Delhi District Court
Smt. Sarita Chander Jatav vs Sh. Suresh Chnader Jatav on 4 April, 2011
Page 1 of 22
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIYA MAHENDRA: MM: SOUTH DELHI: SAKET
COURT: NEW DELHI.
CC No: 673/1 ( Date of filing 18.11.2005)
Jurisdiction of Police Station : Sarojini Nagar
1. Smt. Sarita Chander Jatav
w/o Sh. Suresh Chander Jatav,
D/o Late Sh. Daulat Ram
R/o 53A, Himayunpur,
Safdurjung Enclave, New Delhi.
2. Master Suraj s/o Sh. Suresh Chander Jatav,
Through his natural guardian/mother i.e. Petitioner no. 1,
R/o 53A, Himayunpur, Safdurjung Enclave,
New Delhi. .......... petitioners
Versus
Sh. Suresh Chnader Jatav,
s/o Sh. Prakash Chander Jatav,
R/o 3071, TypeIII, Sector 1,
New Colony, GCF Estate,
Tehsil and Distt. Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh,
And also at
Through Officer Incharge
SQAE (IFA), GCF (Ajanta)
Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh ..........Respondent
APPLICATION U/S 125 Cr.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE
Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav
Page 2 of 22
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has filed an application u/s 125 Cr. PC seeking maintenance for herself and her son @ Rs. 7,000/ each.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the marriage of the petitioner no 1 was solemnized with the respondent on 25.11.1993 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. The parents of the petitioner number 1 gave the dowry articles more than their means and capacity. Even after marriage, the parents of the petitioner kept fulfilling the demand of the in laws as well as respondent for money on different occasions. However, their lust for money could not be satisfied and they started harassing the petitioner no 1 to bring more and more money. After few days of marriage, the respondent brought the petitioner no 1 to Jabal Pur as he was serving there in the department of Ordinance Factory under the Ministry of Defence presently at the post of Assistant Engineer. The respondent treated the petitioner no1 with cruelty, harassment and torture. On many occasions the respondent had thrown out the petitioner number 1 from matrimonial house with the warning that she should not speak about the family incident to neighbours and her parents. The parties were blessed Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav Page 3 of 22 with one son, petitioner no 2, who is under the care and custody of the petitioner no 1. In order to harass and humiliate the petitioner no 1, the respondent filed a petition u/s 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter called as HMA) for seeking judicial separation on the false ground that the petitioner has committed cruelty upon him. Further, it is stated that respondent was in habit of filing false and frivolous complainant against the petitioner no 1 in the Police Station by taking frivolous pleas about the maltreatment and criminal intimidation by the petitioner to the respondent. In fact, it was the respondent who was treating the petitioner with cruelty and torture. Further it is averred that the respondent himself deserted the company of the petitioner by living separately at some unknown place however, he starting alleging that the petitioner created circumstances in order to compel him to leave his official accommodation at Jabal Pur. The father of the respondent was a very influential person as he retired from rank of Joint Secretary Central Government Services, Ministry of Law. Fearing threat to her life and life of petitioner no 2, the petitioner no 1 started residing at her parents house and the petitioner no 1 is living at the house of her parents at Delhi with her widow mother now. The respondent made no effort to take her or the petitioner no 2 back to the matrimonial house. All the dowry articles and Streedhan of the Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav Page 4 of 22 petitioner no 1 are with the respondent and with her parents.
3. As regards, the income of the respondent it is stated that the respondent is a Central Government Employee posted as an Assistant Engineer in the Department of Ordinance and he is earning around Rs. 15,000/ per month. Further, the respondent also has a share in his ancestral house and also receives rent from one tenanted premises. The respondent has no liability except to maintain the petitioners. It is also averred by the petitioner that she has formal education of MA, B.Ed but she is a house wife and has no source of income. The petitioners are totally dependent on the widow mother and brother of petitioner no 1 for their sustenance.
4. In the written statement filed by the respondent he has denied all the allegations levelled by the petitioner regarding cruelty and dowry demand against the respondent and his family members. It is stated that the entire story of the petitioner no 1 is based on concocted and manipulated facts. It is averred that the petitioner no 1 is a hot tempered lady and she has been harassing, humiliating and maltreating the respondent since marriage. The respondent provided all the amenities of life to the petitioners, and he showered all love and affection on the petitioner no 1, but she never cared Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav Page 5 of 22 for the same. On 26.12.04, the petitioner no 1 picked up quarrel with the respondent without any rhyme and reason. She gave merciless beatings to the respondent and also gave injury on his hand by teeth biting and created a scene at the house of respondent. The petitioner no 1 thrown the respondent out of his government accommodation and did not allow the respondent to reside therein. Left with no option, the respondent lodged a complaint against petitioner no 1 with the police of PS Ghama Pur at Jabal Pur u/s 323/336/341/352 IPC and the said matter is tried by the court of judicial magistrate at Jabal Pur MP. The respondent was compelled to take separate accommodation on rent and started living separately from the petitioners. The petitioner no 1 made a point to harass the respondent on one pretext or the other even in the separate accommodation and flatly refused to patch up the differences despite efforts made by the respondent. On 26.06.05 the petitioner no 1 left the government accommodation alongwith petitioner no 2 without the knowledge and consent of respondent and joined her parental house in Delhi and since then, she is living at the house of her parents. At the time of leaving the said quarter, the petitioner no 1 took all her valuable goods, clothes and jewelery etc. alongwith her and also kept the keys of the said quarter with her. The respondent therefore, could not open the lock of the Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav Page 6 of 22 quarter with the apprehension that the petitioner no. 1 may further lodge any false complaint against him. The petitioner handed over the keys of said quarter to the respondent only after one year after she was served with the legal notice by the respondent. The petitioner no 1 refused to join the company of the respondent despite his best efforts and therefore, the respondent has to file a suit for judicial separation.
5. It is also stated that the petitioner no 1 is an educated lady and has passed MA, B. Ed and is earning an amount of Rs. 12,000/ per month by giving tuitions to the students of a different classes from the house of her parents. She is also getting her share of the rental income being derived from the property of her father amounting to Rs. 1 lac per annum and is also getting interest on various deposits made by her in her name in different banks and her total income is more than Rs 20,000/ per month. It is averred that the petitioner no 1 is earning much more than the respondent.
6. The respondent has further denied that the respondent is serving as a Assistant Engineer. It is stated by respondent that he is earning meagre salary of Rs. 6,000/ per month and he has to maintain his old aged Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav Page 7 of 22 parents and younger brother. It is further denied that that the respondent has share in an ancestral property or he is earning any rent.
7. In rejoinder filed by the petitioner, she reiterated and reaffirmed the averments made in the petition.
8. Evidence has been led by both the parties and they have produced themselves in their respective evidence.
9. The proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C are quasi criminal and extent of proof required is not of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' but the parties are required to prove their respective cases by 'preponderance of probabilities'. In order to establish that the petitioner is entitled to maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C the following four ingredients had to be established : a. Relationship with the respondent as wife / Child/father / mother, as the case may be, b. The ground for her residing separately, which should be reasonable and sufficient to make her entitled for the relief, c. Incapability of petitioner to survive on her own and Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav Page 8 of 22 d. Capability of respondent to make provision for the maintenance.
10. My issue wise findings are as below:
A. Relationship with the respondent as wife child/father/ mother, as the case may be:
A.1 As regards the relationship between the parties, it is undisputed that petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. B. The ground for her residing separately, which should be reasonable and sufficient.
B.1 It is the case of petitioner that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the respondent for not bringing enough dowry from her parents. Further the respondent willfully without any reasonable cause, deserted the petitioner and his minor son and left official accommodation allotted to him . The respondent being a shrewd man filed frivolous cases against the petitioner in order to create false evidence against the petitioner. On the other hand the respondent had contended that the petitioner no. 1 is a hot tempered Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav Page 9 of 22 lady and was harassing and maltreating the respondent. Further the petitioner gave mercilessly beatings to the respondent and thrown him out of his own government accommodation. Therefore, it is case of the respondent that it was the petitioner who has subjected him to cruelty and is guilty of matrimonial misconduct and is not entitled to any maintenance. B.2 As per second proviso of Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. if the husband offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him and the wife refuses to live with him, then she is not entitled to maintenance unless the Magistrate is satisfied that there is just ground for refusal to live with the husband and Section 125 (4) also provides that the wife shall not be entitled to receive maintenance if without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband. The petitioner in her examinationinchief stuck to her version as stated in the petition. In her crossexamination she denied the suggestion that on 26.06.2005 she left the official accommodation of respondent without his knowledge and consent. She also denied the suggestion that she voluntarily left the house of respondent and added that on 26.12.2004 the respondent himself left the company of the petitioner by leaving his official accommodation after picking up quarrel with the petitioner. She denied the suggestion that on 24.12.2004 she gave teeth bite to the respondent and Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav Page 10 of 22 respondent made a complaint u/s 323/336/341/352 IPC at Jabalpur. She also denied the suggestion that at the time of leaving the official accommodation of respondent, she had taken all her stridhan. She also denied the suggestion that she handed over the keys of the official accommodation on receiving legal notice of respondent's counsel. She also denied the suggestion that marriage between her and the respondent was simple and dowryless marriage. She denied the suggestion that she levelled false allegations against the respondent and respondent has never harassed her on account of dowry demand.
B.3 The respondent also reaffirmed his stand in his evidence by way of affidavit on lines of written statement. Respondent has stated that petitioner thrown him out of his official accommodation after picking up quarrel with him. Moreover the petitioner thereafter left the official accommodation of the respondent and joined her parents without his consent and permission. In crossexamination he denied the suggestion that the marriage between him and petitioner was solemnized in highly decorated and expensive manner and also denied the suggestion that he was given sufficient dowry by the petitioner. He denied the suggestion that after the marriage, family of the petitioner used to give him costly gifts on the occasion of Diwali, New Year, Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav Page 11 of 22 Marriage ceremony etc. He also denied the suggestion that he has deliberately concealed the fact of demand of dowry. He also denied the suggestion that he subjected the petitioner to harassment for demand of dowry soon after the marriage. He also denied the suggestion that he used to deprive the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 even of basic amenities and never discharged his obligation as responsible husband and father. He also admitted that he has filed petition u/s 10 of HMA in Delhi court. He also admitted that he had initiated another HMA petition and other cases against the petitioner no. 1 in Jabalpur court. He denied the suggestion that quarrel started between him and petitioner no. 1 just after filing of HMA petition in Jabalpur. He also admitted that on 26.12.2004, the petitioner no. 1 and he had quarrel and said that quarrel took place after filing of HMA petition in jabalpur however he added that quarrel took place after 34 months of receiving notice of HMA petition. He denied the suggestion that there was no quarrel between him and petitioner no. 1 before the filing of HMA petitoin. He also denied the suggestion that he was in habit of picking up quarrel with petitioner no. 1 and on 26.12.2004 he left the company of petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 after the quarrel and he added that he was thrown out by petitioner no. 1 from his house.
Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav Page 12 of 22 B.4 It is the case of respondent that petitioner picked up quarrel with the respondent and during quarrel, the petitioner gave teeth bite to him and thrown him out of his official accommodation on 26.12.2004. He also deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit that he also lodged a complaint against petitioner no. 1 with the police at PS, Ghammapur at Jabalpur u/s 323/336/341/352 IPC and the same is being tried by court of Judicial magistrate at Jabalpur. However the respondent has not placed on record any such complaint and also not stated that what is the fate of said complaint, if any, filed by the respondent against the petitioner no. 1. Only a bald avernment is made regarding filing of the police complaint without the same being supported by any evidence. In his evidence by way of affidavit respondent has also deposed that the petitioner no. 1 failed to join the company of the respondent despite his best efforts. However, respondent has not produced any ocular or documentary evidence on record in support of his averment that he made efforts to bring the petitioner back. Neither any relative or any other person has been examined in the court nor any letter to this effect has been produced on record. The respondent has also admitted that he has not filed any petition u/s 9 of HMA for restitution of conjugal rights. In fact the respondent has himself admitted in his evidence by way of affidavit that he had filed suit for judicial separation u/s 10 of HMA against the Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav Page 13 of 22 petitioner. Thus only a bare averment is made by respondent that respondent always wanted to continue the matrimonial relationship with the petitioner no. 1 without the same being supported by any proof. The petitioner in her evidence by way of affidavit has clearly stated that the respondent filed false and frivolous criminal cases against the petitioner no. 2 at Jabalpur. However the respondent did not put a single question to the petitioner in order to rebutt the testimony of the petitioner in this regard. Not even a suggestion was put to the petitioner in this regard during her crossexamination by the respondent.
The respondent has also admitted in his crossexamination that he had withdrawn the proceedings u/s 10 of HMA filed by him in Delhi court on 15.10.2009 after the petitioners were awarded interim maintenance u/s 24 of HMA. He also admitted that he has not filed any further proceedings under HMA against the petitioner no. 1 till date. The respondent has not stated any reason that what prompted him to withdraw the proceedings of Judicial separation filed by him in the middle of the proceedings without filing any other proceedings against the petitioner for her alleged cruel behavior with the respondent. The petitioner has further deposed without any ambiguity that she was subjected to harassment by the respondent for not bringing more dowry. The said testimony of the petitioner also remains unrebutted. Considering the facts and the circumstances of the case and evidence Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav Page 14 of 22 produced in totality, I am of the considered view that petitioner has proved on scale of preponderance of probabilities that petitioner no.1 was harassed by the respondent for bringing insufficient dowry and was left alone with minor son, petitioner no. 2, in the official residence of the respondent without any financial support and therefore she has just a reasonable cause to live separately from the respondent.
C. Incapability of petitioner to survive on her own.
C.1The petitioner has alleged in her petition that she has no source of income as she is not working anywhere and is totally dependent on her parents and brothers for her maintenance as well as maintenance of petitioner no. 2. In her examination in chief she has deposed on similar lines as in the petition. She also deposed that she is not receiving any rent. She testified that the property bearing no 53A Humayun Pur, Safdarjung, New Delhi measuring 35 square yards is the ancestral property of the father of the petitioner no 1. The father of the petitioner no 1 expired on 03.07.2000. The mother of the petitioner lives on the Ground Floor, the petitioner no 1 lives on the First Floor and the Second Flor is lying vacant on the sake of his brother Dharam Veer on his visits to Delhi. It is further deposed by petition no 1 that no part of the Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav Page 15 of 22 said property has been given on rent. The deceased father of the petitioner no 1 was also having property bearing no 13C Humayu Pur Safdarjung, New Delhi measuring 35 square yards and brother of the petitioner no 3 is staying on the First Floor. The brother of the petitioner no 1 has given the GF and Second Floor on rent and receives the rent for the same. No part of the said rent is received by the petitioner. The petitioner no 1 came to Delhi from 25.05.2005 from Jabal Pur and since the said date she is residing with the petitioner no 2 alongwith her widow mother. The petitioner no 1 only has one bank account in Allahbad Bank Jabal Pur which she last operated in April 2005 and there is only an amount of Rs. 1,000/ in the said account. The petitioner no 1 has further deposed that she has never been employed till today and her mother, having meager pension of Rs. 3000 p.m, and her brother Dharam Veer are maintaining her and the petitioner no 2. She also deposed that she owns no movable or immovable property in her name and has no source of income by way of tuitions or otherwise. She further testified that the respondent has not paid a single penny to the petitioners since 26.12.2004 despite the order of interim maintenance passed by the court on 09.07.2008 and the order passed by Ms. Aditi Chaudhary Ld. ADJ at Tis Hazari Courts awarding maintenance @ 2,000/ per month to the petitioner w.e.f. 11.01.2005 till 01.01.2007. In her crossexamination she denied the Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav Page 16 of 22 suggestion that she is taking tuitions and is earning more than an amount of Rs. 12,000/ per month from taking tuitions. She has admitted that she is MA B.Ed. She also denied the suggestion that she is getting her share from the rental income from property of her father amounting of Rs. 1 lac per annum. She also denied the suggestion that she is maintaining more than two bank accounts.
C.2 The respondent has not filed any evidence to prove that the petitioner is earning any money by taking tuitions or is getting rental income or interest from deposits made by her in different banks. Thus, no evidence is produced by the respondent to establish that the petitioner has any source of income and is in a position to maintain herself and her minor son. Moreover, the petitioner in her evidence by way of affidavit has clearly stated that she is not receiving any rental income from any property of his father and also stated that she was one bank account in Allahabad Bank, Jabarpur and only Rs. 1,000/ in the said account. She has also stated that she has never been employed till date and her mother and brother are bearing all the expenses of her and her son. She has also deposed that she has no movable or immovable property in her name and has no source by way of tuitions or otherwise. The burden of proof has been, thus, discharged by the petitioner. Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav Page 17 of 22 As such the petitioners are prime responsibility of the respondent and he is under moral and legal duty to prevent them from vagrancy and from being left at the mercy of destiny. Being the husband of the petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner no. 2, the respondent cannot be absolved of his liability to maintain the petitioner. Accordingly, the present issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.
D. Capability of respondent to make provision for the maintenance. D.1 As regards income of respondent, it is stated by the petitioner no. 1 in her evidence way of affidavit that respondent is working as Assistant Engineer in the Department of Ordinance, Ministry of Defence and was earning earlier Rs. 15,000/ per month and is now receiving more than Rs. 30,000/ per month th after revision of pay scales pursuant to the implementation of the 6 Pay Commission. It is also deposed by the petitioner in her evidence by way of affidavit that respondent has also share in his ancestral property and also receiving rent from the tenanted premises. It is further deposed that the respondent has no liability except to maintain the petitioners. D.2 It was for the respondent to prove that he did not have sufficient means to Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav Page 18 of 22 maintain the petitioners. The respondent has not stated that he is suffering from any disability either physical or mental. The respondent is accordingly an able bodied man having capacity to earn. The respondent deposed in his examination in chief that his carry home salary is about Rs. 6000/ per month and he also has liability to maintain his old aged parents and younger brother. It is also deposed by the respondent that he has no other income except his salary. The respondent has admitted in his crossexamination done on 23.12.2009 that his gross salary is around Rs. 25,000/ per month. In his crossexamination done on 23.07.2010, he deposed that as on today his designation in his department is Jr. Technical Officer under the pay scale of th 930034800, grade pay of 4600/ as per the implementation of 6 Pay Commission. Rs. 30,000/ approximately is his gross salary and his carry home salary is around Rs. 14,500/ per month. Deductions in his salary are like GPF @ Rs. 5000/ per month, LIC premium @ Rs. 1000/ per month, Loan of society of GCF Rs. 3000/ per month, Insurance of Rs. 60/ per month, House rent Rs. 1400/ and income Tax Rs. 700/ per month approximately etc. He also admit as correct that the interim maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was awarded by the court in favour of petitioners @ Rs. 4500/ and on application u/s 24 of the Marriage Act in HMA proceedings @ Rs. 5000/ per month were awarded on the basis of his previous salary. On the Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav Page 19 of 22 specific question regarding the salary drawn by the respondent on 11.11.2009 he answered that he does not remember the salary drawn by him after th implementation of 6 pay Commission. Further on specific question on the difference in his salary between 11.11.2009 and 23.07.2010, he answered that he does not remember the difference. He further stated that in the said cross examination done on 23.07.2010 that his gross salary is Rs. 30,000/ per month. He further testified that one increment is added to his salary from 11.11.2009 till date. He also stated that increment was added on 01.07.2010.
th He also deposed that 6 pay Commission was implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2006 th and he got all the arrears of 6 pay Commission. He also stated that he cannot tell how much amount he received as arrears after implementation of th 6 Pay Commission and the same can be verified from his office. He further stated that he did not receive 2 lacs or 3 lacs as arrears after implementation th of 6 Pay commission. From material on record, I find that respondent is fully capacity to provide maintenance to the petitioner. Therefore this issue also stand decided in favour of the petitioners.
11.The quantum of liability however has to be seen. It is the settled law that the petitioners shall be entitled to receive such maintenance as is consistent with the life style and standard of living of the respondent. In 110 (2004) DLT 546 Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav Page 20 of 22 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that "even half of the amount of earnings of the respondent can be granted as maintenance to the petitioner and criteria of 1/3rd or 1/5th income of respondent need not be followed for grant of maintenance to petitioner".
12.In the cross examination of the respondent conducted on 23.07.2010, the respondent admitted that his gross salary is around Rs. 30,000/ per month. He also deposed that the deductions in his salary is GPF, LIC premium, Loan of society, GPF insurance house rent and income tax. It is settled law that for the purpose of assessing the disposable income of the respondent, all the involuntary contributions and tax deductions are taken into account and respondent cannot take benefit of voluntarily deductions. The respondent, in any case, certainly cannot take huge loans or get exorbitant GPF deducted and take advantage of the fact that the net salary is much less than the actual salary. Respondent's GPF deduction is Rs. 5000/ per month whereas the compulsory amount to be deducted is approximately Rs 2000/ per month. Also Rs. 700/ as income tax is a involuntary deduction. The other deductions are voluntary in nature and cannot be taken into account for determining his disposable income. In view of the same, disposable income of the respondent Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav Page 21 of 22 is assessed as approximately around Rs. 27,000/ per month as on 23.07.2010 for the purpose of disposal of the present petition. In his crossexamination on 23.12.2009 respondent has stated his gross salary as Rs. 25,000/ per month. The salary after voluntary deductions such as GPF amounting to Rs. 1500 p.m and income tax is assessed Rs. 23,000/ per month on 23.12.2009 for the purpose of disposal of the present petition. Further the respondent has no liability other than petitioner and his son. The father of the respondent is retired from government service and getting pension. The petitioner no. 1 has th also deposed that the petitioner no 2 is studying in class 8 in Kendriya Vidyala in Sector 8 R. K. Puram New Delhi. The quarterly school fees of the petitioner no 2 is Rs. 550 besides Rs. 700 as conveyance charges. Keeping in mind, the status of the parties and expenses incurred by the applicant on herself and school going son also keeping in mind increase in salary of the respondent, I consider it appropriate to award composite amount of Rs. 4500/ per month to each petitioner from date of filing i.e. 18.11.2005 till 31.12.2005, th Rs. 8000/ from 01.01.2006 (implementation of 6 pay commission) to December 2009 and Rs. 10,000/ per month to petitioners from 01.01.2010 till the time the petitioners are legally entitled to receive the same. Petitioner no. 1 shall receive maintenance on behalf of petitioner no.2. Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav Page 22 of 22
13.Respondent is directed to clear the arrears of maintenance within 6 months from today in equal installments and to furnish the monthly maintenance after the date of order, by way of money order or by deposit in the bank account of th the petitioner on furnishing of account number of the same, by or before 10 day of each English calender month. The default shall be viewed in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Gaurav Sodhi Vs. Divya Sodhi - 120 DLT (2005) 426. Any payment made pursuant to interim order shall stand adjusted.
Petition stands disposed of in the said terms. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court On 4th April 2011.
(PRIYA MAHENDRA) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAHILA COURT(SOUTH), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Sarita Chander Jatav Vs. Suresh Chander Jatav