Karnataka High Court
Kum Preethi vs Dr C K Kamble, S/O Late Kallappa Damble, on 9 November, 2010
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 09"' DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE IAWAD RAHIM
RPFC No.66 OF 2010
C/W
RPFC NO. 45 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
IN RPFC NO. 66 OF 2O:IOf.,
KUM.RIiI,EE';*>HI,D/'O C.K.KlJMB'LEV"""'
HINDU A<;E'DI'ABOI;;T "12 'YEARS'
REP BY H.A»',TURA'LY--.GU.AR,D'IAN; MOTHER
SMT.-B{SUMTTHRA,V'J/O C'.R;KAMBLE
AGED AB.OU_T<.37«YE:'ARS ;
A.vAI,LABLE»ATT NO;I33}?, 2"" FLOOR
2""..,,'D',,CROSS,"3_T"'--..BLOCK,
KORAD/1AvNGA_LA.,BANGALORE A 560 095
., ~ .. RBTITIONER
. (BY SUMITHRA A PARTY IN PERSON)
DR;C.;<'~;RAMBLE, '
S./O, LATE KALLAPPA DAMBLE
A , , AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
V. "=.,.DIRECTOR,C.S.G.R.C
* . ..CENTRAL SILK BOARD,
GEM PLAZA, RESEARCH CENTRE
P.B.NO.4-4, THALI ROAD, HOSUR
KRISHNAGIRE DISTRICT
TAMILNADU STATE -- 535 109
z'"s; ,~
H./'
E 1' E
K'-\{--"'\
RESIDING AT QUARTERS NO.TYPE--5
C.S.G.R.C CAMPUS, HOSUR
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT
TAMILNADU - 535 109
(BY SRI L.S.CHI%(/ANAGOUDAR, ADV.,)
=§'->i<>k
BETWEEN:
IN RPFC NO. 45 OF 2009
5 '{"{3Y SR}
DR.C.K.KAMBLE,
S/O LATE KALLARRA DA.MBLE'--
AGED ABOUT 56 Y_EARS_, A '
DIRECTOR, c.S.c3.R.C 2
CENTRAL SILK BOARD-,. ;
GEM PLAZA, R_ES§EARCH C.EN7f*E?,E'
P.B.NO.i_'_»14, }1T~HVALI'--ARL1)_AD, _HOS'U'R------~"
KRISHNAGIRY-E1'_'DISfFR1"CT_ '
TAM1U3IAiDU_STATE'Af_'5.3'5AA"10§
RESI'DING AT?QU)1\.RTERS"'NO;TYPE~5
C,.S.G..R;CgcAMRUS;'~~.HOSUR
KRISHN'A(31R'I«.DIST'R1CT
TAMILNYADU --'»535*1O'9'
- A PETITIONER
J
L.
V' :{U:~{:".RREETHI,
' D/O--"jSn*§t. BSUMITHRA
HINDU AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS
I ,.Occ.~ STUDEE\iT,REP BY HER MOTHER -
N.-'5\"TURAL GUARDIAN
I SMT.B.SUMITHRA,w/O NOT KNOWN
= AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
OCC: HOUSE WIFE
RESIDING AT NO.436, 1'-'T FLOOR,
15*" 8 MAIN ROAD, 8*" BLOCK,
KORAMANGALA,BANGALORE - 560 095
1: .
xv "
, "K
.7
RESRONV_DEi'¢T
PRESENTLY R/A NO. 337,
2"" FLOOR, 2"" CROSS, 8" BLOCK,
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE »- 560 095
RESPONDENT
(BY SMT SUMITHRA A; PARTY IN RERSON)_.I__"'4' V.
>i<>i<>§<
RRFC No. 66 OF 2010 ISFILED U/S""i"9':..{4i"O'_FV
FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST "3THFE'g.__QR_DER I
DATED:18.07.2009 PASSED IN "':C.M'_'ISC.NC).833/290617Oi\E
THE FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE, FAM'I--LY'COuRT',. .aANeALOIRE*,_
PARTLY ALLOWING THE PET-IfI"ION"~ FILED, .125 OF
CR.P.C. AND RPFC No. 45 OFIr42Voio9 IS FILED 11/5: 19 (4) OF
THE FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST THE"'--.,SAiYfE ORDER,
THESE RPFCS ARE C(A)i\-itItI\1;GV C.~-Ni'"FQR_fADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT _lViADE"Ti-4. FOLjLOwIN_O:-
ORDER :in t ' i''W {RPFC --by the daughter «- Kum Preethi under Se_Ction'1.9{'3{) Family Court Act against the orderdated 5;~3MG7~2GO9 on the fiie of the Principai fudge, F,c}i.f\T3iiyi".tC0tEi't., Bangalore directing the petitioner herein to QftA'{S'.V.?i.')_VbV'O/'.-A:t"V'.,r,)"E~';'I' month as maintenance from the date of pet«i._tion'tiiitlnietétiorxer attains majority and RPFC No. 45 OF ,2(V),09..i's-dhfiied by the husband / father to set aside the said i ord er.
3 5 H?
K
2. Heard bath Sides.
,.-'V;-\,-' 'F 5/'
3. The learned counsel for petitioner --- Kum Preethi in RPFC 66/2010 having argued substantialiy has ret_i..r_ed and mother/ natural guardian of the petitioner Smt. has persuaded further action to defend this present.
4. The contextual facts are~--;_ Smt. B.Sumithra"'fiied'a_:pi'ot_it.i:o'n_ under éection 125 Cr.P.C. on behalf of her Kunfif.-..V_?reethi on the basis that she ,(_"i:*.'r4."':F"?;;*,J..:.5'l'litll_3'EiJ',€ C.K.Kamble on 04.04.1992 Ternpie, Channapatna Taluk; Ban.gaé'o're..V_Rura<¥..gVff5-i..s_triC.t and lived in matrimony with him. Tizeélmalrriagre' w"a--sgV"'consummated as a result of co- h-_.h;+--~.+-:.«-.n l"\'.'__'}";V*'V:fV\'l'\f\l'- E/. mn rwnnr.-I--.; ...-V. i-\..nv-r1 J\O'\ IIC.IU',L.C.|k..__UIi p<._uuunI<:i ixunnn. riccuni vva: um i U I Baiullllifliirsing Home, Channapatna. Since then 1 she and custody. She alleged that respondent is an ernpioryee in Government service working as Director in the Department of Centrai Silk Board, Ministry of Textile and if 'r.vge-tti'ng salary of Rs/10,000/-- per month including perks and 2 ..-a|lowances. Despite having sufficient means he negiected to maintain her and minor daughter. He indulged in the act detrimental to interest, consequent to which marriage was a faiiure. Wiiiie she lived with her husband she took care of her minor daughter. She has to incur monthly RS,fi;~Q:'}iQO0/~ to maintain the daughter and annualiy Rs.93,000/--. She finds it extremely difficultf~..to'~::maintai'nDKV-. herself and daughter. Howe:v__er,i_-mini' Vpe'ti~tio_ngsllie '' restricted the claim so far asit-he daughter is.'co'r*sce_rne_}§d. VA
5. in support' of ,l'1"erA.njconvtentlon'"shei produced documents which card, birth certificate of, other documents.
Her the ciaim, firstiy deny'in'g"'th'e:':r.e|;a:t§.;onsh.ip--:Vot husband and wife between him and V:S_rn't.:' consequentiy declining that petitionelrivadi<~um.-__Plreeitb-~il' was his genetic daughter. Though deny*h_e...i»'vas in Government service, but alleged was much iess. The aliegations in the "petition were denied. Entire ciaim was resisted on the groundriigthat there is no maritai relationship between Smt. A' llvf3QE}.umithra and him (or. C.K.i<ambie) thus, birth of 'petitioner -- Preethi was not addressatiie to him. H6 nix
6. Based on such material proposition in the pieadings the parties were allowed to lead evidence in which Sirit. B.Sumithra on behaliigof the ;3etitioner...Vte44ndered evidence and placed reliance on 16 docui'"i'1en.t§_:sm.""W:-h:i_i'er.~V_i3rg. C.K.i<ami:ile examined hiiinself asWVRW1 _a'i'cid.:i:p.rod:ucetl documents. Considering the evidence on rec'o.ifd'-the"-!..eai:r;ned trial Judge held that the evidence o'ri.,.behaifn.o'i' ft;heV_V.Vpe_l:iti.oi1ern. outweighs evidence in defencehy the and allowed the petition. Against th._éfsaicl_ o:der"~-two'r.evisions are fiied.
7. petition by this court, as "hja.dA"*~rai:s_ed._;serious question regarding paterhitv 'l5r'eeth}i and after hearing both is desirable in fact situation to subject th'e%p'etViti-onerll =-».."-7Preethi as also parents to undergo Etgestv, uI"n~.._t.his regard an order was passed on ' .i(§S;0A2'.v.2O1'_Ciiiri-.RPFC No. 45/2009 filed by Dr. C.K.Kamble to .'set'iaside.V'thei:'order of maintenance. Both RPFC 66/2010 and RPl=CV"?iS/2009 are clubbed and order was passed on i x_2l2';io4.2o:o in RPFC 45/2009 for DNA test to be conducted and Director, DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnosing, Tuljaguda 'Complex, Opp. M.3.lVlari<et, Nampaliy, Hyderabad was directed to examine the husband, wife and daughter, who were directed tobe present for such test on 1S~O2~2010, and to submit report. The report dated 13--04~2010 was received, which was in the affirmative confirming'. test to conclude that pr.c.K.s<ambte is the bi1e;';'e'g':.'cje~.§.__ftether of the petitioner-- preethi.
8. Against such finding the :f_*;r,f:.i<-.i{a.hd*--t>ie'§fi.I_ee::;h'is ' objectionsarad requested tiiathan Vopportui'rivtv'.cé:be_VV'given cross--examine the Expert, submitted the report. Accepting submission court by the order dated 26-07-2010 diore.cteje ithe» i5r:_hci=--'pati' District Judge, Famiiv"i"C9_u;rjt, i'ssee s'ummons to Director, DNA F-"ingerprintping1aindidDipagnosrinhg, Tuijaguda Compiex, Opp. M.3.Market,V i\3aVnt__pa!_iv;..."~~'t'§~«iyderabad and to secure his and p"erm.it«'Dr.C.i<.KambEe to cross examine him.
-rter-"ms:vorf:""t«hat order the Famiiy Court summoned the Expert andhé was subjected to cross--examiraation. ~. Triai Court after recording evidence as aforesaid A Ahaspsubmitted report vide its report dated O8--O9--2010. Copy the which is made avaiiabke to both sides. In response to it the teamed counsel for Dr.C.K.Kamb|e has ventured afresh to disprove the report rising several issues, which inciude question regarding competence of the Expert. At length, he urged grounds against the report 4wvh»i_ch._,_ has received my serious concern.
1G. The learned counselI"For"'p.e'ti't,ioner+t!.auighterginif his endeavor has supported the re:p,ort--._iV
11. The question dispute raised by the responicientiiid HvC.K.Kambie regarding paternity report submitted by the Expert ,giE':d§e§ i:£stirrer from any infirmity compeliing --.rej:.e:;tion', ' has firstly questioned the competeinced of the expert, who is author of the report -- The ,__DNA"'Fingerprintinga and Diagnosing, Tuijaguda M.J.Market, Nampaliy, Hyderabad. The .'second'g.VrjouV.nd urged is that the method of conducting the test ..as.;done by the said expert is against the procedure ipirescribed. The third contention is that the equipment used for such test is not an equiprnent prescribed for carrying out i such test. The aiiegations made is that there is possibility of 9 blood sampies of the respondent --- husband having been changed and substituted by the biood sample of the mother, so as to manipulate the report.
13. In this regard the learned counsel:.:refersj-toithey cross--examination of the Expert and the"'ariswers~~e*!.igcit.ed;tg4 Regarding first ground he subrnitsj'itht'at'=t'he:°'E§<'p:é:--rt'fixas admitted his quaiification a's_Iv'i.,_Sc. azooiogyi"w'ith»4«trVaining Human DNA profiie. fie that s.uc:h:v.guafiification is not sufficient for carry'i'-ngou«--tgh DNA mapping. In this regard fu rth.e'r"'p.o:irnts has admitted that he his izooiogist and therefore, DNA aiiztzrenetigc'-itiestwe-sfibeyond his competence. It to severai questions posed to H». II: 3* in" +- ' "'|;'_':'l' nn ' ' +« the _._xpert~.uui.w..a.t is material is to note the present efAthexwitn--e'ss. This court in its wisdom though it *pro'perat__ot iiéssdue-ggdirectioh to the Director of the Center in the 'name ofujientrai for DNA Fingerprinting & Diagnostics CCDFDELQI. Hyderabad. No individual was chosen to carry out test but the designated Officer of that Center was tailed upon to perform the test. Undoubtedly, the witness who is author of the report is the Director of Center and it bears testimony to the fact that his assignment and appointment is for the purpose carrying out DNA and Fingerprinting analysis. The argument to the con.trar_y?..that he is not competent must fail. Besides, if doubt the respondent Dr.C.K.Kamb|e v\.'as'v'-at.gilibergty request this court to refer it to»._so.rrie:' other "person ":5l.!,'$":'IO accordin to him is the expert... Haav-i,n' a|iowe.d~,suchl orders» to be passed it is not open t0:ui'->,i:i"F'i«.V'tO pL.=«tfi./loitei face after receipt of the report. V
15. i-loviieyer Vgmateyriai available it has to be is trained in DNA i"-"ingerlp'ri'nti'n:g;".anidfiiDia'gVn.ostAlc's"'a'a1d is thus competent. Now we ggfltfi' the of blood samples and whether as hp-erA'proc~edur'!e_,prescribed. In this regard it that'~b.l.oo'd sampi.e;s of Dr. C.K.Kambie, Smt. ' petitioner - gum. Preethi were not collected ibyfthe Sampies Collected by V.i\l.Shyiaja and Mr. D.S'.iile"g;i on 15.02.2010 were forwarded to him. They were A technicians. It is urged to show that there was no authentic proof that the blood samples which were sent on FTA cards were of the persons named above. In this regard learned counsel has suggested to the witness in cross z examination that blood samples are normally taken by intravenous method or source. After drawing sarnp|_ie.s,i~they wili be stored in FTA cards in presence of resp_é_ctiv'e_'p.:afr'tie's, Thus he argued that there is no proof»thatin"'t--h'e~_..pr'esenceuo'f . Dr. C.K.i<arnb|e his blood sampiesgwere't}'a4nsr'erred'"aVihto'~'A{f3iA cards and hence it is questic-n_a«--bVle. V i it i i it V l
16. These contention_s_l:VV':na_ust_V a|.s'c)i.:_féAi|VAvVVi?or simple reason that the Expertfihais'A-ericiosed':'along with his report the identification forms":eaci'1_::O_fllltltiegbiérlson, who's blood samples were C.K.i<ambie, Smt. Preethi. There is certification 'o4i%.V.'dec.!'.aration that the biood samples were collected fromA'~hlErnu~'ll'by the person of the Director and foArV""n-ecessary test. If as stated the blood V .sVa"rni;;ies:'0:f"'E):r'.----C.K.Kamble was not collected, it is not known he'.V'V'ha.sVsent identification form signed by him. The'refor:_e,V we discount the contention that there is doubt A Aabo-ut the samples of blood coilected by two technicians.
17. The second aspect noticed is about coding of sampies collected. In fact, in the crossuexamination it is
-E 1 1: 3, Y'..-
\/ elicited that coding will be done by the Coding Officer of the Center and in this case Br. \/.K.Mishra has done coding and documents regarding coding are also produced a,$Vvd:etaiied at X257881, 257882 and 257883 in Ex.c1._;'_:"'i"h«'i.s;.'._§_é.1ij_r.g process is to keep identity of the source secret to give authenticity to the exanjlinatihon''~that''~-iwiv!.iibe ' conducted iater.
18. The other :reieva.ri't"dhoicurnieynts fiar'e~Forms signed and submitted. It signed Form which are at:E><:':¢iV3z:i. to the staff but signed by parties-'(H also necessary to record that directed to appear Dr. C.K.KVa:_Tibi_e it was brought to the notice of this_and"then Afi.led.i."-7an appiication under Section 482 fixirigv..f.re«sh date for coiiection of sampies of aii ' itself substantiate that he himself made an .'aopiicatioVrij_ 1.95 submit his blood to DNA mapping. The iearned counsei had in this regard referred it -the statement of the witness that after transferring the
-Tiblood to FTA cards signature of respective persons with their names wouid be written and signatures would be obtained. ~....;,i..
This according to him is against coding norm. Ofcourse as argued if the FTA card are prepared with names and signature identity would be known. But the g,ue»s4t'ro_Vn is whether Expert would know of it. The learneti""Co-u_ris_el cross--examined thoroughly on allmthese_-~asg5'ects-::b«ut categorical disposed he carried out testggijniyg 'o.ri'''theV:'t1'as:isof ' coding done by Dr. V.K.Mish'ra___with"tpa"rticul:ar' did not know the names of th.eTpxa'rt.iges fblovod samples were transferred to theifact that FTA card bear signature authenticity of the meifiereieiythe-rrvtentention that there was oossibi»lit§e. manipulation ruled out. __'.nature of test performed the learned counsegli h_aAs._vsq'u.estioried the witness regarding the u._is:ed,y_ an'd""t--.h.e«' procedure foliowed for anaiysis of ' :VTh'e---_method of analysis is RFLP as suggested, but .'the'liwitne'sjs...ihas volunteered to state that he has foliowed PCR..loa_sed florescent STR technology. He has denied A xsu"g.gestion that RELP method is more authentic. He denied lithe suggestion that there are other more advanced '\___ ..~*'I __j W."
mu-f_ R"
I4 technique for DNA profiling and mitochondrial DNA analysis is preferable.
21. Likewise he denied suggestion thatmS'E-V\iV:IV?V>"-:(S:ing|e Nucleotide Polymorphism) method is more a».a'nd"» advanced. On the other hand, he''hAas'menAtio:n'edthereason ' j to show he has followed advVanced".m:et_h'od and described in detail the Vproidedurevhfoidloifldéd The' procedure is the DNA'...ixs first from-*. the sample, DNA profile are prepared,._'t)y 16 system kit and then is performed on ABE data was analyzed by yids-oftware. The powerpiex 16 systerndkit Lab is manufactured by M/s Pro m ega Co rpo ratior if .
"The learned counsel has in this regard produced .c'a'taiiAodu'evd'V_pertaining to the said machine to show that the machine used for such anaiysis is normally used for research ..only on the ground that the manufacturer has mentioned "glthati analysis is used to only for research and not for gene
---frnapping. Such contention stands to no reason. Undoubtedly, research is more scientific in nature for 5/ scientific evaluation and thus is preferable to local analysis. If such equioment is chosen to carry out research then it can safely used as Mitochondrial DNA analyser. it supports the contentions of the witness advanced technique. Merely because meant for research work, it doesanot._--irn.;)ly--,itis"-nlotjwoirthy for use in DNA mapping. There,foreV,a't_he eqti'iv'o'menVt ujisefd carry out said test being xforireseafrch would certainly be an aid Vtoll"mitoci:io.hdriga'i:'rieterrnination also.
Therefore, I do not is worthy of acceptance V' 'used in the laboratory for the test, he Jthhe reagents used. He has also claimed oo--we'rple>{. 'system kit and genetic analysis are thi"s"it.._.i..s.clear that these reagents are designed ' i=i5'rsioi*iA'~rt,es:t'ito find paternity of the individual. Mereiy 'i;iec'aéuse witness has admitted he used PCR ampiification and genesfcan analysis, it is not sufficient to hold that result A lobltained by such utilisation is doubtfui.
24. Be that as it may, the conclusion is important. While describing the method adopted and the reagents used __;.W_..
W ll) apart from equipment, the Expert has revealed the results.
The result as obtained after profiling and mapping of DNA has revealed that each locus contained are two a,l,|Ve»le's.__and only when both alleles of each locus is identical :two,_ persons, the result is positive. He has refesrre-d'::jt.o'Stl.«E\io,:iG~.p7- in Ex.C2 report which is identical Srnt, C.l<.Kamble, so also mapping"o..f'theV'g.i,_rl"petiti'oner,;_LPreethi
25. Thereforegthere to fldo'uil:)t"'§the Expert report and result and'4"co'nc'ig.sll'-gin based on such mapping. At«-léage the learned counsel has'fisubjected':.,j-ilrit~n,eV'sVs::.to_.several questions with regarclto" The deposing reveals satisfa'C_to"rv pertinent questions touching the report"--giving ~i'taVuth'enticity. The final conclusion based or?lc,:t§'he,__nia,pping"'co.n.firms of paternity of Dr. C.K.Karnble with i .pVetitiA0'n,:er javnia -Smt. B.Sumlthra. 2'6'. -lrlln the result, the conclusion of the expert that ..oetitio'ner ~ Preethi is genetically born daughter of Smt. it "~,_VB;S-umithra and Dr. C.l<.l<amble is proved and has remained = V.--undislodged despite all cross~examination. The contention in this regard that the report is to be rejected as being M defective for having not folioweo procedure is therefore, discounted. I am constrained to hoid that report confirming paternity of Preethi -- petitioner with Dr.C.l4<u.VVi».Ki_aimble establishes her to be genetiddaughter of and Smt. B.Sumithra. Since itmis on_--*r'ec:ojrd:"'~t:hat respondent Dr. C.K.Kamble had fr,_vom_-'the weoiw denied the paternity. The con-d__L_Jct of._the D.-:;"V'CV.:i{.Vi§ari§io.iVe deprecated not only for denyinggopasgic ameni_ti'es to wife and daughter but aiso for'a;h.:dpl_gi'ng seriousuvallegations. He seems to reaiize at!~ea.st.thaAt:,g'th'e't...unfo--r'tunate victim girl has to of social stigma.
V'-facta"si'tuat'i'o~h'"Ewe have to examine the impugned tryal Court granting meager maintenawince vor'9.s.*4,o0,Z~¥ to petitioner -- Preethi. As seen e_vide'n"ce..._o_n' record Dr.C.K.Kambie is in permanent ' .£§ov.er"n_rrnevnt:"service drawing salary of Rs.40,000/-- as on the 'date of' f.i§ji'nVc;1'VVof this petition. There is no other contrary evidence: from him to show that his saiary is less than that. A 2.8. With this, we have to now determine what is the ». ,_..reasonable amount to be paid to the petitioner -- Preethi. The trial Court has granted Rs.4OO/W per month without I9 the learned trial 3udge in Para--1S of the impugned order does not show the amount of Rs.3 lakhs invested would earn sufficient returns for her maintenance. The.lea_rned trial 3udge has calculated accrual benefit Rs.3 lakh at Rs.2,900/~ per month, but has_-failed...tol~::re.cord"
whether that amount would be suffi.cient.for 'mai.nten'an.ceaoff the petitioner, who is undoubtedly agecl,_13 haslfto pursue education incurring heaviv'«.eXpend'iture.'"Z income of the respondent -- father which he denied. But, the income as Rs.3S,0OO/--._'_fhe:}*:mo.t;lieri_ has shown expenditureilof her maintenance.
Even it higher side, a reasonable amount fi$re'd..4ev'eriV".after taking into consideration the xa§Cc'ru.ai beraefiwtlof "'as.3 lakh i": deposit. 1 am t..erefore, amount of Rs/100/~ per month ordered to the"p_ailcl"'t6i'..f_hel'V:'p'étitioner -- daughter is too meager. In the result, it"isve'nhanced to Rs.4,000/- per month (apart from V. ._i'inr:o_me"she may receive on investment of Rs.3 lakhs).
30. In fitness of things and taking into consideration the fact situation in which both parties are placed the '20 respondent -~ Father Dr. C.K.Kamble is directed to pay Rs.4,000/~ per month as maintenance to the petitioner. In the resuu, RPFC 66/2010 ffled by the peuuoner 7 Quay Preethi is allowed. The award of Rs.400/~ enhanced to Rs.4,000/-- and RPFC"(£5/200§"'vf.iie.d C.l<.i<annble against the grant of:'»,ma_int.en4aince' dismissed. The petitioner':_'=_V Preethiy maintenance from the date ofy__Vjo'ri',o'iiial tiiig date of payment, subject to any paid, excluding Rs.Sf para supra.
Dr.C.K.Kamt3.leii4s to pay entire arrears _o_f_ n'1.a'i"i1ta,nar;cewVia-ndpguaiirdian of the petitioner, namely, Smt.:E}.S1_1miVth.',ra.;.__:i:s~.pe«rrr.i.tted.'to withdraw the same for maintenance the attains age of majority. Nocosts. V, _i' it Sd/3 JUDGE