Telangana High Court
Colonel Sameer Sharma vs Mrs. Esha Sharma on 25 April, 2025
*THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
+ FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.132 OF 2024
% 25--04--2025
# Colonel Sameer Sharma
... Appellant
vs.
$ Mrs. Esha Sharma
... Respondent
!Counsel for the Appellant: Party-in-Person
^Counsel for Respondent: Sri Mandapati Murali Krishna
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred:
(2002) 5 SCC 422
_____________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J
2/20 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_132_2024
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.132 OF 2024
Between:
Colonel Sameer Sharma
... Appellant
And
Mrs. Esha Sharma
... Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 25.04.2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_____________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J
3/20 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_132_2024
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
F.C.A.NO.132 OF 2024
J U D G M E N T:(per Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao)
1. This Family Court Appeal is filed by the appellant/husband aggrieved by the order dated 15.04.2024 in IA.No.1096 of 2022 in FCOP.No.223 of 2021 passed by the Principal Family Court, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.
2. The appellant/husband has filed FCOP.No.223 of 2021 against the respondent/wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act, 1955') r/w Section 7 of Family Courts Act, 1984, to grant decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The respondent/wife filed her counter in the main O.P. denying the allegations leveled by the petitioner/husband for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty and ultimately prayed to dismiss the O.P.
3. During pendency of the main O.P. respondent/wife has filed IA.No.1096 of 2022 under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 r/w Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for grant of pendente lite 4/20 MB,J & BRMR,J FCA_132_2024 maintenance to her and to her two minor children namely Suhani Sharma and Shaurya Sharma @ Rs.50,000/- each totaling to Rs.1,50,000/- per month, in addition to the costs of present proceedings of Rs.25,000/- vide application dated 14.12.2022. The appellant/husband filed his counter raising several contentions and prayed to dismiss the application.
4. Both the parties have filed their Assets and Liabilities before the Trial Court at the time of disposal of IA.No.1096 of 2022.
5. The Trial Court after going through the material on record and the assets and liabilities filed by the parties has allowed the petition (IA.No.1096 of 2022) partly vide order dated 15.04.2024 determining the interim maintenance amount as Rs.80,000/- per month which includes maintenance allowance granted by the Army Authorities payable by the respondent from the date of petition (14.12.2022) till disposal of the main case. It further directed the respondent to deposit balance amount after deducting the maintenance allowance which has been deducted from his salary from the Army Authorities on or before 10th of every month and the arrears of maintenance shall be cleared within two months from the date of order (15.04.2024).
5/20 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_132_2024
6.1. The petitioner is appearing party-in-person, he submits that the Trial Court has failed to consider that he has already paid huge amount of money and property to the respondent/wife for her maintenance and to take care of his children and also failed to take note of the fact that the appellant is paying Rs.64,000/- (maintenance) granted by the Army plus Rs.15,000/- rent and Rs.20,000/- for children in Sukanya and PPF Account. The appellant/husband is getting salary of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per month after compulsory deductions. The appellant is having mother, who is aged about 74 years suffering from multiple diseases like cancer and she is depending on him and he is paying Rs.68,000/- in the officers mess since the respondent/wife has taken accommodation from Army and till June, 2024 he was forced to stay in the mess.
6.2. The appellant further submits that he has taken Rs.60 Lakhs from his DSO PF money. The Trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondent has taken Rs.1.6 Crores from the appellant/husband and fixed assets. The appellant/husband has taken hand loan of Rs.32.5 Lakhs from his friends and family to pay his monthly expenses and he is bankrupt. An amount of Rs.21.68 Lakhs is transferred from his account to the account of the respondent vide document of PCDA (O), Pune, dated 6/20 MB,J & BRMR,J FCA_132_2024 20.09.2023. The Trial Court failed to appreciate that Locker No.406 at Indian Bank, Sastri Nagar, Meerut, had jewellery of his mother worth Rs.70 Lakhs and he came to know on 15.12.2023 his access to the Locker has been stopped by the respondent since 25.11.2020 without his signature or information. The respondent/wife has lodged 38 complaints since marriage of which 24 complaints were made in the short period of 3 years. He has incurred an amount of Rs.13 Lakhs towards travelling, boarding expenses and Rs.21 Lakhs towards litigation fees from his hard earned money. The Trial Court failed to consider that the respondent/wife is well educated and has already been publishing the Books in coordination with her father, prayed to set aside the impugned order.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Trial Court after taking into consideration the material available on record and after going through the assets and liabilities filed by the parties has partly allowed the application of the respondent/wife for grant of pendente lite maintenance and there is no illegality in passing the order, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
8. We have heard the petitioner (party-in-person) and the counsel for the respondent/wife, perused the material on record.
7/20 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_132_2024
9.1. The Trial Court vide order dated 08.05.2023 has disposed of IA.No.1096 of 2022 filed by the respondent/wife for grant of pendente lite maintenance wherein the petition was partly allowed directing the respondent to pay Rs.15,000/- per month towards rent from the date of eviction in case the petitioner and children are evicted from Army Quarters No.P.234/2T, Thimmaiah Line, Secunderabad or alternatively provide alternate accommodation to the respondent/wife and her children and the relief of maintenance was dismissed directing the parties to bear their own costs. 9.2. The respondent/wife aggrieved by the order dated 08.05.2023 in IA.No.1096 of 2022 in FCOP NO.223 of 2021 has challenged the same by filing the Appeal before the High Court vide FCA No.136 of 2023. The High Court after hearing the counsel on record set aside the order dated 08.05.2023 in IA.No.1096 of 2022 and remanded back to the Trial Court with a direction to consider the contentions raised by the parties and decide IA.No.1096 of 2022 a fresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from today (13.03.2024), however till disposal of the above said I.A. the respondent shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month to the wife and to her two children towards interim maintenance and also directed the 8/20 MB,J & BRMR,J FCA_132_2024 Trial Court to make an endeavour to dispose of the said FCOP as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law and liberty is given to the parties to raise all the pleas and contentions which are raised in the Appeal vide order dated 13.03.2024.
10. The respondent/wife has made an application on 03.12.2002 along with her affidavit for grant of maintenance to the Army Officers. The Army Officers vide order dated 23.04.2003 directed the appellant/husband to pay maintenance as she was neglected. The matter has been compromised by the end of 2003 and the parties were residing amicably thereby the maintenance granted by the Army Officer was discontinued vide order dated 31.12.2003. The respondent/wife has again faced mental hardship and pain due to the acts of the appellant/husband thereby, she filed an application on 07.01.2021 for grant of maintenance to the President of Army Wives Welfare Association. The Army was pleased to direct the appellant/husband to pay monthly maintenance allowance of 23% from the Pay and Allowance (12% for wife and 5.5% each to the children) vide Head Quarters Central Command Letter No.190105/Maint/3613/AG/HR, dated 09.05.2022, cumulatively the said amount was close to Rs.97,683/- and the same was paid in the month of August, 2022 and September, 2022.
9/20 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_132_2024
11. During the pendency of the application in IA.No.1096 of 2022, Army Authorities have issued eviction order dated 27.01.2023 under Section 5 (1) of the Public Premises Act, 1971 calling the respondent/wife to vacate the Quarter No.234/2002, Thimmaiah Line, Secunderabad. The respondent/wife challenged the eviction order dated 27.01.2023 and filed Writ Petition No.2918 of 2023 and vide order dated 02.02.2023, the High Court directed respondent Nos.2 and 4 therein not to evict the wife under the guise of impugned order dated 27.01.2023 till 01.03.2023. Writ Petition filed by the wife was dismissed on 20.09.2023 with an observation that "Para 11: In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondents and the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner (wife) to continue and to occupy the Quarter in question till 31.12.2023 and the petitioner/wife is further directed to vacate the Quarters in question on or before 31.12.2023 and hand over the same to the 4th respondent without fail. In case if the petitioner/wife is aggrieved by the order passed by the Family Court in IA.No.1096 of 2022, it is open for her to take appropriate steps in accordance with law".
10/20 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_132_2024
12.1. The respondent/wife filed her additional affidavit before the Trial Court on 01.04.2024 that she stopped receiving maintenance from February, 2024. She is been evicted from her residence (Quarter No.234/2, Thimmaiah Line, Secunderabad) and she is not even receiving House Rent Allowance or whatsoever. 12.2. The respondent/wife has filed IA.No.96 of 2023 in IA.No.1096 of 2022 praying the Court to provide alternate accommodation or direct the appellant/husband to pay Rs.30,000/- towards rent, the said application was allowed ex parte vide order dated 04.02.2023 directing the appellant/husband to provide alternate accommodation to the respondent/wife and children with immediate effect or else pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month to the wife towards rent from the date of order (04.02.2023) till disposal of the main O.P. 12.3. The respondent/wife further contended in the additional affidavit filed on 01.04.2024 that on 18.08.2023 she received a letter from the office of the PCDA, Pune, in pursuance of the same, she addressed a letter dated 25.08.2023 explaining the details of maintenance received from her husband till August, 2023 along with arrears. The respondent/wife started receiving an amount of Rs.32,959/- from September, 2023 instead of Rs.59,005/-.
11/20 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_132_2024
13.1. On perusal of the Assets and Liabilities filed by the respondent/wife, she is an M.A. English Literature, B.Ed. and the monthly expenses including rent, household expenses, medical bills, transportation etc., is shown as Rs.1,12,967/- under different categories and the yearly expenditure is shown as Rs.13,25,604/-. In Column No.B: Details of legal proceedings and maintenance been paid : she stated that an amount of Rs.97,683/- was compiled by the appellant/husband in the month of August and September, 2022 but not thereafter. In Column No.C: Details of Dependant Family : Have two children, she requires Rs.50,000/- per month for each of her dependents i.e., her son and daughter apart from herself.
13.2. It is to be noted here that in Column No.F : Details of the Income of the Dependant: The respondent/wife has mentioned that they are not applicable. So also in Column No.G & F : Assets and Liabilities owned by the Deponent : It is mentioned as not applicable to her and she has no assets and liabilities. 13.3. In Column No.J of the Assets and Liabilities of the Spouse :
She stated that her husband has a monthly income of around Rs.2 Lakhs apart from additional emoluments and the take home salary is Rs.2,75,000/- approximately. Appellant/husband is 12/20 MB,J & BRMR,J FCA_132_2024 having Flat at Nashik, Maharashtra, a house is constructed by her husband's father in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Land was given by the husband's grand-father.
14.1. Appellant husband has filed his Assets and Liabilities before the Trial Court on 27.02.2023 wherein he stated that the parties are residing separately since 31.03.2019 and his general monthly expenses is Rs.4,49,005/-. In Column No.B : Details of Legal Proceedings : He mentioned that currently Rs.59,005/- per month is been credited automatically from his salary to the respondent/wife through Principal Controller of Defense Accounts (Officers), Pune. In Column B sub-clause 4(b), the appellant/husband stated that Rs.15,03,439/- is paid from 2021 to December, 2022 to his wife and two children. He is contributing monthly amount into Sukanya Samdrudhi Yojana for Suhani Sharma-daughter from January, 2021 to December, 2022, the total amount is Rs.1,90,000/-. His monthly contribution for his son Shaurya Sharma from January, 2021 to December, 2022 i.e., Rs.1,87,500/-, in addition Rs.9,388/- is deducted from his salary in January, 2023 as rent and an amount of Rs.10,000/- is contributed to Sukanya Samrudhi Yojana for his daughter Suhani Sharma in the month of January, 2023, further an amount of 13/20 MB,J & BRMR,J FCA_132_2024 Rs.10,000/- is contributed to Public Provident Fund for Shaurya Sharma.
14.2. In Column No.C & D : Details of Dependant Family and Medical Details : It is stated that appellants mother is aged about 74 years suffering with multiple diseases such as cancer etc., and he is incurring Rs.70,000/- per month. In Column No.F : Details of Income of the Deponent : It is mentioned that his monthly income is Rs.1,30,000/- per month, out of which an amount of Rs.59,005/- is deducted towards monthly maintenance, Rs.3,385/- is deducted per month towards rent and allied charges for defence pool accommodation, for unauthorized occupation of the Quarters, and his take home salary is Rs.76,000/- per month. 14.3. In Column No.G : Assets owned by the Deponent :
Appellant/husband possesses one Flat at Renuka Gardens, Nashik Road, which is jointly owned by him with his mother Ms. Alka Sharma, household articles worth Rs.26,89,000/- and Swift Dzire which are in possession of the wife. Apart from that appellant/husband possess TATA Hexa Car. Properties jointly owned by the parties are Purushdan amounting to Rs.50 Lakhs and Stridhana amounting to Rs.20 Lakhs kept in Locker of Allahabad Bank, Mayur Vihar Shaka, Meerut which is a joint 14/20 MB,J & BRMR,J FCA_132_2024 account and the respondent/wife is in possession of the Locker keys. Joint Fixed Deposit of Rs.60,000/- at SBI, Devlali. Appellant/husband has paid Home loan of Rs.14 Lakhs during 2005-2010. Car loan of Rs.7,28,410/- for Swift Dzire Car during the year 2008-2016 and repaid Car loan of Rs.16,06,345/- for Tata Hexa for the year 2018-2022. It is to be noted here that date of separation is 31.03.2019 and the payments made by the appellant/husband for Swift Dzire Car is during 2008-2016, hence they cannot be taken into consideration.
14.4. In Column No.H : Assets and Liabilities of Deponent : He had borrowed personal loan of Rs.2 Lakhs and Rs.10,000/- is paid towards rent, electricity and water charges, Rs.10,000/- per month is spent towards electricity charges and water charges for interstate ancestral property at Meerut and Rs.1 Lakh is spent by the appellant/husband to maintain proper living standard as status. Appellant/husband is spending Rs.30,000/- to defend main O.P. at Secunderabad and Rs.30,000/- towards Advocates Fee and related expenses and Rs.40,000/- per month to defend the Writ Petition before the High Court and spending Rs.70,000/- per visit in attending the legal cases at Secunderabad and Hyderabad which includes to and fro Air tickets from Dehradun to Hyderabad, spending Rs.20,000/- per month for festival and family visits.
15/20 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_132_2024
14.5. In Column No.J : Income, Assets and Liabilities of the spouse/wife : The respondent/wife qualification is M.A. B.Ed. and earning royalty on English Grammer Books and Competitive Exam Books co-published with Mr. S.P.Bakshi-Father and the wife possesses independent Duplex Bungalow at Sastri Nagar, Meerut which is alienated on 17.05.2019 for Rs.37 Lakhs as per the sale deed and wife is an inheritor of the Duplex Bungalow at Mayur Vihar, Sastri Nagar, Meerut which is worth Rs.2 Crores and Rs.70 Lakhs in the Locker of Allahabad Bank, Mayur Vihar Shaka, Meerut and also in possession of the household articles worth Rs.26,89,000/- and in possession of Swift Dezire vehicle.
Respondent/wife owns fixed deposits.
15.1. Independent Duplex Bungalow, 60C at Sastry Nagar, Meerut was purchased by Snehalatha Bakshi and Esha Sharma (respondent/wife) jointly which sale deed is also filed. The above said Duplex Bungalow was alienated by Snehalatha Bakshi and Esha Sharma to third parties vide Registered Sale Deed dated 07.05.2019, copy is filed to that effect.
15.2. The Property i.e., Duplex Bungalow is 67/2, Mayur Vihar, Sastry Nagar, Meerut stands in the name of S.P.Bakshi and Snehalatha Bakshi, the sale deed is also filed to that effect in 16/20 MB,J & BRMR,J FCA_132_2024 IA.No.2 of 2024 which was allowed on 18.07.2024. As per the sale deed Duplex Bunglow E 67/2 stands in the name of the parents of the respondent/wife. When parents are alive, the question of inheritance does not arise, hence the contention of the appellant/husband is negatived.
15.3. So far as the sold property i.e., independant Duplex Bungalow 60C, Sastry nagar, Meerut, as per the sale deed the sale price is Rs.37 Lakhs vide sale deed dated 07.05.2019. As stated supra the above said property is a joint purchase of Snehalatha Bakshi and Esha Sharma (respondent/wife), she got 50% of the amount out of the sale proceeds.
16. Appellant/husband has filed material to show that respondent/wife is publishing Adjective General English with her Father S.P.Bakshi and Ms. Deepika Taneja. When this Court has questioned the respondent's counsel about the royalty been received by the respondent/wife towards publishing of the Books, in turn counsel submitted that the respondent is not receiving royality and the 50% amount received by her towards sale of property is handed over to her mother.
17. It is to be noted here that the monthly expenses of the appellant/husband is Rs.4,49,005/- and the take home salary is 17/20 MB,J & BRMR,J FCA_132_2024 Rs.1,30,000/- as per January, 2023 salary slip, the expenditure shown by the appellant/husband in the assets and liabilities is with regard to the amount spent by him in pursuing the litigation before the Trial Court and High Court. Appellant is incurring an expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/- as an Army Officer for his living standard and status.
18. On perusal of the assets and liabilities filed by both the parties, it goes to show that respondent/wife has FDR worth Rs.16,000/- given by her mother after her father's death, the maturity date is 10.01.2023. In so far as the self employment of the deponent wife is concerned she has gone to an extent of saying that they are not applicable, whereas the documents filed by the appellant/husband goes to show that she being an M.A. English Literature, B.Ed. has published Objective General English along with her father S.V.Bakshi, who is the Director of Miverva Institute. Appellant's contention is that respondent/wife is getting royalty from the Books published by her along with her father and Ms.Deepika Taneja. This fact is suppressed by the respondent/wife in her assets and liabilities. Appellant is the only son to his parents and his mother is aged about 74 years. Though she might have receiving the pension amount, keeping in view the advance stage and that she is suffering with cancer, the 18/20 MB,J & BRMR,J FCA_132_2024 appellant/husband might have been incurring some amount for her treatment in Super Speciality Hospitals.
19. Respondent/wife and her two children are to be treated on par with that of the appellant/husband and the take home salary of the respondent/husband as on January, 2023 is Rs.1,30,000/-. The respondent/wife has vacated the Quarters and there is no need for the appellant/husband to make any payment for the Quarters.
20. Appellant contended that his daughter by name Suhani sharma has attained majority in the year 2023 and she is not entitled for pendenti lite maintenance. Similar point fell for consideration before the Apex Court in Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Manju Lata and Others 1 (Three Judge Bench) has observed at Para Nos.3 & 4 which reads as follows :
"(3) In view of the finding recorded and the observations made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the order calls for interference. A similar question came up for consideration by this Court in the case of Noor Saba Khatoon V. Mohd. Quasim (1997) 6 SCC 233 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 924 : AIR 1997 SC 3280 relating to the claim of a Muslim divorced woman for maintenance from her husband for herself and her minor 1 (2002) 5 SCC 422 19/20 MB,J & BRMR,J FCA_132_2024 children. This Court while accepting the position that Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not fix liability of parents to maintain children beyond attainment of majority, read the said provision and Section 3(1)(b) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act together and held that under the latter statutory provision liability of providing maintenance extends beyond attainment of majority of a dependent girl.
(4) Applying the principle to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it is manifest that the right of a minor girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognized in Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the judgment/order passed by the learned Single Judge for maintaining the order passed by the Family Court which is based on a combined reading of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act".
21. In view of the Law laid down by the Apex Court stated supra, the contentions of the appellant is negatived and the daughter of the appellant is entitled for maintenance till the date of her marriage.
22. The maintenance amount of Rs.80,000/- per month granted by the Trial Court to the respondent is excessive considering the appellant's take-home salary as on the date of filing of the petition i.e., 14.12.2022. The Records produced by the appellant show that in June 2024, the appellant's salary remained at Rs.1,25,000/- and there was no enhancement in the salary during the 20/20 MB,J & BRMR,J FCA_132_2024 interregnum. Moreover, the Trial Court failed to consider the income/assets of the respondent arising from the sale of property and the royalties received from a book authored by the respondent. No reasons are given by the Trial Court for awarding the maintenance of Rs.80,000/- which is exorbitant and unjustified and requires interference of this Court.
23. Considering the lacuna in the impugned judgment as stated above, we deem it appropriate to direct the Trial Court to consider the following points. This is also necessary for restricting the scope of any further and prolonged enquiry into the dispute between the parties.
The points to be decided by the Trial Court are:
1. Amounts, if any, received by the respondent in excess with reference to the directions issued by the Army and thereafter by the Trial Court.
2. The amount to be adjusted by the respondent in respect of any excess payment received by the respondent.
3. Any shortfall on the part of the appellant in making payments to the respondent pursuant to the direction given by the Army and thereafter by the Trial Court for the relevant period.
4. Any unquantified amounts received by the respondent from the sale of property and royalties from sale of the book authored by the respondent.
21/20 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_132_2024
24. The parties shall be at liberty to clarify the above points before the Trial Court by way of Memos/Affidavits. The Trial Court shall decide these points while deciding the main OP, which is presently pending before the Trial Court. None of the parties shall file any unnecessary applications or seek adjournments before the Trial Court.
25. This Court is of the view that if an amount of Rs.60,000/-
per month is granted to the respondent/wife and her two children towards pendente lite maintenance from the date of petition i.e., 14.12.2022 will meet the ends of justice.
26. It is made clear that the amounts paid by the Army Officers to the respondent/wife and her two children towards maintenance from January, 2021, till the date of filing the application i.e., 14.12.2022 holds good and we are not inclined to make any observations with regard to the amount paid by the appellant/husband.
27. In view of the reasons above, we hold that the order passed by the Trial Court in IA.No.1096 of 2022 dated 15.04.2024 is set aside and we further hold that an amount of Rs.60,000/- per month is to be paid by the appellant/husband to the 22/20 MB,J & BRMR,J FCA_132_2024 respondent/wife and her two children towards pendente lite maintenance from the date of filing the petition i.e., 14.12.2022. The amounts paid by the appellant/husband after 14.12.2022 shall be adjusted if there are any excess payments. In case if there are any dues the same shall be cleared within two months from the date of this order and he is directed to pay regular pendente lite maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month on or before 10th of every succeeding month till disposal of the O.P. We make it clear that the Trial Court is hereby directed to dispose of the main O.P. as expeditiously as possible without granting any adjournments.
28. FCA No.132 of 2024 is disposed of accordingly.
All connected applications stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J ______________________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J 25th April, 2025.
PLV