Dr. Firoz Alam vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 24 September, 2014

[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court - Orders

Dr. Firoz Alam vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 24 September, 2014

The present Criminal Revision application is directed against the order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champaran at Bettiah in Maintenance Case no. 143(M) of 2011 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs.10000/- per month to O.P. No. 2 by 10th day of every succeeding month. The maintenance amount has been directed to be paid from the date of filing of the maintenance application i.e. 15.6.2011. The interim maintenance, if any, already paid to the O.P. No. 2 has been directed to be deducted from the quantum of maintenance amount to be paid.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014

2/22

This court vide order dated 18.2.2014 issued notice to the O.P. No. 2. Consequently, the O.P. No. 2 has appeared and filed counter affidavit.

The short factual matrix of the case is that O.P. No. 2 filed Maintenance Case No. 143(M) of 2011 on 15.6.2011 claiming to have married the petitioner on 13.3.2010 as per the Muslim rituals and her Dain Mehar was fixed as Rs.25,786/-. The mother of the O.P. No. 2 gave jewellery, cloths, furniture and Rs.50,000/- in cash to the petitioner and after the marriage, the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 started residing in a rented house as husband and wife. Subsequently, the O.P. No. 2 came to know that the petitioner was already married and he performed the marriage with O.P. No. 2 by concealing his earlier marriage. The petitioner took a loan of Rupees Two Lacs from the mother of O.P. No. 2 and when the petitioner was requested to return the loan amount, he started inflicting torture upon O.P. No. 2. Subsequently, the petitioner demanded Rupees Five Lacs as dowry and when the demand was not fulfilled, then the O.P. No. 2 was driven out after snatching all her belongings.

The complainant O.P. No. 2 has claimed that the petitioner is a Government doctor and is getting a salary of Rs.40,000/- per month and apart from that he earns Rs.6,00,000/- Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014 3/22 per annum by running a private clinic, hence his total annual income is Rupees Ten Lacs Eighty Thousand. Accordingly, O.P. No. 2 claimed maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month.

The petitioner appeared on notice being issued by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champaran at Bettiah and filed his show-cause denying the factum of marriage with O.P. No. 2 by claiming that the marriage was never performed with O.P. No. 2 nor there has been any marital relationship with her. The petitioner claimed that he did not even recognize O.P. No. 2 and the Nikahnama, if any, being produced, is forged and fabricated one. The O.P. No. 2 has been set up by Dr. Nikhil Kumar, against whom the petitioner has filed a complaint. The petitioner is already married with one Minni Begum and is having three children out of the wedlock. The wife of the petitioner had earlier filed an application before the S.D.O., with regard to the lodging of the false case by O.P. No. 2.

During the course of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., O.P. No. 2 examined three witnesses to prove the marriage between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2, of which P.W. 1 is Meena Khatoon (mother of O.P. No. 2), P.W. 2 Wakil Akhtar (Kazi) who had recited Nikah between petitioner and O.P. No.2) and P.W. 3 is O.P. No. 2 herself.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014

4/22

The petitioner examined 13 witnesses to prove that neither any marriage was performed between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 nor there has been any relationship in the nature of marriage between them.

The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, on analyzing the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, vide order dated 19.12.2013, came to the conclusion that O.P. No. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and is entitled for maintenance as she is unable to maintain herself. The petitioner being an Ayurvedic doctor, posted at Primary Health Centre, Ustu under Gourwadih block in the district of Bhagalpur has deliberately neglected O.P. No. 2, hence, O.P. No. 2 is entitled for maintenance of Rs.10000/- per month. The said order is under challenge in the present proceeding.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was never married with O.P. No. 2 nor there is any evidence to prove that there has been any relationship in the nature of marriage between the parties. O.P. No. 2, the Maulivi has suggested that Nikahnama was performed at Saif Alam‟s door who has been examined as witness on behalf of the petitioner and has denied that any Nikahnama was performed at his door. The witnesses to the Nikahnama are the mother of O.P. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014 5/22 No. 2 and one Md. Izhar but Md. Izhar has not been examined as a witness. The place of Nikahnama also differs in the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2. The Nikahnama filed in the maintenance case is different from the Nikahnama, filed in the criminal case lodged by O.P. No. 2 with accusation under Section 498A IPC. It is further submitted that O.P. No. 2 in her evidence has admitted that she never went to her in-laws‟ house after the marriage but she claimed to have resided with the petitioner, after their marriage in a rented house. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 led a married life in public. The joint photograph of petitioner and O.P. No. 2 (Ext. X) is computer generated.

The petitioner has filed Title Suit No. 98 of 2014 for declaring that O.P. No. 2 is not the wife of the petitioner and her claim of Nikah/marriage is false, null and void. It is also submitted that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court without verifying the income and only on the basis of presumption and speculation assessed the income of the petitioner and fixed the quantum of maintenance.

It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the family of O.P. No. 2 is in habit of lodging such cases and the other sister of the O.P. No. 2 has also lodged a case under Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014 6/22 Section 498A IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 469, where it has been held that the relationship in the nature of marriage is akin to a common law marriage. The common law marriage requires that although no formal marriage has taken place but in order to prove the relationship in the nature of marriage (i) the couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses; (ii) they must be of legal age to marry; (iii) they must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried; and (iv) they must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.

In the instant case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 ever held themselves out to the society as being akin to spouses nor there is anything on record to suggest that they voluntarily cohabited for a significant period of time.

Reliance has also been placed on the case of Indra Sharma Vs. V.K.V. Sharma 2014(2) PLJR (SC) 1 which enumerated the guidelines for testing under what circumstances, a live-in relationship will fall within the expression "relationship Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014 7/22 in the nature of marriage" under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The guidelines are illustrative in nature which stipulates the factors to be considered for coming to a conclusion with regard to the relationship in the nature of marriage i.e. (i) duration of period of relationship; (ii) shared household; (iii) pooling of resources and financial arrangements; (iv) domestic arrangements; (v) sexual relationship; (vi) children; (vii) socialization in public and (viii) intention and conduct of the parties. But none of these parameters have been proved on behalf of O.P. No. 2 during proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Reliance has also been placed on the case of Pyla Mutyalamma alias Satyavathi Vs. Pyla Suri Demudu and Anr., (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 189 to the effect that the presumption of marriage can be drawn by the court when the man and woman have cohabited continuously for long number of years or man and woman are proved to have lived together as husband and wife.

Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the marriage between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 was performed on 13.3.2010 in presence of her mother and Md. Izhar. The petitioner has not denied his signature on the Nikahnama. The Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014 8/22 Nikahnama (Ext. 1) has been proved by the Maulvi (P.W. 2). The consent of the O.P. No. 2 was taken on mobile. The Maulvi identified the petitioner by photograph which has been marked as Ext X which suggests the intimate relationship between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2. It is further submitted that one Nikahnama was handed over to the O.P. No. 2 by the petitioner and the other by Maulvi and both the Nikahnama suggest Nikah between the petitioner and O.P. No.2. Hence, one was filed in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. while the other was filed in the criminal case lodged under Section 498A IPC. O.P. No. 2 was not made aware of the marriage of the petitioner with Munni Begum. After the marriage, the O.P. No. 2 was being kept in a rented house by the petitioner where they resided together for a considerable period and subsequently their relationship went sour. The O.P. No. 2 filed Bettiah Sadar (M) P.S. Case No. 44 of 2011 on 16.2.2011 alleging torture in which the petitioner has been chargesheeted and consequently, cognizance has been taken under Section 498A IPC. The petitioner filed Declaratory Suit no. 98 of 2014 on 11.4.2014 after filing of the present revision application before this court. The O.P. No. 2 has specifically stated in paragraph nos. 5 and 6 of her evidence that she is unable to maintain herself, which has not been controverted by the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014 9/22 petitioner. The chargesheet in criminal case under Section 498A IPC and consequent order of cognizance suggest the neglect by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has relied on the case of Santosh (Smt) Vs. Naresh Pal (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 447 where it has been held that in a proceeding for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the court is expected to pass orders after being prima facie satisfied about the marital status of parties. The decision of the court with regard to marital status is tentative in nature and is subject to the final order in any civil proceeding, if the parties are so advised to adopt. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Anr., (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 675 to the effect that the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be denied where there is some evidence on which conclusion for grant of maintenance can be reached. A proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., being summary in nature does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties while the decision of the criminal court that there was a valid marriage between the parties will not operate as a decisive element in any civil proceeding between the parties.

The learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has also relied Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014 10/22 on the case of Badshah Vs. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr., 2014(1) PLJR (SC) 144 where it has been held that the purpose of proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to achieve "social justice" which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution of India, therefore, it becomes a bounden duty of the court to advance the cause of the social justice. The court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order does not need any interference.

Considering the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the materials on record, it appears that the Nikah between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 has been sought to be proved by O.P. No. 2 and her mother along with P.W. 2, the Kazi who got the Nikah performed between the parties. The petitioner has not denied his signature on the Nikahnama. Admittedly, the O.P. No. 2 claims marriage on 13.3.2010. The wife of the petitioner Minni Begum filed an application before the S.D.O., West Champaran on 5.8.2010. Bettiah Sadar (M) P.S. Case No. 44 of 2011 was filed on 16.2.2011 alleging torture. Charge sheet was submitted in the said criminal case vide Charge sheet no. 463 of 2011 on 31.12.2011. The maintenance case was filed on 15.6.2011, but the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 98 of Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014 11/22 2014 for declaring the marriage void on 11.04.2012, subsequent to the filing of the present revision before this court on 12.02.2014.

For the purposes of a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the factum of marriage has to be prima facie considered. The father of the petitioner has been examined as O.P.W. No. 1. In paragraph 4 of his evidence he has stated that he does not recognize O.P. No. 2, but in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., during investigation of Bettiah Mufassil P.S. Case No. 44 of 2011, he has stated that O.P. No. 2 used to come at petitioner‟s clinic for getting her mother treated by the petitioner, when no fee was being charged. The petitioner has claimed in para 12 of his evidence that O.P. No. 2 was working as nurse in the clinic of one Dr. Nikhil Kumar at Hospital Road, Bettiah. Though O.P. No. 2 in para 3 of her evidence has stated that the petitioner was not known to her prior to marriage, but the statement/evidence of the petitioner and his father suggests that the petitioner was known to O.P No. 2 closely, otherwise there was no occasion for not charging any fees for treating the mother of O.P. No. 2.

If the prima facie materials are on record to suggest that the parties have married or are having relationship in the nature Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014 12/22 of marriage, the court can presume in favour of the woman claiming maintenance.

Since the provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and has been enacted to protect women, children or parents and the materials on record suggest two views, then the view in favour of women should be adopted. In the case of Mahesh Chandra Kaushal Vs. Veena Kaushal (1978) 4 Supreme Court Cases 70, Krishna Iyer, J. dealing with the interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C. observed at paragraph no. 9 as follows:

"It is to be remembered that the order passed in an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties and the said section is enacted with a view to provide a summary remedy for providing maintenance to a wife, children and parents. For the purpose of getting his rights determined, the appellant has also filed a civil suit, which is pending before the trial court. In such a situation, this court in S. Sethurathiuam Pillai Vs. Barbara observed that maintenance under Section 488 Cr.P.C. 1898 (similar to Section 125 Cr.P.C.) cannot be denied where there was some evidence on which conclusion for grant of maintenance could be reached. It was held that order passed under Section 488 is a summary order which does Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014 13/22 not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties; the decision of the criminal court that there was a valid marriage between the parties will not operate as decisive in any civil proceeding between the parties."

In a proceeding for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a Magistrate or Judge of the Family Court has to be prima facie satisfied about the marital status of the parties, as a decision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is tentative in nature, subject to the decision in any civil proceeding, as has been held in Santosh Vs. Naresh Pal (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 447, paragraph 2 of which reads as follows:

"In a proceeding for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate was expected to pass appropriate order after being prima facie satisfied about the marital status of the parties. It is obvious that the said decision will be a tentative decision subject to final order in any civil proceeding, if the parties are so advised to adopt."

It has been held in the case of Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988) 1 Supreme Court Cases 530 that the nature of proof of marriage required for a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. need not be so strong or conclusive as in a criminal proceeding for an offence under Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014 14/22 Section 494 IPC, since, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 125 Cr.P.C. being preventive in nature, the Magistrate cannot usurp the jurisdiction in matrimonial dispute possessed by the Civil Court. The object of the Section being to afford a swift remedy, and the determination by the Magistrate as to the status of the parties being subject to a final determination by the Civil Court, when the husband denies that the applicant is not his wife, all that the Magistrate has to find, in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is whether there was some marriage ceremony between the parties, whether they have lived as husband and wife in the eyes of their neighbours, whether children were born from the union.

It is true that there is no evidence on record that the parties have lived together as husband and wife but the Nikahnama being proved by the Maulvi (P.W. 2), prima facie suggests the semblance of marriage which, further gets fortified due to the petitioner being chargesheeted for offence under Section 498A IPC in the criminal case lodged by O.P. No. 2. The Apex Court in the case of Rajathi Vs. C. Ganesan (1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 326 held that in a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate has to take prima facie view of the matter and it is not necessary for the Magistrate to go into matrimonial Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014 15/22 dispute between the parties in detail in order to deny maintenance to the claimant wife. Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceeds on de facto marriage and not marriage de jure. Thus, validity of the marriage will not be a ground for refusal of maintenance if other requirements of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are fulfilled.

The inclusive definition of wife provided in Explanation (b) to Section 125 (1) of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

"125(1)(b) - „Wife‟ includes a woman who has been divorced by or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried"

The above inclusive definition of wife suggests that a divorced woman who cannot be technically called a wife has been treated as wife for the purposes of proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is meant to achieve a social purpose and the object is to prevent vagrancy and destitute. The object of providing maintenance is to provide speedy remedy for supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife.

Though petitioner has examined Hena Tabassum as O.P.W. 11 claiming to be his first wife but there is nothing on record that O.P. No. 2 was aware at the time of Nikah about the first marriage of petitioner with Hena Tabassum.

The Apex Court in the case of Badshah (supra) held that Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014 16/22 the provision of Section 125 is to save a woman from destitute and vagrancy. This provision deals with marginalized section of society, the purpose of which is to achieve social justice which is the constitutional vision enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution of India, therefore, it becomes a bounden duty of the court to advance the cause of social justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between law and society. The court has to adopt a different approach in social justice adjudication as mere adversarial approach may not be very appropriate. Hence the provision of maintenance would definitely fall in the categories which aim at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice or equality and dignity of the individual. Hence, drift in the approach from "adversarial" litigation to "social context adjudication" is the need of the hour. Paragraphs 17 to 20 read as follows:

"17. Thirdly, in such cases, purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125, Cr. P.C. while dealing with the application of destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalized sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve "social justice" which is the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014 17/22 constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the Courts to advance the cause of the social justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the Court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society.

18. Of late, in this very direction, it is emphasized that the Courts have to adopt different approaches in "social justice adjudication", which is also known as "social context adjudication" as mere "adversarial approach" may not be very appropriate. There are number of social justice legislations giving special protection and benefits to vulnerable groups in the society. Prof. Madhva Menon describes it eloquently:-

"It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that "social context judging" is essentially the application of equality jurisprudence as evolved by Parliament and the Supreme Court in myriad situations presented before courts where unequal parties are pitted in adversarial proceedings and where Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014 18/22 courts are called upon to dispense equal justice. Apart from the social-economic inequalities accentuating the disabilities of the poor in an unequal fight, the adversarial process itself operates to the disadvantage of the weaker party. In such a situation, the judge has to be not only sensitive to the inequalities of parties involved but also positively inclined to the weaker party if the imbalance were not to result in miscarriage of justice. This result is achieved by what we call social context judging or social justice adjudication.

19. Provision of maintenance would definitely fall in this category which aims at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice or equality and dignity of the individual. While dealing with cases under this provision, drift in the approach from "adversarial" litigation to social context adjudication is the need of the hour.

20. The law regulates relationships between people. It prescribes patterns of behavior. It reflects the values of society. The role of the Court is to understand the purpose of law in society and to help the law achieve its purpose. But the law of a society is a living organism. It is based on a given factual and social reality that is constantly changing. Sometimes change in law precedes societal change and is even Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014 19/22 intended to stimulate it. In most cases, however, a change in law is the result of a change in social reality. Indeed, when social reality changes, the law must change too. Just as change in social reality is the law of life, responsiveness to change in social reality is the life of the law. It can be said that the history of law is the history of adapting the law to society‟s changing needs. In both constitutional and statutory interpretation, the Court is supposed to exercise direction in determining the proper relationship between the subjective and objective purpose of the law."

This court is conscious of the fact that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction it is not required to enter into re- appraisal of evidence, recorded in the order granting maintenance and substitute its own finding. Under the revisional jurisdiction, the question whether the O.P. No. 2 is a married wife of petitioner, being pre-eminently questions of fact, cannot be reopened in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, as has been held in the case of Pyla Mutyalamma (supra). Paragraph 15 reads as follows:

"15. The High Court under its revisional jurisdiction is not required to enter into Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014 20/22 reappreciation of evidence recorded in the order granting maintenance; at the most it could correct a patent error of jurisdiction. It has been laid down in a series of decisions including Suresh Mandal V. State of Jharkhand that in a case where the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance holding that the wife had been neglected and the wife was entitled to maintenance, the scope of interference by the Revisional Court is very limited. The Revisional Court would not substitute its own finding and upset the maintenance order recorded by the Magistrate."

In view of this Court, for the purposes of summary proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C, there is semblance of marriage between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2. Hence, O.P. No. 2 is entitled for maintenance. No doubt, the petitioner has filed Declaratory Suit after filing of the present revision application, but the same will ultimately decide the marital status between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2.

The materials on record, as well as the deposition of the parties prima facie suggest relationship in the nature of marriage between the parties.

So far as the question of quantum of maintenance is concerned, it appears from the impugned order that no evidence Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014 21/22 was led by either side with regard to income of the petitioner. The O.P. No. 2 claimed that the petitioner is Ayurvedic doctor having salary of Rs.40,000/- per month and earns Rupees Six Lacs per annum from private practice but no documentary proof has been brought on record nor any conclusive finding with regard to the income of the petitioner has been recorded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court. Hence, the assessment of the income appears to be speculative. The petitioner has brought photo copy of the agreement (Annexure 1) on record suggesting that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for three years i.e. 2011 to 2014 as Ayush Doctor and posted at Primary Health Centre, Ustu in the district of Bhagalpur on the payment of honorarium of Rs.15000/- per month but after deduction at source, the petitioner was receiving only Rs.13,500/- per month. In the circumstances, the grant of maintenance of Rs.10000/- per month does not appear to be just and reasonable. Hence, the quantum of maintenance is reduced from Rs.10000/- to Rs.4000/- per month, which the petitioner is directed to pay to O.P. No. 2 from the date of filing of the maintenance application i.e. 15.6.2011. The petitioner is expected to make payment of arrears of maintenance amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The current maintenance Patna High Court CR. REV. No.147 of 2014 (8) dt.24-09-2014 22/22 amount will be paid by the petitioner by 15th day of every succeeding month. The payment of maintenance amount will be subject to the deduction of the amount already paid towards maintenance by the petitioner.

The present order will, in no way, preclude the parties to file appropriate application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for alteration of maintenance allowance, in case there is any change in the circumstances.

This revision application stands disposed of with the above modification in the order dated 19.12.2013 passed in Maintenance Case No. 143M of 2011 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champaran at Bettiah.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Anil/-

  U         T

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Patna High Court - Orders