the quantum of maintenance to the appellant wife. We are not inclined to go into the said submission, but liberty is reserved to the appellant wife to seek remedy before the appropriate court.
10. The impugned order of the High Court dated 26-6-
2008 passed in Anil Kachwaha v. Sunita Kachwaha [Anil Kachwaha v. Sunita Kachwaha, (2008) 70 AIC 820 (MP)] is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay the maintenance of Rs 3000 per month to the appellant wife as ordered by the Family Court and also pay the arrears of maintenance payable to the appellant wife within the period of eight weeks."
(Emphasis supplied) Both the aforesaid judgments would project the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and the minor children. If the husband is able bodied, it is for him to search for an avocation and maintain the wife and the children. This is further 10 approved by the Apex Court in the case of ANJU GARG v. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG4 wherein it is held as follows:
"9. At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, as observed by this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena1. This Court in the said case, after referring to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the principle of law as to how the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C have to be dealt with by the Court. It held as under:
"In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [(1987) 1 SCC 624 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 237] the Court opined that : (SCC p. 631, para 16)
16. "... Proceedings under Section 125 [of the Code], it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner."
8. A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) [(1991) 2 SCC 375 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 442], while discussing about the basic purpose under Section 125 of the Code, opined that : (SCC p. 378, para
3)
3. "Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife."
9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat [(1996) 4 SCC 479 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 762], while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that :
(SCC p. 489, para 15) 4 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314 11
15. "... While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation."
10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356], reiterating the legal position the Court held : (SCC p. 320, para 6)
6. "... Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787]."
11. Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v.
Neelamma [(2014) 14 SCC 452 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 407 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 346], it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children".
1210. This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai2, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.
11. The Family Court, in the instant case had not only over-looked and disregarded the aforesaid settled legal position, but had proceeded with the proceedings in absolutely pervert manner. The very fact that the right of the respondent to cross- examine the witnesses of the appellant-original applicant was closed, as he had failed to appear before the Family Court despite the issuance of warrants, clearly established that he had no regards for his own family nor had any regards for the Court or for the law. The allegations made by the appellant-wife in her evidence before the Court had remained unchallenged and, therefore, there was no reason for the Family Court to disbelieve her version, and to believe the oral submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent which had no basis. In absence of any evidence on record adduced by the respondent disputing the evidence adduced by the appellant, the Family Court could not have passed the order believing the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. She had clearly stated as to how she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by the respondent, which had constrained her to leave the matrimonial home along with her children, and as to how the respondent had failed and neglected to maintain her and her children. She had also proved by producing the documentary 13 evidence that her father had paid money to the respondent from time to time to help the respondent for his business. Even if the allegations of demand of dowry by the respondent were not believed, there was enough evidence to believe that money was being paid to the respondent by the father of the appellant-wife, which substantiated her allegation that the respondent was demanding money from her father and was subjecting her to harassment. The errant respondent had also gone to the extent of questioning her chastity alleging that Rachit was not his biological son. There was nothing on record to substantiate his such baseless allegations. His application for DNA test was also rejected by the Family Court. Of course, the Family Court granted the Maintenance petition so far as the appellant no. 2- son was concerned, nonetheless had thoroughly mis-directed itself by not granting the maintenance to the appellant-wife.
12. Such an erroneous and perverse order of Family Court was unfortunately confirmed by the High Court by passing a very perfunctory impugned order. The High Court, without assigning any reasons, passed the impugned order in a very casual manner. This Court would have remanded the matter back to the High Court for considering it afresh, however considering the fact that the matter has been pending before this Court since the last four years, and remanding it back would further delay the proceedings, this Court deemed it proper to pass this order.
13. Though it was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, and by the respondent himself that he has no source of income as his party business has now been closed, the Court is neither impressed by nor is ready to accept such submissions. The respondent being an able-bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child. Having regard to the evidence of the appellant-wife before the Family Court, and having regard to the other evidence on record, the Court has no hesitation in holding that though the respondent had sufficient source of income and was able-bodied, had failed and neglected to maintain the appellants. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to grant maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife, over and above 14 the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- granted by the Family Court to the appellant no. 2-son.
14. It is accordingly directed that the respondent shall pay maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife from the date of filing of her Maintenance Petition before the Family Court. The entire amount of arrears shall be deposited by the respondent in the Family Court within eight weeks from today, after adjusting the amount, if any, already paid or deposited by him."
(Emphasis supplied) In the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court, it is clearly held that it is the duty of the husband to maintain the wife if he is an able bodied. The petitioner in the case at hand projects loss of employment in the year 2020, receives a retirement package of close to `4/- crores and is not willing to part with `50,000/- per month for the maintenance of the wife and the daughter. The projection of the husband that he is paying the daughter all that is necessary cannot be accepted as the Apex Court in the case of RAJNESH v. NEHA5 has held as follows:
"38. Proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena [Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353: (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321:
(2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 200] this Court held that Section 125 CrPC was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home, so 5 (2021) 2 SCC 324 15 that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children. Since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute.
... ... ...
80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiraling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications. [Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303: (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 596: (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339] ... ... ...
(c) Where wife is earning some income
90. The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments:
90.1. In Shailja v. Khobbanna [Shailja v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199: (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 308; See also the decision of the Karnataka High Court in P. Suresh v. S. Deepa, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 8848: 2016 Cri LJ 4794 (Kar)], this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 :
(2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547: (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival.16
[Vipul Lakhanpal v. Pooja Sharma, 2015 SCC OnLine HP 1252:
2015 Cri LJ 3451] 90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589] the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.
90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale [Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694] while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715: (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 :
(2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589], held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.
90.4. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] . The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the court.
90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan [Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705 :
(2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 274 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 785] cited the judgment in Chander Parkash [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] with approval, and held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife.17
(d) Maintenance of minor children
91. The living expenses of the child would include expenses for food, clothing, residence, medical expenses, education of children. Extra coaching classes or any other vocational training courses to complement the basic education must be factored in, while awarding child support. Albeit, it should be a reasonable amount to be awarded for extracurricular/coaching classes, and not an overly extravagant amount which may be claimed.
92. Education expenses of the children must be normally borne by the father. If the wife is working and earning sufficiently, the expenses may be shared proportionately between the parties."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that he is unable to maintain the family and discharge the legal obligation beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court. This is qua the wife. The Apex Court holds concerning maintenance of minor children that it should be borne in mind that reasonable amount should be awarded for extracurricular/coaching classes and not an overly extravagant amount as may be claimed. The educational expenses of the children must normally be borne by the father and if the wife is earning sufficiently, the expenses should be shared between the 18 parties. The demand of the wife for the child is towards the extracurricular activities which needs some amount of maintenance to be given. The reasons are projected before the concerned Court and the concerned Court has recorded whatever reasons are rendered.
8. It is not a case where the order of the concerned Court is bald or laconic. The order has reasons and the reasons are in accordance with what the Apex Court directs in a case concerning grant of interim maintenance.
9. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected. Arrears if any, of maintenance, shall be cleared within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
The concerned Court shall endeavor to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law, within 6 months from the date 19 of receipt of copy of this order, if not earlier. It is needless to observe that the parties to the lis shall co-operate for such disposal.
Sd/-
JUDGE Nvj CT:MJ