SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Anita Aggarwal vs Ramesh Aggarwal on 12 March, 2020

FAO Nos.1786 1790 of 2018 1


Case No. : FAO Nos.1786 1790 of 2018
Date of Decision : March 12, 2020

Anita Aggarwal …. Appellant
(in both FAOs)

Ramesh Aggarwal …. Respondent

(in both FAOs)



* * *
Present : Mr. Amaninder Preet Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.

Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate
for the respondent.
* * *


This order shall dispose of two appeals, i.e. FAO No. 1786 of

2018 preferred by the appellant-wife (hereinafter referred to as ‘the wife’) to

assail the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2018, handed down by learned

District Judge (Family Court), Moga, dismissing the petition as filed by her

against the respondent-husband (hereinafter referred to as ‘the husband’)

under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to

as ‘the Act’) and FAO No. 1790 of 2018, as filed by her to challenge the

judgment and decree passed by the above-said Court on the same day,

whereby the petition, as preferred by the husband against her under Section

13 of the Act, seeking dissolution of their marriage by way of the decree of

1 of 18
22-03-2020 12:18:56 :::
FAO Nos.1786 1790 of 2018 2

divorce, was allowed. Both these appeals are being taken up together for

adjudication as these have the genesis in the matrimonial discord between

the same parties.

2. As per brief factual matrix, as canvassed by the husband (the

petitioner) in the divorce petition, which has culminated in FAO No.1790 of

2018, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 08.10.1995 at

Dina Nagar as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. Out of this wedlock, two

children named Parshant and Shreya were born, who were residing with

him. The relations between the parties remained cordial up to the year 2005

but thereafter, the attitude of the wife started changing towards him.

However, she was not having harmonious relations with his parents and

other family members from the very beginning of their married life. She had

been insisting for shifting to Moga and due to her misbehaviour towards his

parents and younger brother, his father got a house constructed providing

therein separate portions for him and his brother. In the year 2006, his wife

misbehaved with him, his parents and brother on his having asked her to

seek the repayment of a sum of Rs.2 lacs from the husband of her elder

sister as given to him on loan basis. At the time of Greh Parvesh (house-

warming) ceremony, the brothers and sister of his wife came to Dina Nagar

and she started using filthy language against him and his family members

and also pushed his brother aside on his having tried to pacify her.

3. The husband further averred that on 25.11.2008, his parents

visited the residential portion occupied by him and were talking to their

children but the wife gave beatings to the children and also caused injuries

2 of 18
22-03-2020 12:18:56 :::
FAO Nos.1786 1790 of 2018 3

to his parents with her nails. However, the matter was compromised due to

intervention of the respectables and she admitted her fault in the presence of

her mother and brothers and this compromise was penned down wherein she

also assured to improve her behaviour but she did not mend her ways. On

18.07.2011, she left her matrimonial home while saying that she would

return after 10-15 days but she returned on 08.10.2011 and was

accompanied by her brother. She again misbehaved with his father and

threw her slipper towards him. This incident was reported to the police and

thereupon, she gave written assurance that she would improve her

behaviour. On 24.06.2012, on his reaching home, he found his daughter

crying and when inquired, she disclosed to him that the wife had beaten her

and had not served lunch to her. On his talking to his wife about the same,

she started abusing and beating him and she also threatened to commit

suicide. He got himself medically treated at the hospital and also reported

the matter to the police. On 27.07.2012, the wife left her matrimonial house

in his absence. Thus, she subjected him and their children as well as her

parents-in-law to cruelty, mental as well as physical and also withdrew from

his society without any sufficient and reasonable cause.

4. In her written reply, the wife ( the respondent in the divorce

petition), controverted the stand of the husband, inter-alia, on the grounds of

maintainability, concealment of true facts and estoppel. She also asserted

that it was her husband who had treated her with cruelty and she had always

been willing to live in her matrimonial home. She had always fulfilled her

duties as a wife and had never compelled her husband to shift to Moga. She

3 of 18
22-03-2020 12:18:56 :::
FAO Nos.1786 1790 of 2018 4

never misbehaved with her husband or any of his family members. Her

brother-in-law used to serve chicken to her minor kids on the occasions of

their dining out. On 25.11.2008, her husband and his family members gave

her severe beatings and her brother and sister had to take her for her medical

treatment. When her family members requested her husband to keep her at

her matrimonial home, they were compelled to sign some blank papers

which were, subsequently, misused by her husband.

5. The wife further asserted that on 18.07.2011, she had not left

her matrimonial home and rather, her husband and his family members sent

her to her parental home after giving her beatings. She returned to her

matrimonial house on her own on 08.10.2011 but she never misbehaved

with her father-in-law nor threw any slipper towards him. In fact, Pawan,

the cousin brother of her husband and one Ashok visited her matrimonial

home and they, along-with her husband and his family members, again gave

her beatings and though the matter was reported at Police Station, Dina

Nagar but the police officials, under the influence of her husband, procured

her signatures on the blank papers. She did not leave her matrimonial home

on 27.07.2012 and rather, she had gone to her parental home on 26.07.2012

on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan festival and five days thereafter, she

returned to her matrimonial home but was not allowed to enter there. On the

next day, her family members reached at Dina Nagar and she was taken

back to her parental home on the assurance that her husband would bring

her back to her matrimonial home after two months but he did not come to

take her back there. Then, she returned to Dina Nagar on 25.12.2012 and

4 of 18
22-03-2020 12:18:56 :::
FAO Nos.1786 1790 of 2018 5

lived there with her husband upto 25.12.2013 in the rented accommodation

belonging to one Vijay Mahajan and again, she was left by her husband at

her parental home. On 06.03.2015, she returned to her matrimonial home

but was not allowed to enter the same and when she reported the matter to

the police, she came to know about the ex-parte decree, as passed in the

divorce petition which was, later-on, set aside.

6. The husband filed rejoinder and from the pleadings of the

parties, the following issues were framed on 15.03.2016:-

“1. Whether the respondent treated the

petitioner with cruelty? OPP

2. Whether the respondent has deserted the

petitioner without any sufficient cause?


3. If issues No.1 and 2 are proved, whether the

petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce?


4. Whether the present petition is not

maintainable in any manner? OPR

5. Whether the petitioner has not approached

the Court with clean hands and concealed

the true facts? OPR

6. Relief.”

7. Both the parties led their evidence, oral as well as documentary,

in support of their respective contentions. It is worthwhile to mention here

5 of 18
22-03-2020 12:18:56 :::
FAO Nos.1786 1790 of 2018 6

that while addressing the arguments before the trial Court, learned counsel

for the husband made a statement regarding not pressing the ground of

desertion. Hence, issue no.2 was disposed of accordingly. Learned Trial

Court answered issues no1 and 3 to 5 in favour of the husband. Resultantly,

the petition was allowed and a decree of divorce was passed in favour of the

husband while directing him to pay maintenance allowance to the wife @

Rs.20,000/- per month.

8. The facts, in brief, as set forth by the wife in her petition under

Section 9 of the Act, leading to the filing of FAO No.1786 of 2018, are that

the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 08.10.1995 and two

children were born out of this wedlock. After the marriage of her brother-

in-law Rajnish, the behaviour of her husband and his family members

drastically changed towards her but she did not disclose this fact to her

family members with the hope that some day, better sense would prevail

upon them. On 25.12.2013, her husband sent her to her parental home at

Moga while assuring that he would bring her back shortly. Thereafter,

despite her repeated telephonic requests, he did not turn up. On 06.03.2015,

she returned to her matrimonial home on the occasion of Holi festival but

she was not allowed to enter there and rather, her husband and his family

members called the police officials there and then, she came to know about

the ex-parte decree of divorce qua the dissolution of their marriage, which

was, subsequently, set aside but her husband had illegally married one

Reena whereas she was still ready and willing to reside with him in her

matrimonial home. However, her husband refused to reside with her and

6 of 18
22-03-2020 12:18:56 :::
FAO Nos.1786 1790 of 2018 7

thus, withdrew from her society without any reasonable cause.

9. The husband, in his written reply, contested the claim of the

wife, primarily, on the grounds of maintainability, mala-fides and false

allegations. He also asserted that his wife intended to disturb his marital life

with his second wife. She used to insist for shifting to Moga or Chandigarh

and also misbehaved with and humiliated him as well as his family members

on several occasions and had also been maltreating their children. She had

even caused injuries to him and his parents and also neglected to look after

their children. She used to threaten to commit suicide. On 27.07.2012, she

left her matrimonial home and all his efforts to contact her remained futile

and finally, she told him that she would live only at Chandigarh.

10. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court

framed the following issues on 03.04.2017 :-

“1. Whether petitioner is entitled to restitution

of conjugal rights, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether there is sufficient cause with the

resonant to leave the society of the

petitioner? OPR

3. Whether petition is not maintainable? OPR

4. Relief.”

11. Both the parties adduced their evidence to substantiate their

respective contentions in this petition. Learned Trial Court settled issues

no.1 to 3 against the wife and dismissed her petition.

7 of 18
22-03-2020 12:18:56 :::
FAO Nos.1786 1790 of 2018 8

12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in both the

present appeals and have perused the record thoroughly.

13. Learned counsel for the wife contended that the wife had

always been ready and willing to stay in her matrimonial house and she

never misbehaved with the husband or his family members and rather, the

husband had subjected her to cruelty and had neglected her but learned Trial

Court wrongly dismissed the petition, as preferred by the wife under Section

9 of the Act and allowed the petition, as filed by the husband under Section

13 of the Act and therefore, both the impugned judgments and decrees, as

passed in these petitions, were liable to be set aside.

14. However, learned counsel for the husband argued that in fact,

the wife had constantly been subjecting the husband to cruelty, mental as

well as physical, by maltreating him, his family members and their kids and

she even caused injuries to her husband and also the parents-in-law and she

used to give beatings to her children and even neglected to provide meals to

them and in these circumstances, it was not possible for the husband to stay

with her and after taking all the afore-discussed facts and circumstances into

consideration, learned Trial Court rightly dismissed the above said petition

of the wife and allowed the divorce petition filed by the husband.

15. Before adverting to the discussion on the merits of FAO

No.1786 of 2018 arising out of the petition filed by the wife under Section 9

of the Act, we deem it expedient and appropriate to discuss and adjudicate

the ground of cruelty as taken by the husband in his petition under Section

13 of the Act and now before this Court for being decided in FAO No.1790

8 of 18
22-03-2020 12:18:56 :::
FAO Nos.1786 1790 of 2018 9

of 2018 as the adjudication thereof will be relevant and necessary for

deciding afore-said FAO No.1786 of 2018.

16. Exhibits P-1 and P-2 are the copies of the respective medico-

legal reports of Brij Rani and Roop Lal, i.e. the parents-in-law of the wife.

As specifically deposed by the husband, as PW1, in his affidavit Exhibit

PW-1/A and by his father Roop Lal, as PW-2, in his affidavit Exhibit PW-

2/A in the above-said divorce petition, the parents-in-law of the wife visited

the portion of the house, occupied by the husband, on 25.11.2008 and while

they were talking to their grandchildren there, the wife started using filthy

language against them and also caused injuries to them and then, they were

medico-legally examined at Civil Hospital, Dina Nagar.

17. Learned Trial Court has categorically observed in para no.41 of

the impugned judgment, as rendered in the afore-mentioned petition, that

the husband, as PW-1, had not been cross-examined by the wife regarding

the injuries given by her (wife) to her parents-in-law or the medico-legal

reports Exhibits P-1 and P-2 pertaining to his parents nor was suggested that

these medico-legal reports were false or procured ones or the injuries on the

persons of his parents were self-inflicted or that she had not caused these

injuries. Similarly, in para no.48 of this judgment, it has been observed that

no suggestion had been given to PW-2 Roop Lal that the said medico-legal

reports were false or procured ones or that the injuries on his person and on

the person of his wife were self-inflicted.

18. Rather, Exhibit P-3 is the copy of the compromise deed dated

29.12.2008 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the wife, in the

9 of 18
22-03-2020 12:18:56 :::
FAO Nos.1786 1790 of 2018 10

presence of her family members and other witnesses, admitted her mistake

regarding the above-said incident and she also promised that she would not

commit any such mistake in future. Although in her affidavit Ex.RW-7/A,

tendered while appearing as RW-7, the wife had deposed that she and her

family members were compelled by the husband and his family members to

sign the blank papers and in a bid to save her matrimonial life, they had

agreed for the same and that these papers were subsequently misused by the

husband but however, in normal course of events, no prudent person can be

expected to sign the blank papers and even if for the sake of arguments, it is

presumed that the wife and her family members had done so under the

pressure at the hands of the husband and his family members, even then

the fact remains that no person could be expected to keep mum thereafter

and not to report such matter to the competent authorities at the earliest

available opportunity. Moreover, the wife has not even mentioned this fact

in her petition, as preferred under Section 9 of the Act, despite the fact that

the said petition was filed in the year 2016, i.e. much later than the filing of

the divorce petition by the husband in the year 2012. In such circumstances,

the above-discussed version, as put forth by the wife regarding her own

signatures as well as the signatures of her family members on compromise

deed Exhibit P-3, does not inspire any confidence.

19. As deposed by the afore-named PW-1, the husband and PW-2

Roop Lal, his father, the parties shifted to their new house in October, 2008

and on the occasion of “Greh Parvesh” (house-warming) ceremony, the

wife got agitated and started using filthy language against the husband and

10 of 18
22-03-2020 12:18:56 :::
FAO Nos.1786 1790 of 2018 11

his family members and when her husband’s brother tried to pacify her, she

asked him to shut up and pushed him aside. PW-7 Parshant, the son of the

parties, also corroborated the above-discussed depositions in his affidavit

Exhibit PW-7/A. During her cross-examination as RW-7, the wife herself

categorically admitted that during her cross-examination in the petition

under Section 9 of the Act, she had stated that she had raised a dispute

during the Greh Parvesh ceremony. This admission on her part, rather,

fortifies the afore-discussed depositions as made by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7

regarding the said occurrence.

20. Further, the above-named PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 have deposed

in their above-said respective affidavits that the wife left her matrimonial

home on 18.07.2011 with her brother and returned on 08.10.2011 and she

misbehaved with the husband and threw her slipper towards her father-in-

law and the matter was reported to the police. During her cross-examination

as RW-7, the wife deposed that she did not remember if she had returned on

08.10.2011 or any report was lodged against her on the next day whereas

Exhibit P-7 is the copy of DDR as entered against her as well as her brother

on 08.10.2011 for using filthy language and beating her in-laws and also for

threatening them.

21. Again, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 have also deposed in their

respective affidavits that on 24.06.2012, the wife had not served lunch to

her children and had also beaten them and when the husband asked her

about the reason for the same, the wife abused and gave beatings to him and

also threatened to commit suicide and the husband got himself medically

11 of 18
22-03-2020 12:18:56 :::
FAO Nos.1786 1790 of 2018 12

examined. Exhibit P-4 is the copy of the medico-legal report showing the

injuries on the person of the husband. Exhibit P-5 is the copy of the DDR,

as recorded on 25.06.2012 at the instance of the husband, regarding the

above-said occurrence.

22. However, learned Trial Court has specifically observed in para

no.41 of the judgment under challenge that while cross-examining the

husband as PW-1, it was never suggested to him that the injuries on his

person were self-inflicted and as rightly mentioned in para no.85 of this

judgment, the wife, as RW-7, deposed that she did not know as to whether

the matter had gone to the police also or that she had threatened to commit

suicide and thus, she had not specifically denied both the above-said facts.

Moreover, learned Trial Court has also observed in paras no.41 and 48 of

the said judgment that PW-1 and PW-2 had not been given any suggestion

by the wife qua the factum of her having threatened to commit suicide.

23. It is pertinent to mention here that though in para no.11 of her

written-reply as filed in the divorce petition, the wife has alleged that on

24.06.2012, the husband, alongwith his brother, parents and the wife of his

brother, had given her merciless beatings leading to a fracture in her arm

and though in her affidavit Exhibit RW-7/A also, she has made depositions

to the same effect but however, she has not produced any medical evidence

on the file to substantiate her afore-mentioned allegation. Rather, during

her cross-examination as RW-7, she stated that her medical reports were

lying in the office of her counsel, but however, the fact remains that had

these reports been available with her counsel, he could not be expected to

12 of 18
22-03-2020 12:18:56 :::
FAO Nos.1786 1790 of 2018 13

have withheld the same from being placed on the record despite being fully

aware of the relevance as well as the evidentiary value thereof. RW-8

Pawan Kumar, the brother of the wife, also stated that his sister had been

medically examined by the doctor and the medico-legal report was lying

with him. In case this witness was in possession of any such report, then he

could have produced the same on the file but again, no explanation came

forth from his side for not doing so. In these circumstances, an adverse

inference has to be drawn against the wife in respect of the same. All the

above-discussed facts and circumstances unequivocally lead to an

irresistible conclusion that the wife had subjected the husband to cruelty.

24. Seen from yet another angle, though the afore-mentioned

incidents of the disputes raised by the wife at the time of Greh Parvesh

ceremony and her having caused injuries to her parents-in-law pertain to the

period prior to 29.12.2008, i.e. the date of execution of the compromise

deed (Exhibit P-3) and even if this document may be taken to be amounting

to the condonation of these incidents of cruelty by the husband but it is

worthwhile to mention here that the above-described incidents of the wife

having thrown her slipper towards her father-in-law and having caused

injuries to the husband relate to the period subsequent to the execution of

the said compromise deed. A three Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Apex

Court has made the following observations in Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S.

Dastane 1975(2) SCC 326 :-

“57. But condonation of a matrimonial
offence is not to be likened to a full Presidential

13 of 18
22-03-2020 12:18:56 :::
FAO Nos.1786 1790 of 2018 14

Pardon under Article 72 of the Constitution
which, once granted, wipes out the guilt beyond
the possibility of revival. Condonation is always
subject to the implied condition that the offending
spouse will not commit a fresh matrimonial
offence, either of the same variety as the one
condoned or of any other variety. No matrimonial
offence is erased by condonation. It is obscured
but not obliterated. Since the condition of
forgiveness is that no further matrimonial offence
shall occur, it is not necessary that the fresh
offence should be ejusdem generis with the
original offence. Condoned cruelty can, therefore,
be revived, say, by desertion or adultery.”

25. While relying upon the above-discussed observations, as made

by Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned Single Judge of this Court categorically

held in Sqrn. Leader P.S. Kher vs Mrs. Kamal-Nainjit Kaur 1981 HLR

569 that “the fresh act of cruelty on the part of the wife would revive her

earlier conduct even if condoned previously”. In view of these observations,

it becomes quite explicit that the afore-mentioned events, which took place

subsequent to the execution of compromise deed dated 29.12.2008 (Exhibit

P-3), do suffice to hold that these revived the cruelty which could be taken

to have been condoned vide this document.

26. Now coming to the discussion on the merits in FAO No.1786

of 2018 arising out of the petition filed by the wife under Section 9 of the

Act, it is necessary and relevant to mention here she filed this petition on

04.08.2016 after the ex-parte decree of divorce, as passed in favour of the

14 of 18
22-03-2020 12:18:56 :::
FAO Nos.1786 1790 of 2018 15

husband in the petition preferred by him for this purpose in the year 2012,

was set aside on 29.03.2016 in view of the application moved by her under

Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Moreover, during her cross-examination as PW-1,

the wife stated that after filing this petition, she filed one complaint against

her husband, his parents and brother etc. under Domestic Violence Act,

2005 and that she had never moved any application of any type to any

Authority or the police anywhere before filing this petition, the divorce

petition and the complaint under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 nor she ever

got herself medically examined for the alleged beatings given to her by her

husband or his parents. She further volunteered to say that on her visit to

her parental home, her parents got the scanning of her brain conducted but

however, she did not produce the said record on the file, for the reasons best

known to her. Thus, it is explicit that the afore-said legal proceedings were

initiated by her after the filing of the divorce petition by the husband.

27. In this petition also, the husband has produced the copies of the

medico-legal reports of both his parents, besides his own medico-legal

report, on the file as Exhibits R-1 to R-3 regarding the injuries suffered by

them at the hands of the wife. Exhibit R-4 is the copy of the DDR entered

against the wife and her brother Pawan on 08.10.2011 at the instance of her

father-in-law regarding their misbehaving with and beating him. Exhibit R-

5 is the copy of the DDR recorded on the basis of the statement of the

husband on 25.06.2012 regarding his having suffered injuries at the hands

of his wife and Exhibit R-6 is the copy of his statement as recorded by the

police. While appearing as PW-1, the wife also admitted that during the

15 of 18
22-03-2020 12:18:56 :::
FAO Nos.1786 1790 of 2018 16

Greh Parvesh ceremony, she had raised the dispute voluntarily due to some

problems but she did not divulge the details of such problem.

28. Further, as per the version of the wife, she was sent to Moga by

her husband on 25.12.2013. During her cross-examination as PW-1, she

stated that she resided in the house of one Vijay Mahajan for one year in

December 2012. In these circumstances, said Vijay Mahajan could have

been the best person to make depositions to corroborate the aforesaid

version of the wife but significantly, he was given up by her counsel for his

having been won over by the husband. In these circumstances, her version

regarding her having been sent to her parental home on 25.12.2013 does not

seem to be trustworthy, especially in the circumstances when the husband,

as RW-1, has specifically deposed in his affidavit Exhibit RW-3/A that the

wife had left her matrimonial home on 27.07.2012 in his absence and the

wife, as PW-1, also categorically admitted during her cross-examination that

on the said date, she had gone to Moga, i.e. her parental abode, from Dina


29. As observed earlier also while discussing the merits of the

divorce petition in FAO No.1790 of 2018, the wife had misbehaved with

the husband, her children and parents-in-law on several occasions which

squarely fall within the four corners of the term “cruelty” and she did not

mend her ways even after admitting her mistake and despite promising that

she would never repeat the same as specifically mentioned in the

compromise-deed which has been exhibited as R-11 in this petition and P-3

in the divorce petition. In the instant petition also, the evidence as led by the

16 of 18
22-03-2020 12:18:56 :::
FAO Nos.1786 1790 of 2018 17

husband, substantiates the afore-mentioned erratic act and conduct of the


30. As per our social norms, marriage is not simply a contract

between two persons and rather, it is a sacred bond wherein both the parties

agree to live together as true companions and promise to share all the

happiness, sorrows, problems and difficulties with each other throughout

the rest of their lives. Staying together does not mean merely residing

together and rather, it is perceived as living with the mutual emotional

quotient sufficient enough to spend a blissful life together and

unfortunately, if one of the spouses lacks in fulfilling his/her matrimonial

obligations or has erratic behaviour or act and conduct towards the other

spouse to the extent that it hurts the other spouse physically or mentally,

then the true meaning of the marital bliss is lost and in such eventuality, the

other spouse cannot be compelled to live together with the erring spouse.

31. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed in the

preceding paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion that the findings as

recorded by learned Trial Court to the effect that the husband had produced

ample evidence on the record to the effect that the wife had caused grave

mental and physical cruelty to him and it was not possible for him to live

with her and therefore, a decree of divorce deserved to be granted in favour

of the husband and that he could not be compelled for the restitution of

conjugal rights to co-habit with the wife, do not suffer from any infirmity,

illegality or perversity and hence, the same do not warrant any interference

by this Court.

17 of 18
22-03-2020 12:18:56 :::
FAO Nos.1786 1790 of 2018 18

32. As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, it follows that both the

appeals i.e. FAO No.1786 of 2018 and FAO No.1790 of 2018, being sans

any merit, are hereby dismissed.


March 12, 2020

Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.

18 of 18
22-03-2020 12:18:56 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation