Smt. Sunita Motwani vs Amitabh Sinha on 27 July, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JULY, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

W.P.NO.15406/2017
C/W
W.P.NO.20884/2017 (GM-FC)

IN W.P.NO.15406/2017

BETWEEN:

SMT. SUNITA MOTWANI
W/O AMITHABH SINHA
F-1801, AJMERA INFINITY
NEELADRI ROAD
ELECTONIC CITY-I
BANGALORE-560 100.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SUNITA MOTWANI, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

AND:

AMITABH SINHA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O LATE MAHESHWARI CHARAN
SINHA, 1133, GROGANS
MILL DRIVE CARY,
NORTH CAROLINA-27519
UNITED STATES

OR AT
262, ARMY OFFICERS ENCLAVE
DHAULA KUAN-PART II
NEW DELHI-110 010.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI AMITABH SINHA, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 227
OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.04.2017 AT ANNEXURE-G IN
M.C.NO.68/2016 AT ANNEXURE-J PENDING BEFORE THE
2

HON’BLE SR.CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL, IN I.A.NO.III
U/S 24 OF HMA AS IN ANNEXURE-H. THE MAINTENANCE TO
BE ENHANCED FROM ` 20,000/- TO MINIMUM ` 50,000/-
TO COVER UP THE COST OF THE RESIDENCE, FOOD,
CLOTHING, MEDICAL TREATMENT, TRAVELLING EXPENSES,
ELECTRICITY BILLS, WATER CHARGES.

IN W.P.NO.20884/2017

BETWEEN:

AMITABH SINHA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
179, TIWARIPUR FIRST
P.O.SEWANS TANNERY
ADARSH NAGAR
KANPUR-208010
U.P-INDIA.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI AMITABH SINHA, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

AND:

SMT. SUNITA MOTWANI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
F-1801, AJMERA INFINITY
APARTMENTS, 89/1
DODDATHOGURU
BEGUR HOBLI
NEELADRI ROAD,
ELECTRONIC CITY-1
BANGALORE-560 100
ALSO AT
FLAT NO.34, POCKET B,
SFS, D.D.A.FLATS
SHEIKH SARAI PHASE-I,
NEW DELHI.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SUNITA MOTWANI, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED ON 03.04.2017 ON THE I.A.3 PASSED
BY THE HON’BLE SR.PRL. CIVIL JUDGE IN M.C.NO.68/2016
DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY ` 20,000/- AS INTERIM
MAINTENANCE AT ANNEXURE-A.
3

THESE PETITIONS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

These two writ petitions are directed against order

dated 03.04.2017 passed on I.A.No.3 under Section 24

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘Act’) in

M.C.No.68/2016, whereunder the Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru has

awarded an interim maintenance of ` 20,000/- per

month to the writ petitioner – wife and her son as

against her claim of ` 1,08,000/- per month.

2. Facts in brief which has led to the filing of

these petitions can be crystallised as under:

The marriage between petitioner in

W.P.No.15406/2017 (hereinafter referred to as

‘petitioner’) and petitioner in W.P.No.20884/2017

(hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’) was solemnized

on 15.04.2001 at New Delhi. A son was born on

12.02.2003. They lived together in United States of

America till September, 2007. Urging various grounds,
4

petitioner has sought for dissolution of marriage by

filing a petition in M.C.No.68/2016 under Section

13(1)(ia) (ib) of the Act. Respondent has appeared

and filed statement of objections and contested the

matter. Apart from said dispute, there are various other

proceedings between the parties pending before different

Forums.

Petitioner in M.C.No.68/2016 filed an

interlocutory application – I.A.No.3 – Annexure-H (in

W.P.No.15406/2017) under Section 24 of the Act

seeking for a direction to the respondent to pay a sum of

` 1,08,000/- per month towards interim maintenance

for herself and her son. Said application was resisted to

by respondent by filing objections and trial Court after

considering rival contentions, by impugned order dated

03.04.2017 allowed the application in part and has

directed the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of

` 20,000/- per month to the petitioner and her son from

the date of order until further orders as already noticed

herein above.

5

3. Being aggrieved by this order, both petitioner

as well as respondent have preferred these two writ

petitions.

4. I have heard the arguments of Smt.Sunita

Motwani and Sri Amitabh Sinha parties appearing in

person.

5. It is the contention of Smt.Sunita Motwani –

petitioner appearing in person that she is without any

job and she is unable to look after her minor son or to

support herself and her son and she is dependent on

her parents and relatives for the past 10 years. She

would further contend that a sum of `10,000/- per

month awarded in Crl. Misc. No.573/2015, which

proceedings has been initiated by the petitioner against

respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of

Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is highly

insufficient and in the city of Bengaluru where cost of

living is very high, she would be not in a position to

maintain herself and her teenaged son by paultry sum
6

of ` 10,000/- per month awarded by said Court and as

such, she has sought for award of maintenance as

prayed for in I.A.No.3. She would also contend, that

while considering her claim for maintenance, status of

parties has to be kept in mind and reasonable wants

and necessities of applicant and economic standing of

respondent and these aspects have been ignored by the

trial Court. She would submit that respondent is a co-

founder of a Company “i5Dynamics LLC” in North

Carolina, USA and respondent having rich experience in

Information Technology industry had commenced said

company in 2008 and earning fabulous amounts. It is

also contended that respondent is earning sufficient

money and he is having rich experience of having

worked in many international companies and as such, it

cannot be construed that respondent is a person

without any means to pay maintenance to his wife and

son as claimed. Hence, she contends that meager

amount of ` 20,000/- per month awarded by trial Court

is highly insufficient and trial Court has not taken into

consideration the actual requirement of petitioner and
7

her son namely, expenses she has to incur towards

food, clothing, educational, medical, traveling expenses

etc., as per their status and the maintenance awarded

by trial Court is inadequate. She contends that

respondent is concealing his economic status though he

is the owner of a house at Electronic City, gainfully

employed with a permanent assessment number issued

by Income Tax Department. She also contends that

respondent is capable of engaging lawyers and as such,

it cannot be construed that he is a person without any

means. By relying upon the judgments appended to the

Memo dated 03.07.2017 and by relying upon various

documents produced along with affidavits and

rejoinders, she has prayed for modifying the order

under challenge and has sought for allowing I.A.No.3

filed before trial Court in its entirety and prays for

awarding maintenance @ ` 1,08,000/- per month.

6. Per contra, Sri Amitabh Sinha, respondent

appearing in person has reiterated the grounds urged in

writ petition as also statement of objections filed by him
8

before Court below contending that he is already paying

a sum of ` 10,000/- per month as per the order passed

in Crl.Misc.No.573/2015 and suppressing this fact,

present application – I.A.No.3 came to be filed by the

petitioner before trial Court. He would further elaborate

his submission by contending that petitioner is gainfully

employed and he is unemployed and infact he was

arrested at the Airport itself in India when he returned

from USA and he has not been able to travel abroad to

earn his livelihood and it is petitioner who had deserted

him in USA and has returned to India in the year 2007.

He submits that he has been paying ` 10,000/- for the

last several months to petitioner and amount that has

been awarded in Crl.Misc.No.573/2015 itself is

sufficient to maintain petitioner and her son.

7. He would also contend that “i5Dynamics

LLC” company was a start-up company commenced in

the year 2008-09 by him along with his family friend

and it required huge investment and as such, he had

applied for visitor Visa in 2014 to contact potential
9

investors in USA and said Company had not raised any

funds from any source and he is no more associated

with said company and relies upon personal income tax

returns produced at Annexure-H1 (in

W.P.No.20884/2017) to contend his income is ‘nil’. He

would also contend that he does not have any money

nor he has any resources available at his disposal to

generate income and he is finding it extremely difficult

to make a living itself. He also contends that he is

unemployed and is not being given a chance by

petitioner to earn money and is engulfed in various

litigations commenced by the petitioner. He would also

submit that during last few days of his stay at USA i.e.,

in the year 2015-16 his financial condition deteriorated

and he could not even afford to pay the medical bills

and as such he had applied for charity fund, which

came to be granted as per Annexure-J (in

W.P.No.20884/2017) and this would establish that he is

unable to maintain himself. It is further contended that

on account of various litigations pending in various

Forms, he is unable to generate any funds and question
10

of payment of any amount to petitioner or their son

would not arise, since he is not capable of paying any

amounts on account of his non-earning. On these

grounds, he seeks for order passed by trial Court being

set aside and has prayed for his writ petition being

allowed and writ petition filed by petitioner (wife) being

dismissed.

FINDINGS RECORDED BY TRIAL COURT:

8. Impugned order passed by trial Court would

disclose that after considering the rival contentions, it

came to be held that document produced by petitioner,

which discloses that ‘i5Dynamics LLC’ is a Company

wherein the name of respondent is reflected and said

document has not been disputed by respondent as a

ground for award of maintenance of ` 20,000/- per

month. It has also been held by the trial Court that

defence of respondent that he is paying ` 10,000/- per

month as per the order passed in Crl.Misc.

No.573/2015 by itself would not be a ground to reject

the claim of petitioner, since what has been awarded
11

thereunder is only an interim maintenance and taking

into consideration the cost of living in a rented house at

Bengaluru, award of maintenance @ ` 20,000/- per

month would be just and reasonable and as such, said

amount came to be awarded by trial Court.

9. Having heard the parties appearing in

person and after bestowing my careful and anxious

consideration to the rival contentions raised, following

points would arise for consideration:

(1) Whether maintenance of
` 20,000/- awarded by trial
Court is to be enhanced, set
aside, affirmed or modified?

(2) What order?

RE: POINT NO.(1)

10. Pleadings of the parties would disclose that

there is no dispute with regard to the fact that marriage

between petitioner and respondent having been

solemnized on 15.04.2001 at New Delhi. In the instant

case, writ petitioner has filed a petition under Section

13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for
12

dissolution of marriage solemnized between petitioner

and respondent and she has sought for award of

permanent alimony of ` 5 Crores for herself and her

minor son amongst other reliefs claimed in the petition

– Annexure-B1 (in W.P.No.20884/2017). Respondent

has filed the statement of objections to said petition and

is contesting the matter.

11. During the pendency of proceedings

petitioner filed an interlocutory application – I.A.No.III

under Section 24 of the Act to direct the respondent to

pay a sum of `1,08,000/- per month towards interim

maintenance pending disposal of the petition. She has

contended that respondent is absconding for the last 9

years and he has not paid a single rupee to her and her

son, though he has amassed wealth and has sufficient

money with him and she does not have any income to

take care of herself and her son. As against her claim,

respondent has filed objections denying the averments

made in the affidavit supporting the application and has

also contended that petitioner is earning and has also
13

been awarded a sum of ` 10,000/- per month as

maintenance in Crl. Misc. No.573/2015 and said

amount is sufficient to meet expenses of petitioner and

her son. In the light of rival contentions, as already

noticed hereinabove, trial Court, pending disposal of

main petition has awarded an interim maintenance of

` 20,000/- per month to petitioner and her son from the

date of order i.e., from 03.04.2017. Against the said

order, both petitioner and respondent have filed these

two petitions seeking for enhancement and reduction

respectively.

12. There cannot be any bar for claiming

maintenance under Section 24 of the Act, even in the

event of application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. having

been filed and as such, contention of respondent that

present application is not maintainable on account of

she having already filed Crl.Misc.No.573/2015 cannot

be accepted and it is hereby rejected. A reading of

Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, would disclose

that while awarding maintenance, Court has to take
14

into consideration the income of parties before deciding

the quantum of maintenance. Trial Court should also

keep in mind the needs of the applicant and paying

capacity of the respondent. During the pendency of

divorce proceedings, at any point of time, if wife

establishes that she has no sufficient independent

income for her support, it would always be open for her

to claim maintenance pendente lite. Section 24 of the

Act provides for support to be given by earning spouse

in favour of non-earning spouse during the pendency of

proceedings before Court. In case respondent – husband

attempts to stave off the claim for maintenance sought

for by wife, it is trite law that husband will have to

satisfy the Court that either due to physical or mental

disability, he is handicapped to earn, support his

livelihood and thereby, he is unable to pay maintenance

to his wife and off-spring. Said provision would disclose

that regard will be had to applicant’s own income, if any

and income of respondent, while examining the claim

for maintenance.

15

13. In the background of aforestated position

of law, when the facts on hand are examined it

would clearly disclose that petitioner – wife is

claiming interim maintenance of ` 1,08,000/- per

month from respondent. The break-up of said

figure as indicated in the affidavit supporting the

application reads as under:

a Electricity Rs.1,500/-
b Water Maintenance Rs.4,000/-
c Cable TV Rs.500/-
d Telephone Rs.2,000/-
e Grocery Rs.12,000/-
f Petrol for vehicle Rs.7,000/-
g School Fees Rs.20,000/-
h Misc. Expenses Rs.20,000/-
i Vegetables and milk Rs.5,000/-
j Medical expenses Rs.9,500/-
k Servant maid Rs.1,500/-
l Rent Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.1,08,000/-

14. In order to substantiate her claim that

respondent is financially capable of meeting the said

expenses, she has contended that respondent is the co-

founder of a company known as “i5Dynamics LLC”

North Carolina, USA, since 2009 and in support of her
16

claim, she has produced print-out from the website of

Department of The Secretary of State, North Carolina,

USA, which indicates that respondent is the Member of

company “i5Dynamics LLC”. Other document, like

Annual Report would also establish this fact. As per the

print-out obtained by petitioner from the website –

zoominfo.com the annual income of company

“i5Dynamics LLC” is depicted as 7,000,000 US$. It also

reflects that 35 persons are employed in the said

company. Hence, contending that respondent is

financially capable to meet the claim of maintenance of

` 1,08,000/- sought for, petitioner has sought for a

direction being issued to respondent to pay the said

amount. In fact, she has also contended that

respondent has 19 years of experience in software

industry and has worked in companies like, Keane

India, Polaris Software, IBM Global Services – USA, etc.

15. As against said claim, respondent has

contended in his writ petition for reduction of

maintenance contending that said company was formed
17

with a family friend in the year 2008-09 and as an

initial prototype as a proof of concept it was developed

to check the feasibility of concept; a commercially viable

version of software required huge investment of money

and this investment could have been raised only

through potential investors and to bag seed fund from

the professional investors, a formal company had to be

incorporated and accordingly, it was incorporated. It is

further contended that company till date does not own

any asset, profit or any employee other than its owners.

To substantiate said claim, he has produced Annexure-

F namely, income tax returns of said company filed till

2015 filed before tax authorities in USA. A perusal of

said income tax returns would prima facie disclose that

it relates to income tax returns filed for the years 2011

and 2012 and there are no assets of the company

though gross receipts of sales have been reflected. It

would also disclose that loss has been depicted in the

said income tax returns. Hence, contending that he has

severed his ties with the said company and he does not

own any share in the said company, he has contended
18

that he is not capable of paying any maintenance

amount to petitioner. He has also contended that he is

unemployed and on account of his Visa having been

cancelled and now facing several litigations initiated by

petitioner before various Courts, he has been unable to

maintain himself and is also unable to meet his both

ends. He has also contended that he is unemployed

and not being given a chance to earn on account of

several litigations pending. He has also contended that

on account of criminal cases having been initiated by

petitioner, he is unable to secure any job and as such,

he is not in a position to pay any maintenance to his

wife – petitioner.

16. Thus, it would emerge that rival claims are

based on oath against oath and partially on the basis of

records, which would not reflect the true state of affairs

depicting the financial capacity of both the parties. Be

that as it may. The fact remains that respondent had

commenced his business in USA by establishing a

company known as ‘i5Dynamics LLC’, which is not
19

disputed by him. However, the actual income of the

respondent is not available on record. Neither petitioner

nor respondent has placed any positive evidence in this

regard. The sole defence set up by the respondent to

refute the claim of petitioner is that he has been paying

her a sum of ` 10,000/- as ordered in

Crl.Misc.No.573/2015 and said amount is sufficient for

the petitioner and her son to maintain themselves.

17. Maintenance to be awarded to the wife and

child would depend upon the income of husband and

quantum of maintenance to be awarded would also

depend upon the status of wife, the life she has lead till

date and reasonable amount to maintain such state of

living, are all factors which are relevant illustrative facts

though not exhaustive, which has to be taken into

consideration. Thus, reasonable and sufficient amount

to support her living in the same manner, which she

had lived, will have to be taken into consideration at the

time of determination of quantum of maintenance.

Undisputedly, in the instant case, both petitioner and
20

respondent had lived in USA after marriage from the

year 2001 till 2007 and both parties are alleging of

having been deserted. That is an issue which will have

to be examined and adjudicated in the pending

proceedings in M.C.No.68/2016 before trial Court.

18. Records on hand would disclose that

petitioner and her son are living separately away from

respondent from 2007 and as such she has to

necessarily spend amount to eke out their living. From

the date of petitioner have been living separately from

the company of respondent i.e., from the year 2007 till

date of filing of petition in 2016, respondent has not

supported or taken care of their needs as expected of a

prudent husband and father. Though respondent

contends that he has been maintaining them, no

material is placed in that regard. Thus, petitioner has

been perforced to mend for herself and it is quite

natural that she would have sought the assistance of

her parents to support her or parents might have

voluntarily supported her in the times of her needs.
21

19. Though both parties have relied upon several

documents, it requires to be noticed that petitioner has

contended that respondent is financially well-off and is

having perennial income and has relied upon the

printouts obtained from the website of ‘Google Search’

reflecting that respondent is co-founder of ‘i5Dynamics

LLC’. Income tax returns of said company filed by

respondent also depicts that there is no income

generated by the said company for the period 2011-

2013. As such, it cannot be gainsaid by petitioner that

she has placed cogent material to establish the actual

income of the company of which respondent is a Co-

founder. Likewise, respondent – husband has contended

that petitioner is gainfully employed with company

known and called as “Roynat Scotiabank” and has filed

a memo on 03.07.2017, which depicts that one

Smt.Sunita M is said to be ‘Client Service Assistant at

Royat Capital Inc.’, it does not establish the nexus of

petitioner herein to said company. In the absence of

any positive material being placed in that regard, it
22

cannot be gainsaid by respondent also that petitioner is

gainfully employed, particularly in the background of

petitioner having denied the said fact. Suffice to observe

that voluminous records produced by either of parties

was not available before the trial Court when the order

under challenge came to be passed. Hence, this Court

in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction would not be in

a position to examine the veracity, credibility and

authenticity of these documents, since it would be

disputed question of fact as could be seen from the

pleadings of parties. Thus, it would be open to the

parties to establish their claim and tender evidence in

support of their claim in this regard.

20. This would lead to incidental question as to

‘whether application filed by petitioner is to be rejected

or maintenance awarded by the trial Court is to be

affirmed or modified?’

21. There is no dispute to the fact that petitioner

is living at Bengaluru along with her son from 2007 till

date and undisputedly, respondent had not extended
23

any financial help either to petitioner or to her son from

2007 till order came to be passed in Crl. Misc.

No.573/2015 whereunder a sum of ` 10,000/- per

month has been awarded as interim maintenance. In a

city like Bengaluru where cost of living is considerably

high, petitioner and her son cannot be expected to fend

for themselves without there being any financial

assistance from the respondent, who is required to

maintain them. As to whether petitioner has withdrawn

from the company of respondent or she was compelled

to leave the matrimonial home under the circumstances

stated in the petition for divorce or she had been driven

out from the matrimonial home as claimed by her, are

all disputed question of facts which will have to be

examined by trial Court and evidence has to be

tendered by parties in support of their respective

contentions and as such, at this juncture, plea of

petitioner cannot be accepted as it is. However, it is

made clear that no opinion is expressed in that regard.
24

22. Fact that respondent was a co-founder of a

company in USA by name “i5Dynamics LLC” is also not

in dispute. However, dispute is with regard to income of

said company and both parties have relied upon the

documents produced along with their pleadings to

buttress their respective contentions. On the one hand,

petitioner has produced the Annexure-D1 (in

W.P.No.15406/2017) with regard to existence of said

company and Annexure-E (in W.P.No.15406/2017),

which reflects the revenue of said company as

7,000,000 US$. As against the said claim, respondent

has filed the income tax returns of said company filed in

USA as per Annexure-F series (in W.P.No.20884/2017)

to demonstrate the financial status of said company.

Said income tax returns are not counter signed by any

statutory authority. Income tax returns – Annexures-

H1 series (in W.P.No.20884/2017) filed in USA by the

respondent for the years 2011, 2012 do suggest there is

income earned by respondent. However, no certificate

issued by a Chartered Accountant has been placed on

record by respondent certifying actual income of
25

respondent. Statement of accounts for the period

01.01.2015 to 30.06.2015 – Annexure-H2 (in

W.P.No.20884/2017) placed by the respondent would

also reflect that there has been financial transactions

during said period. Same would clearly disclose on

18.03.2016, 21.03.2016 and 31.03.2016 amounts as

indicated therein, has been credited to the respondent’s

account. Hence, at this juncture, statement of accounts

cannot be brushed aside. Said statements would also

disclose that respondent has been having financial

transactions and is in receipt of amounts. As to from

whom, when and for what reason, no opinion can be

expressed, since entries therein would indicate that

certain sums on the dates noticed hereinabove, apart

from other dates, there has been instances of amounts

having been credited to respondent’s account by

transfer and it is indicated therein that it is “gift to

relatives and friends”. These are the factual aspects

which will have to be examined by this Court after

evidence being recorded. However, the fact remains

that respondent has been transacting in his account
26

with State Bank of India during 2016. Likewise,

petitioner has also not placed any documentary

evidence as to what is the actual expenses being

incurred by her and her self assertion cannot be

accepted as gospel truth.

23. In the light of aforestated discussion, this

Court is of the considered view that trial Court has

rightly taken note of the statement made by the

petitioner on oath as against the statement on oath

made by respondent to arrive at a conclusion that a

sum of ` 20,000/- per month is to be awarded as

interim maintenance during the pendency of

proceedings, which finding cannot be termed as either

erroneous or contrary to facts. In the absence of either

of parties placing any cogent material to establish the

actual income, maintenance ` 20,000/- per month

awarded by trial Court after taking note of the fact that

petitioner has been also awarded a sum of `10,000/- in

Crl.Misc.No.573/2015 and as such, she would be
27

receiving in all a sum of ` 30,000/- per month, is based

on sound reasonings not calling for interference.

24. A perusal of I.A.No.3 filed by respondent for

maintenance would indicate that same has been filed on

22.10.2016 and impugned order came to be passed on

03.04.2017. In view of the fact that order of trial Court

awarding maintenance @ ` 20,000/- per month has

been affirmed, as discussed hereinabove, finding of trial

Court that she would be entitled to same from the date

of order requires to be modified, inasmuch as, from

2007 till she filed the application, respondent has not

paid any maintenance to petitioner or her son and for

the past 9 years petitioner has managed to give

education to her son and also take care of his needs by

mobilising funds and as such, she would be entitled to

interim maintenance from the date of application and

not from the date of order and to that extent, order of

the trial Court requires to be modified.

25. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to

pass the following:

28

ORDER

(i) W.P.No.15406/2017 is hereby

allowed in part and

W.P.No.20884/2017 is hereby

dismissed.

    (ii)    Order dated 03.04.2017 passed in

M.C.No.68/2016 allowing I.A.No.3

and awarding maintenance @

` 20,000/- per month is hereby

affirmed. However, said order

restricting petitioner's claim from the

date of order is hereby modified and it

is hereby ordered that petitioner

would be entitled to maintenance

from the date of application until

further orders.

(iii) No order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*sp/DR

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *