SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Case No. : 1393/2017 vs Ms. Kanupria Sharma on 25 August, 2018

Criminal Appeal No.85/2018

IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI : EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

Criminal Appeal No. : 85/2018
Under Section : 29 Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005
Case No. : 1393/2017
PS : Shakarpur
CNR No. : DLET01-004893-2018
In the matter of :-
SH. RAHUL SHARMA
S/o. Sh. Mahesh Chand Sharma,
R/o. Q.A/72, Ordinance Factory Estate,
Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
…………APPELLANT
VERSUS
MS. KANUPRIA SHARMA
W/o. Sh. Rahul Sharma,
D/o. Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma,
R/o. H.No. J-3/50-C, J-Extension,
Laxmi Nagar, Shakarpur, Delhi.
……….RESPONDENT

Date of Institution : 25.07.2018
Date of reserving order : 21.08.2018
Date of pronouncement : 25.08.2018
Decision : Appeal is allowed.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal under Section 29 of Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
directed against the order dated 26.06.2018, passed by trial court, in
a case titled as Kanupria Sharma v. Rahul Sharma Ors., bearing
case no.1393/17, under Section 12 of the Act. Vide impugned order
dated 26.06.2018, trial court directed respondent no.1/Sh. Rahul
Page 1 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Appeal No.85/2018

Sharma (appellant herein) to pay interim maintenance of Rs.16,500/-
per month to petitioner/Ms. Kanupria Sharma (respondent herein)
from the date of filing of petition till the final disposal of the case.
BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE :-

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to appeal in hand are that
respondent herein filed an application under Section 12 of the Act
impleading her husband Sh. Rahul Sharma (appellant herein), father-
in-law Sh. Mahesh Chand Kashyap, mother-in-law Smt. Rekha
Kashyap and grand father-in-law Sh. Fakir Chand Kashyap. In her
application, respondent made several allegations against the
respondents regarding domestic violence. She sought several relief
including relief of maintenance. She filed application under Section
23 of the Act.

3. Ld. MM passed impugned order and granted relief of interim
maintenance of Rs.16,500/- per month to Smt. Kanupria Sharma.
GROUNDS : –

4. Being aggrieved of impugned order dated 26.06.2018, appellant has
preferred this appeal mainly on the following relevant grounds :-
● That trial court passed the impugned order in violation of ratio laid
down in Adil v. State, 2010 (119) DRJ 297, wherein it has been
held that resort to Domestic Violence Act can be done only where
there is urgent requirement of wife to be maintained and provided
residence when because of domestic violence, she had been
rendered homeless and she had lost source of maintenance. In
the present case neither respondent is without source of
maintenance nor has she been rendered homeless.
● That trial court failed to appreciate ratio passed in Mangat Mal v.
Punni Devi, 1995 (6) SCC 88, that right of maintenance also
Page 2 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Appeal No.85/2018

includes the right to residence. If an aggrieved person is not
entitled to claim maintenance for herself under DV Act, she is not
entitled to claim separate right of residence or any payment in
respect thereof.

● That trial court failed to appreciate that DV Act does not create any
additional right to claim maintenance on part of the aggrieved
person and it only puts the enforcement of existing right of
maintenance available to an aggrieved person on fast track. (Ref.
Smt. Rachna Kathuria v. Ramesh Kathuria, (2010) 173 DLT

289).

● That trial court failed to appreciate that respondent had sufficient
income of her own and she is well qualified. While considering
grant of interim maintenance under Section 24 HMA in the case of
Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy v. M. Devaki, AIR 2003 Mad 212,
Madras High Court held that “The above provision would show
that for grant of maintenance pendent lite, the party should not
have sufficient independent income for her/his support. In other
words, if it is found that the applicant has found sufficient income
for his/her support, no amount can be allowed as maintenance
pendent lite as per Section 24 of the Act.” That the right to claim
any maintenance would thus arise only where the aggrieved
person in this case the wife is not in a position to maintain herself,
which is not the case herein. Rather, in the present case the
petitioner/ aggrieved person is not only capable of maintaining
herself, but in fact earning very well.

● That ld. Magistrate though take note of CD, being filed by
appellant, to show that respondent has been currently working as
an employee in the capacity of Customer Relationship Manager
Page 3 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Appeal No.85/2018

(C.R.M.) with a company by name of Aastha InfraCity Limited,
wrongly concludes that the question whether the petitioner was
working with Indian Railways as alleged or with Aastha InfraCity, is
a matter of adjudication after both parties have led evidence.
Respondent in the CD admitted to a fact that she is working with
Aastha InfraCity and on court query she further admitted that she
has been going to the office of Aastha InfraCity, which was a
company owned by her relative to learn the skills. Thus, it is
manifestly clear that respondent has been working and earning
nearly Rs.25,000/- per month with Aastha InfraCity and she has
been gainfully employed. Thus, there was no occasion for ld.
Magistrate to pass impugned order, which needs to be set aside.
● That ld. Magistrate failed to appreciate that the tape recorded
conversation, is valid evidence and it can be used to contradict the
evidence given before the court and to test the veracity of the
witness. That the CD filed on record, clearly showed respondent’s
presence in the office of Astha InfraCity, wherein she introduced
herself as an employee of said company. Furthermore, respondent
is working there in the name of Priya Sharma and not Kanupria
Bhardwaj, which is also a malafide intention of the respondent not
to disclose her identity and she had also given in her own
handwriting her name as ‘Priya’ and mobile number on the back
side of the visiting card of the Aastha InfraCity. Contents of CD
clearly established that respondent was gainfully employed and
she has falsely stated that she is unemployed and not drawing any
salary. (Ref. N. Siri Rama Reddy v. V.V. Giri, 1971)
● That ld. Magistrate failed to appreciate that respondent has herself
admitted in her petitioner in para no.23 that she shifted to Laxmi
Page 4 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Appeal No.85/2018

Nagar, Delhi for preparation of Bank P.O. examination. Moreover,
at the time of filing of petition by respondent, respondent applied
for the medical leave from Railways Department w.e.f. 29.03.2017
to TDF (till date of fitness) and a medical certificate to this effect
issued by Dr. B.B. Sharma, MBBS from 29.03.2017 to TDF was
sent to Dy. CMM/CNC Railways, Allahabad. This makes amply
clear that at the time of filing of the petition by the respondent, she
was in employment of the Indian Railways. The respondent was
getting salary of Rs.25,000/- pm (approximately) and not
Rs.15,000/- as stated by ld. MM.

● That respondent in DV petition has asserted that she is not
employed and needs maintenance from appellant for meeting her
ends, said proof of burden was on respondent. However, she
miserably failed to establish on record, that she was not gainfully
employed. On contrary, appellant brought on record that
respondent was gainfully employed and drawing handsome salary.
Thus, grant of maintenance was not maintainable and the same is
liable to be dismissed. (Ref. Narain Singh v. State, (1997) 2
Crimes 464 (Delhi) and Bhagirath v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
AIR 1976 SC 975.)
● That respondent falsely misrepresented before ld. Magistrate that
she has not been gainfully employed and she has not been
earning any salary and ld. Magistrate passed the impugned order
based upon the said false/ misrepresentation of respondent. That
the impugned order is based upon the said false/
misrepresentation of respondent. The impugned order was passed
on the basis of false/ misrepresentation made by respondent.

Page 5 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Appeal No.85/2018

● That ld. Magistrate further failed to appreciate that respondent had
no prima facie case in her favour and she was not entitled for
grant of any interim maintenance, as respondent is well qualified
having done B.Tech (Electronic and Communication). Respondent
herself admitted in the replication filed by her that she was earlier
employed as Teacher in Vidhan Public School, Duhai, Ghaziabad.
Thereafter she was employed as Research Analyst in Value
Prospect Consulting, Ghaziabad from 03.04.2014 till November
2014. It is also pertinent to note that from 29.12.2014 the
respondent joined Indian Railways. Respondent also gave
interview in Matrimony.com during November 2015 and selected.
Even presuming not admitting that the respondent is currently
unemployed, she by sitting idle for the sole intent of claiming
maintenance, is not entitled for any relief. The law on said aspect
is well settled, where courts have refused to grant interim
maintenance/ maintenance, in cases, where wife is highly
educated and for the purpose of seeking maintenance she is
setting idle. (Ref. Smt. Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal, II
(2000) DMC 170 and Damanjeet Kaur v. Indermeet Juneja, Cr.
Revision No. 344/2011 decided by High Court of Delhi.)
● That the amount granted as interim maintenance is exorbitant and
excessive. Ld. Magistrate has fixed the payment of interim amount
in favour of respondent, without any basis. Ld. Magistrate wrongly
presumed that appellant is earning averagely Rs.50,000/- per
month. Ld. Magistrate failed to appreciate that the Net Monthly
Salary of appellant was Rs.44,429/- and not Rs.50,000/- as
assessed by court. The appellant specifies that those expenses on
medical treatment and pathology tests etc. are reimbursable on
Page 6 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Appeal No.85/2018

actual bills. The amount of reimbursement of medical expenses
were credited in appellant account along with salary, is the
medical reimbursement only.

● That ld. Magistrate failed to consider statement of expenses as
has been filed on record by appellant. As per statement of
expenditure, appellant is monthly incurring an amount of
Rs.45,659/- per month and thus, there was no occasion for
passing the present order.

5. Ld. counsel for appellant Sh. Rahul Sharma relied upon certain
judgments in support of his contentions, which are as follows :-
● Adil v. State, 2010 (119) DRJ 297.

● Mangat Mal (dead) v. Punni Devi (dead), 1995 (6) SCC 88.
● Smt. Rachna Kathuria v. Ramesh Kathuria, (2010) 173 DLT

289.
● Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy v. M. Devaki, AIR 2003 Mad 212.
● Sanjay Bhardwaj Ors. v. State Anr., 171 (2010) DLT 644.
● Narain Singh v. State, (1997) 2 Crimes 464 (Delhi)
● Bhagirath v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 975.
● Satyender Singh v. Gulab Singh, 2012 (129) DRJ 128.
● Smt. Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal, II (2000) DMC 170.
● Damanjeet Kaur v. Indermeet Juneja, Cr. Revision No.
344/2011 decided by High Court of Delhi on 14.05.2012.

6. Ld. counsel for Ms. Kanupriya relied upon certain judgments before
trial court, in support of his contentions, which are as follows :-
● Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy,
AIR 2017 SC 2383.

● Nihal Singh v. Priyanka Singh Badalia Ors. 244 (2017) DLT

317.
● Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, 2014 (3) ACR 3374.
● Nayanika Thakur Mehta v. Mohit Mehta Ors. 2017 [2] JCC
1213.

● Lalit Bhola v. Nidhi Bhola Anr. Nidhi Bhola Anr. v. Lalit
Bhola, Crl. M.C. No.75/2012 2227/2012, decided by High
Court of Delhi on 12.02.2013.

● Shailja Ors. v. Khobbanna, MANU/SC/0537/2017.

Page 7 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Appeal No.85/2018

7. The case of Nihal Singh (supra) was referred to submit that statutory
obligation is paramount to the wish of the father and he cannot be
permitted to limit his claim of the child on flimsy and baseless
grounds. In the said case, reliance was placed on the judgment of
Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Dr. R.K. Sood v. Usha
Rani Sood, MANU/PH/0330/1996: 1996 (3) 114 PLR 486, to submit
that :-

“17. Under the Hindu Law father not only has a moral but
even a statutory obligation to maintain his infant children.
The scope of his duty is to be regulated directly in
relation to the money, status, that the father enjoys. The
right of maintenance of a child from his father cannot be
restricted to two meals a day, but must be determined on
the basis of the benefit, status and money that the child
would have enjoyed as if he was living with the family,
including his mother and father. Irrespective of the
differences and grievances which each spouse may have
against the other, the endeavour of the court has to be to
provide the best to the child in the facts and
circumstances of each case and more so keeping the
welfare of the child in mind for all such determinations.
Liability to maintain one’s children is clear from the text of
this statute as well as the various decided cases in this
regard. The statutory obligation is paramount to the wish
of the father and he cannot be permitted to limit this claim
of the child on flimsy and baseless grounds.”

8. The case of Lalit Bhola (supra) was referred to submit that “the
amount required by the wife to live a similar life style as she enjoyed
in the matrimonial home keeping in view food, clothing, shelter,
educational and medical needs of the wife and the children, if any
residing with the wife.”

9.In the case of Damanpreet Kaur (supra) High Court of Delhi referred
to a judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sujay

Page 8 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Appeal No.85/2018

Mangesh Poyarekar, (2008) 9 SCC 475, wherein Supreme Court
held that :-

“11. The learned ASJ in the impugned order has rightly
observed that the question whether the petitioner-wife
was forced to resign or had resigned herself is a question
to be considered during trial and also the question
whether the reasons given by her for resigning from her
job were satisfactory or not.

12. It is worth mentioning here that the child for which
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of
filing of the petition has been ordered by learned Addl.
Sessions Judge is just and fair and sufficient to meet the
requirements of a child which is aged about 3 ½ years.

13. There is no jurisdictional error or error in law in the
impugned order. The petition being devoid of merit is
hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.”

10.In the case of Sanjay Bhardwaj (supra) High Court of Delhi
observed that :-

“4………….No law provides that a husband has to
maintain a wife, living separately from him, irrespective
of the fact whether he earns or not. Court cannot tell the
husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give
maintenance to the wife, more so when the husband and
wife are almost equally qualified and almost equally
capable of earning and both of them claimed to be
gainfully employed before marriage. If the husband was
B.Sc. and Masters in Marketing Management from
Pondicherry University, the wife was MA Crl.
M.C.No.491/2009 Sanjay Bhardwaj Ors. v. State Anr.
………….

5. We are living in an era of equality of sexes. The
Constitution provides equal treatment to be given
irrespective of sex, caste and creed. An unemployed
husband, who is holding an MBA degree, cannot be
treated differently to an unemployed wife, who is also
holding an MBA degree. Since both are on equal footing
one cannot be asked to maintain other unless one is
employed and other is not employed.

…………….

Page 9 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Appeal No.85/2018

7. I therefore find that the order dated 16 th January, 2008
passed by ld. MM and order dated 29 th February, 2008
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge fixing
maintenance without there being any prima facie proof of
the husband being employed are not tenable under
Domestic Violence Act. The petition is allowed. The
orders passed by Metropolitan Magistrate and learned
Additional Sessions Judge are hereby set aside.”

APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS AS WELL AS
DECISION :-

11.Ld. counsel for appellant made submissions on the lines of grounds
taken in the appeal. He further submitted that there is no pleading in
the application of the complainant as to why she is unemployed
despite being qualified educated person. Ld. counsel further
submitted that maintenance cannot be claimed as a mark of
punishment against the husband and complainant herein had
suppressed the material fact regarding her employments. He further
submitted that when complainant was confronted with recorded
conversation, then before trial court she admitted that she had been
working in Aastha InfraCity, though she falsely stated that she was
not getting any salary.

12.Per contra, ld. counsel for respondent/complainant submitted that
complainant is unemployed and therefore, she is entitled for
maintenance. He further submitted that complainant had not been
getting any salary from Aastha InfraCity and even otherwise such
allegations of the appellant are subject matter of trial. At present,
there is no material on the record to suggest that complainant had
been earning.

13.In respect of quantum of maintenance, ld. counsel for appellant
submitted that a wrong figure of Rs.50,000/- was assumed by trial

Page 10 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Appeal No.85/2018

court, though apparently as per pay slip of the appellant, he had
gross salary of Rs.46,000/- (approx) only. Any other amount received
by complainant from his company on account of reimbursement
could not be taken into consideration. On the other hand, ld. counsel
for respondent submitted that any kind of income of the appellant has
to be taken into account, while fixing the amount of maintenance.

14.I have gone through the trial court record carefully. The application
under Section 12 of the Act was filed by complainant on 03.05.2017.
In her application, complainant alleged that she left her matrimonial
home on account of domestic violence, on 22.12.2016 and thereafter,
she had been residing at her parental home. Complainant had filed
copy of her bank account maintained with Axis Bank. She, though,
alleged that uncle of the appellant had fraudulently managed a job for
her with Indian Railways and the account in Axis Bank was attached
with that job. Amounts from her this account were diverted on several
occasions to the account of son of uncle and for the purpose of them
in fraudulent manner. For such reasons, complainant had also written
a letter to PMO thereby making allegations against uncle of the
appellant. She in a way disowned this job in her name. However, she
did not state anything about any other job, if under taken by her in the
past. She also did not say anything in respect of her inability to get
employment despite being a qualified educated person having
degree of B.Tech.

15.Appellant herein in his reply to the application of the complainant
referred to four employments of the complainant, which included her
employment as a teacher, her employment as research analyst, her
employment with Indian Railways and her selection in
Matrimony.com during November 2015. In her replication,
Page 11 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Appeal No.85/2018

complainant admitted her past employments as a teacher in
Ghaziabad, as research analyst in Ghaziabad and her selection in
Matrimony.com. She once again did not admit her employment with
Indian Railway since 29.12.2014.

16.It is worth to mention here that along with his reply, appellant herein
had also filed a number of documents and among those documents
were some applications/letter, sent under her signature by
complainant to authorities in Indian Railways, Allahabad dated
27.03.2017 and 29.03.2017. Therein, she had shown her inability to
report for work on account of medical advise of bed rest as well as on
account of some domestic problem. In the letter dated 29.03.2017
complainant had undertaken to report to her duties, whenever she
was given fitness certificate by her doctor. Complainant keep mum in
respect of these documents in her replication. On perusal of bank
statement of Axis Bank, I find that there had been regular credit of
salary in this account of complainant through NEFT from her
employer (attributable to Indian Railways, Allahabad) up to
28.02.2017. Complainant highlighted some of the withdrawals only so
as to allege that amounts were being diverted by uncle of the
appellant (Sh. D.K. Singla). However, there are many other
withdrawals on account of different purposes, which would at least
show that complainant must would have been aware of regular credit
of amount in this account by way of salary. Complainant has not
stated anything about such withdrawals, which are not even allegedly
imputed to Sh. D.K. Singla or his family. The dispute regarding the
amounts being withdrawn by Mr. Singla from aforesaid account
cannot be subject matter of this proceeding, but a prima facie view
has to be formed by the court.

Page 12 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Appeal No.85/2018

17.In the most favourable consideration for the complainant thereby
assuming that the amounts from this account were being withdrawn
by Mr. Singla, the question arises that if complainant had an option to
join this service in order to have an employment, then why could not
she avail this option? Similarly, complainant though suppressed the
fact that she had been working with Aastha InfraCity, this admitted
fact would at least show that she was in a position to work and earn
her livelihood. This situation is important to note because
complainant did not explain at all in her application that what attempt
was made by her to earn livelihood for herself and why she was not
able to earn her livelihood. One cannot be oblivious of the
observations made by courts in the case of Smt. Mamta Jaiswal
(supra), Damanjeet Kaur (supra) and Sanjay Bhardwaj (supra). The
simple parameter has to be that despite being able to earn, if a
person does not wish to earn his/her livelihood at all, then it cannot
be said that such person is a victim of vagrancy. This is a self created
situation by that person. The maintenance is meant to take care of
vagrancy where the other person is not able to maintain herself or
himself for reasons beyond control. However, if it is found that the
person is either earning sufficiently to maintain herself or is
deliberately not working so as to maintain herself, then order of
maintenance cannot be passed as a mark of punishment against the
other spouse.

18.In the present case, it is well apparent that complainant had been
working prior to her marriage as well as after her marriage. She had
the occasion to work in the Indian Railways, but she did not report for
the work. Statement of her passbook would show that salary, in her
account being maintained with Axis Bank, was received at least up to
Page 13 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Appeal No.85/2018

28.02.2017. She had an option to work there in order to earn her
livelihood, had there been such willingness, especially when she had
left her matrimonial home out of a dispute since 22.12.2016. The
suppression of work with Aastha InfraCity assumes importance as it
shows that complainant did not come before the court with clean
hand so as to furnish all relevant informations. Even if it is assumed
that she had not been getting salary from this company, still it could
be inferred that subject to her willingness, she could get an
employment with salary. Since complainant herself has not come up
with all relevant facts related to the circumstances leading to alleged
vagrancy, the court should not make any presumption in her favour.
Therefore, I do not find force in the argument that it would be matter
of trial to establish earning of the complainant. Complainant should
not forget that the first onus is upon her to come clean before the
court with all relevant facts and to establish that the state of her
vagrancy is because of reasons beyond her control. The
observations of Supreme Court in the case of Shailja Ors. v.
Khobbanna, MANU/SC/0537/2017, cannot be applicable here
because not much elaborative observations made therein and it is
not clear if the concerned lady was not able to earn at all, despite
being capable of earning. Similarly, the observations made by
Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Kachwaha (supra) would not
be applicable because in that case as per observations of the court
nothing was placed on the record to prove employment of the lady.
However, the facts are different in this case, wherein appellant has
successfully pointed out that complainant had been in employment,
but suspiciously complainant suppressed such facts before the court.

Page 14 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Appeal No.85/2018

19.The question of applying principles of equi status could have arisen
only when the court would have been informed about actual earnings
of the complainant. Thereafter, the court could have made analysis of
total income out of a family cake, in order to appreciate if the
complainant was able to have same standard of life as being led by
the appellant. Complainant cannot be given any benefit of her own
suppression of facts and therefore, such principle cannot be invoked
in her favour only on the basis of some presumptions.

20.In these circumstances, I do find that impugned order dated
26.06.2018 suffers from infirmity and hence, same is set aside and
appeal is allowed. Trial court shall conduct further proceedings and
trial and on the basis of facts established on the record, final order
may be passed accordingly.

21.Parties shall appear before trial court on date already fixed by the
trial court.

22.TCR be sent back along with copy of judgment. File be consigned to
record room, as per rules. Digitally signed by
PULASTYA
PRAMACHALA
PULASTYA Location: Court
PRAMACHALA No.3, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
Date: 2018.08.25
17:05:50 +0530
Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA)
today on 25.08.2018 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East
(This order contains 15 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi

Page 15 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi

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