Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aashish Gupta vs Smt. Neha Jain on 12 March, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2024
FIRST APPEAL No.1902 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
AASHISH GUPTA S/O SHRI ANIL KUMAR
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: IOCL, VADODARA
PRESENT RESIDENT OF D-403, SHIKHAR
APARTMENT, NEAR GORWA LAKE
VADODARA (GUJARAT) PERMANENT
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. D- 673,
MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)
........APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ANKUR MAHESHWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT. NEHA JAIN W/O SHRI AASHISH
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT MANAGER,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
GUJARAT REFINERY, KOYALI, JAWAHAR
NAGAR VADODARA (GUJARAT)
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NOS. 75, 68,
HELIPAD COLONY, DISTRICT GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
........RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI N.K. GUPTA - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI PIYUSH
MANGLANI - ADVOCATE)
2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Milind Ramesh Phadke passed the following :
JUDGMENT
The instant First Appeal under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ''the Act'') has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, District Gwalior in Case No.2006 of 2019 (RCSHM); whereby, an application preferred by the respondent/wife under Section 13(1) of the Act, was allowed.
2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 22.01.2017 as per Hindu rites, rituals and customs and out of the said wedlock, at present there is no child born to the couple. At the time of marriage, the respondent/wife was working as Law Officer in Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), Bhopal and the appellant/husband was also working as Senior Manager in IOCL. In the marriage as per demand of appellant/husband, Rs.35 Lakhs in cash, gold and silver ornaments and other household articles were given. When the respondent/wife after bidding farewell reached her matrimonial home, she found that the behaviour of the family members was very adverse/cruel towards her and the atmosphere was not pleasant and there was no happiness on the faces of the family members. The sisters- in-law of the present respondent/wife started alluring the appellant/husband by stating that in the marriage of sons of their relatives, entire expenses for honeymoon have been borne by the family 3 of the brides, therefore, he also should ask her in-laws to bear the expenses of Europe trip and upon demanding of the appellant/husband, the expenses of the said trip was borne by the father of respondent/wife. As and when the couple returned from the said trip, the in-laws of respondent/wife started taunting her regarding status of her father and started compelling her to ask her father to get a plot at Jaipur and construct a house over it and when the demand was not acceded, they started harassing the respondent/wife for every trivial issue. The father- in-law of the respondent/wife on 02.06.2017 and thereafter, on 23.09.2017 called the parents of the respondent/wife and insulted them with regard to the aforesaid and the appellant/husband under the influence of his sisters pressurized her for fulfilling the demands, due to which her life became stressful and miserable. In the month of December 2017, the father-in-law of the respondent/wife tried to emotionally blackmail her father by stating that she was mentally ill and as his daughters are not financially strong, he wanted to give them his house, therefore, he should get a house for the couple at Jaipur and also give them a car. Even on 24-25 December, 2017, when the appellant/husband came to Gwalior, he raised the aforesaid demand and threatened the parents of the respondent/wife that in case, the demand is not acceded then he will not take the respondent/wife alongwith him to Jaipur; constrained, the father of respondent/wife made arrangements of Rs.8 Lakhs and gave it to the appellant/husband. In between, the father- in-law of the respondent/wife under compulsion made her to sign a document which stated that she is getting separated and she will not claim any streedhan. It was assured by the other family members that if she would sign the aforesaid document and would start living in a rented house, then the appellant/husband would bring all the articles 4 and jewelry and give them to her and thus, kept all the jewelry, sarees and other articles including her degrees and passport and on 11.09.2018, the father-in-law of the respondent/wife on phone informed her father that since they have not fulfilled their demands, therefore, the appellant is not willing to live with your daughter. Upon such a threat given to the parents of the respondent/wife, they alongwith brother-in-law of the respondent/wife on 16.09.2018 reached Jaipur where they were misbehaved and even they were assaulted but to the surprise of respondent/wife on 17.09.2018 a complaint under Section 323 of IPC was got registered against her at Police Station Jawahar, Circle, Jaipur. Further, after the respondent/wife was separated from the house in connivance with the appellant/husband, father-in-law got an order from the Court by which all the cash, articles, jewelry etc., were taken in his custody which indicated that the said marriage was with intention only to grab the aforesaid cash, jewelry etc.; thus, constrained, on 21.10.2018 a written complaint was made by the respondent/wife against the appellant/husband and his family members and on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, F.I.R. under Section 498-A read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered.
3. Since the harassment reached to such an extent that it had become unbearable for the respondent/wife, therefore, she was constrained to move present application for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Act. In the application, it was contended that the respondent/husband is the only son of his parents apart from three sisters and under well planned conspiracy, in the month of July, 2018, one case was filed before the Court of the Additional District Judge, Jaipur with an intention to debar the respondent/wife from claiming any rights over the house of her father-in-law and as the suit was against her husband and she herself 5 had received the notice issued to him but the appellant/husband never appeared in that suit, therefore, an ex parte decree for permanent injunction was obtained by her father-in-law. The aforesaid conspiracy is also reflected from the fact that since January, 2018, the appellant/husband is regularly visiting his parents and as the demand for dowry was not fulfilled, he had left the respondent/wife on her own and now, since it is very difficult to cope up with the situation as any untoward incident may happen with her, she had preferred the present application for divorce alongwith return of her streedhan and cash of Rs.71,00,000/-
4. A written statement was filed on behalf of the appellant/husband and the allegations levelled in the divorce application were denied in toto. In the said written statement, it was averred that the present suit for divorce had only been filed to realize the streedhan whereas the respondent/wife had already taken all the ornaments and articles alongwith her for which she had also given it in writing. It was further averred therein that the respondent/wife is a Law Officer and she had already taken all her streedhan with her when she had left the house and pointing out the upper class lifestyle of her father, she used to humiliate him and his family members which compelled him to live separately from her but even then there was no change in her behaviour. It was further averred therein that every time in the family, there used to be quarrelsome environment and every time, the respondent/wife used to pressurize him for living separately, but since the appellant/husband wanted to live with his parents being the lone son, which was not acceptable to the respondent/wife and her parents and every time, they used to taunt him and the family regarding their financial status and just to harass, a case for demand of dowry under Section 498-A of the IPC 6 was got registered, when at no point of time any demand of dowry was made by him or on his behalf and further he also wanted to get divorce as he has been much mentally harassed by the deeds of the respondent/wife.
5. The respondent/wife had already filed an application under Section 25 of the Act for grant of permanent alimony contending that she had preferred an application under Section 13(1) of the Act for divorce on the ground of cruelty and betrayal and in that regard, she had examined herself and her father Vishnu Jain and one Neeraj Jain whereas the respondent/husband had submitted that he does not want to give any evidence. In the application, it was averred that at present, she is posted at Vadodara, Gujarat as Law Officer from where she is getting a net salary of Rs.85,000/- per month and apart from the aforesaid source of income, she is not having any other source of income whereas the appellant/husband is a Delhi IIT pass out Engineer and is working with IOCL since 2010 as a Maintenance Manager at Vadodara, Gujarat from where he is getting a gross salary of Rs.1,81,282/- and net income of Rs.1,39,710/- per month and out of savings for last 12 years and investments, he had saved about Rs.1.25 Crores. It was further averred in the application that the father of the appellant/husband late Anil Kumar Gupta was a senior professor in University of Rajasthan at Jaipur from where he was getting pension of Rs.70-80,000/- which her mother-in-law is getting after his death, therefore, there is no liability over the appellant/husband of any sort. Apart from the above, there is a house of father of the present appellant built in 2800 Sq.ft., on which a four-storeyed house is reconstructed and after his death, the appellant/husband and his mother are the sole owners of the said house, the value of which is about Rs.8.00 Crores. Further, at the time of 7 marriage, ornaments worth of Rs.70-80 Lakhs were given which belonged to the respondent/wife and are kept with the appellant/husband and without giving any single penny, she has been driven out of the house and also under conspiracy, the father of the appellant/husband had got one ex-parte decree for permanent injunction against the respondent/wife restraining her from entering into the house and from taking any articles therefrom and in the month of September, 2018, the appellant/husband had left the respondent/wife in the rented premises and returned back to her maternal home wherefrom a restrained order has been issued against her.
6. It was further averred that on 16.12.2018, when she had gone to the house of the appellant/husband to give him understanding and to get her ornaments and other articles back, the appellant/husband had brought the police and even had made a false complaint on the very next date against her in which an Expunge Report had been submitted by the police; thus, it was prayed that looking to the status of the appellant/husband, his post, salary, movable and immovable property, a lump sum permanent alimony to the extent of Rs.80 Lakhs should be awarded in her favour.
7. In reply to the aforesaid application, it was submitted by the appellant/husband that the immovable property which is shown to be of his exclusive ownership is in fact of joint ownership of his mother and three sisters and as of date, there is no property in the sole name of the present appellant/husband whereas there is one house, plot in the name of respondent/wife in Gwalior and as the respondent/wife being earning since 2012 is having her own property, bank balance and her parents are also affluent and therefore, she does not require or is not entitled for permanent alimony or maintenance. So far as her stridhan is concerned, 8 it was averred that she had already taken all her ornaments and articles with her for which there is also an agreement executed between them in which, she has accepted the aforesaid fact; thus, it was prayed that the application for permanent alimony be dismissed.
8. On the basis of averments made by the parties, four issues were framed by learned Trial Court and after adducing the evidence, while allowing the application for divorce, the trial Court had also directed to return the streedhan as per the list appended and alongwith the aforesaid, further a sum of Rs.30 Lakhs was directed to be paid by the appellant/husband towards permanent alimony. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the present appeal has been filed.
ARGUMENTS
9. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant/husband that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as it had not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties and on the basis of some minor discrepancies and contradictions had observed that the evidence of the respondent/wife is more reliable, which is absolutely erroneous and contrary to settled proposition of law.
10. It has further been argued that the respondent/wife had filed the divorce application on the ground of cruelty, but learned Trial Court did not examine the witnesses to the best of its ability and though the cruelty was not proved held it to be proved against the appellant/husband whereas all the contentions raised by the respondent/wife were baseless and not supported by material evidence on record.
11. It has further been argued that though there was no material available on record to prove that there was demand of dowry on the part 9 of the appellant/husband and his family members, but learned Trial Court misdirected itself and held that there was demand of dowry on the part of the appellant/husband and his family members on the basis of cruelty, which is perverse.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment dated 02.07.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in Criminal Case No.6011 of 2018 and it has been contended that the offence under Section 498-A of IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the appellant and his family members and though they were tried under the aforesaid criminal case but acquitted on the ground that the prosecution could not prove that there was any demand of dowry by the appellant and his family members from the respondent/wife but they had to face agony and social osterization and had to face criminal trial without there being any fault of theirs which amounts to cruelty.
13. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rani Narasimha Sastry vs. Rani Suneeta Rani reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1595, it was contended that when prosecution was launched against the husband on a complaint made by the wife under Section 498-A of IPC making serious allegations in which the husband and his family members were constrained to undergo criminal trial which ultimately resulted in their acquittal, then in such cases, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty was meted out on the husband and therefore, he can make a ground for grant of decree of dissolution of marriage under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act.
14. Further relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Talreja Vs. Kavita Talreja reported in AIR 2017 SC 2138, it was contended that since a false and frivolous complaint for 10 demand of dowry had been made by the respondent/wife in which the appellant and his family members have been acquitted, therefore, he is entitled for grant of divorce.
15. It has also been argued that learned Trial Court had not properly appreciated the fact that the appellant had already handed over all the articles and streedhan including jewelry which were given to respondent at the time of solemnization of the marriage and for that purpose, an agreement (sehmatipatra) had also been executed between the parties which was signed by the respondent and her parents and though the said document was tendered in evidence as Ex.D/1 and the respondent/wife in para 25 of her cross-examination had admitted the contents of document Ex.D/1, but learned Trial Court did not consider the said document and at this stage, the respondent/wife cannot resile from the said fact that she had already received the jewelry, articles and streedhan, the findings with regard to handing over the ornaments and articles as per the list appended as schedule-A, is per se illegal.
16. In furtherance thereof, it was argued that learned Trial Court had not even considered that the original bills of the articles and ornaments which were not produced by the respondent and proved and though the factum of purchase of jewelry and articles mentioned in the list were averred to have been actually purchased by her at the time of solemnization of the marriage was also not proved but even in the absence thereof, the trial Court had directed the appellant/husband to hand over all the ornaments and documents.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that learned Trial Court had also committed an error by granting a relief of permanent alimony to the tune of Rs.30 Lakhs to the respondent/wife, when the respondent/wife in her examination herself had admitted that 11 she is an educated and independent working lady and she does not want any kind of maintenance from the appellant and even after, the said admission that she is still working as Law Officer and is earning a good salary, learned Trial Court without any cogent reason had held the respondent/wife entitled to receive Rs.30 Lakhs as permanent alimony from the appellant/husband, which is per se illegal.
18. It has further been argued that as per the provisions of Section 25 of the Act which pertains to permanent alimony and maintenance to the dependent spouse, while deciding the amount, the Court is required to go into the aspect of income and other property of the person or applicant who is claiming maintenance and permanent alimony, thus learned Trial Court though was seized of the facts that the respondent/wife was herself earning good salary while working as Law Officer in IOCL and when she herself has admitted in her cross examination that she does not want any kind of maintenance and alimony went on to award permanent alimony, since in para 59 of cross- examination, the respondent/wife has admitted that she being working as Law Officer in IOCL and earning good salary is not in need of any maintenance, the permanent alimony to the extent of Rs. 30 Lakhs as awarded by the learned Trial Court is not reasonable.
19. It has further been argued that from the salary slip and statement of immovable property submitted by the respondent/wife before IOCL as on 31.03.2022, it would be evident that the respondent herself is the owner of Plot No.12 and 13 located at Jaswant Enclave Colony, Block- A, Gram Ohadpur, Gwalior, which as on date has approximately value of Rs.07,681,000/-, which goes to show that she is not in need of any money.
20. On the basis of the aforesaid premise, it was submitted that the 12 present appeal deserves to be allowed and so far as part of the judgment and decree whereby the appellant has been directed to return streedhan as well as other articles as per the list appended as schedule-A and also to part with a sum of Rs.30 Lakhs in favour of the respondent/wife as permanent alimony are concerned, the same be set aside.
21. On the other hand, Shri N.K. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri Piyush Manglani, Advocate while supporting the impugned judgment and decree had contended that with regard to streedhan which was given to the appellant/husband at the time of marriage was kept with him and was not returned even though an agreement (sehmatipatra) was executed between them on 06.01.2018 and this fact has rightly been considered by learned Trial Court in para 29 and thus, had rightly disbelieved Exhibits D/1 and D/2 and had directed the appellant/husband to return the entire streedhan. With regard to permanent alimony of Rs.30 Lakhs, learned Trial Court in para 34 considering the financial status of the appellant/husband and his present post, coupled with the fact of harassment committed by the appellant/husband and his family members on the respondent/wife, had rightly granted Rs.30 Lakhs towards permanent alimony, which cannot be faulted with.
22. While referring to Section 25 of the Act, it was contended that not only the income of the person claiming or his/her property, but the conduct of the parties and other circumstances are also required to be seen while granting permanent alimony and it was only after looking to the overall circumstances of the case and the conduct of the appellant/husband and his family members, the said amount has been awarded, which is justified. It was thus prayed that the present appeal since only confined to quashment of permanent alimony and the 13 streedhan awarded to the present respondent/wife, deserves to be dismissed.
23. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
DISCUSSION
24. As the appellant/husband had confined his challenge to the impugned judgment and decree to the extent of grant of permanent alimony and awarding of the streedhan to the respondent/wife, this Court is refraining itself from entering into the controversy with regard to the aspect of decree for divorce passed in favour of respondent/wife on the ground of cruelty.
25. So far as challenge of the appellant/husband for grant of streedhan to the respondent/wife is concerned, from the statements of the respondent/wife, it could be seen that at the time of her deposition, objections were taken on behalf of the present appellant with regard to to the marking of the bills of jewelry as exhibits on the ground that they were not bearing signatures and were not having GST numbers or the seal of the shop. While dealing with the said objections, learned trial Court had observed that they would be dealt with at the time of final hearing of the matter and marking them as exhibits would not hold that they are proved. From reading of the judgment, this Court finds that all the objections, which were raised by the appellant/husband at the time of marking of the bills of the ornaments which are stated to be the streedhan of the respondent/wife, were not addressed by learned Trial Court. In para 20 of its judgment and decree, though learned trial Court has mentioned the aforesaid exhibits but there is no discussion as to whether they were proved on behalf of the respondent/wife, thus, the objections raised by the appellant went unattended, unaddressed and which according to this Court were genuine objections and it was 14 burden on the respondent/wife to have proved the said documents by leading cogent evidence in support thereof that the said ornaments were purchased by her at the time of her marriage and were given to her as streedhan.
26. Another aspect which is required to be gone into is the contents of Ex.D/1 which is the agreement (sehmatipatra) entered into between the parties wherein in para 4, it has been observed as under
"4- ;g fd gekjs fookg ds le; gekjs ekrk firk ,oa fj'rsnkjksa us tks migkj ds :i esa lksuk pkanh ds tsoj] diM+k] x`gLFkh dk lkeku] L=h/ku fn;k Fkk vkSj tks vHkh rd esjs ifr ,oa lkl llqj dh lqiqnZxh esa j[kk gqvk Fkk mu lHkh dks eSus ¼usgk tSu½ esjs lkl llqj ,oa ifr Jh vk'kh"k xqIrk ls fnukad 07-01-2018 dks gekjs nksuks i{kks ds ekrk&firk ,oa vU; xokgksa ds le{k iw.kZ :i ls izkIr dj fy;k gSA eSa usgk tSu Hkfo"; esa L=h/ku ds :i esa dksbZ Hkh Dyse&nkok izLrqr ugh d:axhA ;fn esjs }kjk mijksDr L=h/ku ds ckcr fdlh Hkh U;k;ky;@iqfyl Fkkus esa dksbZ Dyse@nkok fd;k tkrk gS rks og fujLruh; gksxkA blh izdkj esjs lkl llqj usgk tSu ds fo:) L=h/ku ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ Hkh f'kdk;r fdlh Hkh U;k;ky; ;k iqfyl Fkkus esa izLrqr ugh djsaxsA ;g lgefr i= ge nksuks us viuh LoLFk fpRr dh voLFkk esa o jkth [kq'kh fcuk fdlh ncko esa vk;s vius&vius ifjtuksa dh lgefr ls 500 :-
ds LVkEi isij o nks ikbZ isijksa ij fy[k fn;k gSA bfr fnukad 06-01-2018-"
27. In the aforesaid paragraph of the agreement, there is specific averment that the entire streedhan, the household articles, gold and silver ornaments given at the time of the marriage were kept in the custody of the appellant/husband and his parents which had already been handed over to respondent/wife on 07.01.2018 in front of the witnesses and the fact of execution of the said agreement (sehmatipatra) has been admitted by the respondent/wife in para 47 of her cross-examination. Also, she had admitted execution of Ex.D/2 15 which is a receipt of the ornaments which she has received from the appellant/husband and had even admitted her signatures. Learned Trial Court only on the basis of certain assumptions that from the recital in Ex.D/2, it is not clear that the said ornaments were given in front of the witnesses had disbelieved the said document, which according to this Court, is wholly perverse. When there is a clear admission on the part of the respondent/wife that she had executed/signed Exhibits D/1 and D/2, in absence to the contrary, it would be presumed that she had received her all streedhan, gold and silver ornaments and other household articles which were given to her at the time of marriage and then there is no iota of doubt left that the entire streedhan, as alleged by the respondent/wife, has been handed over to her on 07.01.2018 by the appellant/husband; thus, to this extent, the judgment and decree of learned Trial Court appears to be bad in law.
28. So far as the grant of permanent alimony of Rs.30 Lakhs to the respondent/wife is concerned, the relevant provisions of the Act is required to be analyzed. For ready reference, Section 25 of the Act is reproduced hereinbelow:
"25. Permanent alimony and maintenance:-
(1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent's own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent.16
(2) If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.
(3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under this section has re-
married or, if such party is the wife, that she has not remained chaste, or, if such party is the husband, that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just."
29. From bare reading of the aforesaid section, it is clear that while considering the grant of permanent alimony, the Court is required to have regard to the monthly or periodical need of the applicant and also have regard to the respondent's income and other property alongwith the income and other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case.
30. Admittedly, the respondent/wife is working with IOCL and is earning a sum of Rs.77,360/-, as per her salary-slip and the appellant/husband is also working with IOCL as Senior Engineer. From the status of the parties, it appears that both are well settled. In the wake of settled provisions of law, while deciding the permanent alimony, the income and other property of the applicant is also required to be taken into consideration. Though in the appeal, the ground has been taken by the appellant/husband that apart from the aforesaid mentioned salary, there are certain plots in the name of the present respondent/wife, value of which are Rs.07,681,000/- approx, which since are only by way of averments cannot be taken into consideration but the fact of the respondent/wife's earning cannot be denied, thus in the fitness of things 17 and looking to the earning status of the respondent/wife, and also in the light that learned Trial Court had not discussed any of the aforesaid aspects, this Court deems it fit to reduce the amount of permanent alimony from Rs.30 Lakhs to Rs.20 Lakhs.
31. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 10.11.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, District Gwalior in Case No.2006 of 2019 is partly modified to the extent as under:
(i) The respondent/wife is not entitled to receive the streedhan and the other articles as directed by the learned Trial Court;
(ii) The respondent/wife is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs in place of Rs.30 Lakhs by way of permanent alimony which shall be payable to her by the appellant/husband within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
32. A decree be drawn accordingly.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
pwn
PAWAN
KUMAR
Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d631287f1b1cdd90b4a49f265f02d9d593f, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=61B9D129971D2EA4FD4455ED49EA436EA65E26164BEEED89153191C56E98CE21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2024.04.27 15:29:20 +05'30'