Chattisgarh High Court
Parvinder Singh Khalsa vs Smt. Hanit Kaur Khalsa on 8 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:16608
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 596 of 2024
Parvinder Singh Khalsa S/o Sardar Ajit Singh Khalsa Aged About 44 Years
Occupation- Business, R/o Behind Calltax Petrol Pump, Bastar Road,
Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Smt. Hanit Kaur Khalsa W/o Parvinder Singh Khalsa Aged About 37
Years Occupation- Housewife, R/o Darogapara, Raigarh, Tahsil And District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Ravlin Khalsa D/o Parvinder Singh Khalsa Aged About 20 Years R/o
Darogapara, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Minor Bhavnit Khalsa D/o Parvinder Singh Khalsa Aged About 17 Years
Non-Applicant No. 3 Is Minor Impleaded Through Mother Hanit Kaur
Khalsa, R/o Darogapara, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate
For Respondents : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Order on Board
Digitally signed
by VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Date: 2025.04.16
17:53:43 +0530
2
08/04/2025
1. The present criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner against
the impugned order dated 10.04.2024, passed by learned Family
Court, Raigarh, in MJC No. F-122 of 2019, whereby the total amount
of Rs. 25,000/- has been granted as monthly maintenance to the
present respondents payable from the date of application i.e.
21.08.2019. It is also ordered that the maintenance should be paid to
the present respondents No. 2 & 3 till their majority or till their
disability due to their physical or mental incapability.
2. The admitted facts of the case are that the marriage between the
petitioner and the respondent No.1 is solemnized on 23.11.2002 as
per their rites and rituals and out of their wedlock, the respondents
No. 2 & 3 are born. The marriage between the petitioner and the
respondent No.1 have been dissolved by decree of divorce passed
by the learned Family Court, Dhamtari on 15.05.2019.
3. The brief facts of the case are that after sometime of marriage
between the petitioner and the respondent No.1, the respondent
No.1 was being harassing by the petitioner and his family members,
which became aggravated by the lapse of time and culminated into
marpeet. They demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs from her parents and her
parents have also satisfied their demand by giving them Rs. 1 Lakh
twice, but they did not convinced and continued harassing the
respondent No.1. By their harassment and cruelty the respondent
No.1 resided at her parents’ house since 2006 to 2010. In the year
2010, after giving assurance that they will not repeat their act of
3
harassment, the petitioner taken back the respondent No.1 to her
matrimonial house, but after having some good day, the petitioner
and his family members again started harassing her and she was
again thrown out from her matrimonial house along with her children
on 07.08.2013. Despite various efforts made by the respondent No.1
and her family members, calling of the community meetings, the
petitioner is not convinced and since then the respondent No.1 along
with her children is residing with her parents. Both the children are
school going and the elder daughter of the respondent No.1 is
suffering from Celiac Disease, and her treatment is continued at
Nagpur, where a huge amount is spent in her treatment, which is
borne by her parents. The petitioner has not taken any care of them
and has not provided any amount for their nurture, education or
medicines. The petitioner is engaged in transporting business having
number of trucks in his ownership and is earning more than Rs. 2
Lakhs per month. The respondent No.1 is not having any source of
her income and unable to maintain herself and her two daughters,
therefore, they claimed the amount of Rs. 50,000/- as monthly
maintenance from the petitioner.
4. In the reply, the petitioner denied the averment made in the
application and has submitted that the marriage between him and
respondent No.1 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce dated
15.05.2019 and now they are not husband and wife. It is also
submitted that after few days of marriage, the respondent No.1
started quarreling with him and his family members and used to go to
her parents’ house without informing to anyone of his family, even
4
she was not given any respect to his parents. He tried to keep her
with him and convinced her, but she continued in her behaviour not
to give any respect to his family members. Looking to her adamant
altitude, he made an application before the Mahila Paramarsh
Kendra for counseling, but the respondent No.1 was remain absent
despite notice served upon her. Thereafter, he moved an application
under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned
Family Court, Dhamtari and in that proceeding also, she was not
participated. The petitioner and his family members have not treated
her with cruelty and have not given any harassment to her. Since the
respondent No.1 herself was not willing to reside with the petitioner
and did not obey they matrimonial relations, the petitioner filed an
application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before
the learned Family Court, Dhamtari. In the proceeding before the
learned Family Court, Dhamtari, despite notice served upon her
through publication of summons in the daily newspaper, she had not
appeared before the learned Family Court and not participated in the
proceeding, therefore, an ex-parte decree of divorce has been
passed in favour of the petitioner. It is also submitted that whenever
he made a telephonic call to her, she disconnected the call and has
not permitted him to talk to his daughters. She on her own will and
without any sufficient cause residing at her parents’ house. The
respondent No.1 is running a petrol pump at Tamnar, District Raigarh
and earning sufficient amount for her and her daughter’s livelihood.
She also owned an electrical shop at Raigarh and she is well earning
lady. The petitioner is having an old truck, which he has purchased
after taking loan from Equitas Small Finance Company and having
5
limited source of his income. He is having liability of his old aged
parents and differently abled brother. The respondent No.1 could not
adjust herself in such a limited income and therefore, she is residing
at her parents’ house. Since the respondent No.1 is able and capable
to earn for her livelihood and earning more than the petitioner, they
are not entitled for any maintenance amount.
5. The learned Family Court has framed issues and after recording
evidence of the parties, passed the order on 10.04.2024 and
awarded Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs.
5000/- each per month to the respondents No. 2 & 3. The amount of
maintenance payable from the date of application i.e. 21.08.2019 and
it should be paid to the respondents No. 2 & 3 till their majority or till
their disability due to their physical or mental incapability. The said
order of maintenance is under challenge in the present criminal
revision.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband would submit that the
learned Family Court has erred in considering the evidence available
on record. They should have considered that the respondent No.1 is
residing separately from the petitioner without any sufficient cause.
The decree of restitution of conjugal rights has not been obeyed by
the respondent No.1, which itself proves that the respondent No.1 on
her own will is not residing with her husband. A decree of divorce has
also been passed in favour of the petitioner by the learned Family
Court vide judgement dated 15.05.2019. The said decrees are still in
force and operative and after the decree of divorce, in the month of
March, 2021 the petitioner has performed second marriage. The
6
learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the requirements of
Section 125 of CRPC. The petitioner is having limited source of
income and an exorbitant amount has been awarded against him
towards maintenance to the respondents, which is beyond his
capacity. He would also submit that the unmarried daughters are
entitled for maintenance only up to their majority , but the learned
Family Court has not considered Section 125(1)(c) of the CRPC. He
would further submit that in the present criminal revision, the
petitioner has filed an application on 04.10.2024 for taking
documents on record, which are the income tax return of the
petitioner, which shows his financial capacity and total yearly income
as Rs. 4,37,020/- for the assessment year of 2024-25 and Rs.
4,93,750/- for the assessment year of 2023-24 and the petitioner was
directed to pay Rs. 3 Lakhs yearly (Rs. 25,000/- per month) as the
maintenance, which is beyond the capacity of the petitioner, and
therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would
support the impugned order and submitted that though the quantum
of the maintenance amount is on lower side, but the liability has
rightly been held by the learned Family Court. She would also submit
that the petitioner is not paying the maintenance amount to the
respondents and therefore, the revision filed by the petitioner is liable
to be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the case and documents annexed with the petition.
7
9. In the present criminal revision vide order dated 19.09.2024, the
parties were directed to appear before the Mediation Centre of this
Court to explore the possibility of amicable settlement, if possible and
to resolve their dispute amicably, but vide mediation report dated
27.09.2024, it has been informed that the mediation between the
parties failed.
10. The respondent No.1 has stated in her evidence that after sometime
of her marriage, the petitioner and his family members started
harassing her for demand of dowry and they demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs
from her. Her father had given Rs. 1 Lakh twice to them and despite
that their demand was not stopped and continued. Since 2006 to
2010, she was resided at her parents’ house due to the harassment
given to her by the petitioner and his family members. In the year
2010, when they confessed their guilt and assured that they will not
repeat their act of cruelty, she went back to her matrimonial house.
After sometime, again they started harassing her and on 07.08.2013,
they threw her out from her matrimonial house along with her
daughters and then her father took them with him. Despite various
efforts made by her father and called the meeting, the petitioner was
not convinced and was not ready to keep her with him and neglected
them completely. Her daughters are school going children. Her elder
daughter is suffering from Celiac disease, whose treatment is going
on at Nagpur. The expenses of her treatment is bearing by her father.
She proved her complaint dated 08.08.2013 made to City Kotwali
Police, Dhamtari (exhibit A-1), their Community Head at Dhamtari
(exhibit A-2), the birth record of the respondents No. 2 and 3 (exhibit
8
A-3, A-4 and A-5), the treatment papers of the respondent No.2
(exhibit A-6) and their school records (exhibit A-7 to A-19).
In cross-examination, she admitted that she is residing at her
parents’ house since 08.08.2013 and she filed the application for
maintenance in the year 2019. She stated that she did not know as to
whether her husband had filed an application for restitution of
conjugal rights in the year 2018 or not. She voluntarily stated that she
has not received any notice. She admitted that she received a copy
of the ex-parte order by post. She further stated that she made
various efforts for restitution of their conjugal rights and she filed the
documents of community head. She further admitted that against the
ex-parte decree of divorce, she made an application before the
learned Family Court and when her application was dismissed, she
filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court and her case was
again sent to the Family Court, Dhamtari. She admitted that her
husband is the elderly son of his family and taking care of all the
family members. She further stated that she has filed an application
under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 against her husband, in-laws, brother-in-law and elder
father-in-law. She also lodged a report under Section 498-A of IPC
against her husband, in-laws, brother-in-law and elder father-in-law
and also against the second wife of her husband Seema Babbar. She
further admitted in her evidence, which is recorded on 07.10.2023
that her elder daughter Ravleen is attains her age of majority and
presently aged about 20 years and her younger daughter is aged
about 17 years. She denied the allegation leveled against her that
9
her behaviour was not good, when she was residing at her
matrimonial house.
11. The respondent No.1 has also examined her father Mahendrapal as
AW-2. He also supported the evidence of the respondent No.1 and
stated that he gave Rs. 1 Lakh twice to the petitioner. His daughter is
residing with him for the reason that the petitioner and his family
members are harassing his daughter and treated her with cruelty for
demand of dowry. He tried his level best to get the dispute resolved,
but he could not succeed.
12. The petitioner has examined himself as NAW-1 and stated as per his
written statement filed in the case. He made allegation against the
respondent No.1 that her behaviour was not good and she herself
does not want to live with him and left his company without any
sufficient cause and started residing separately. He made various
efforts to bring her back, but she does not come back to his house.
He also moved his application for restitution for conjugal rights, in
which ex-parte decree was passed in his favour. He also moved an
application for divorce before the learned Family Court, which was
also allowed ex-parte. He did not know about any challenge of that
decree before the Hon’ble High Court or not. He too has denied the
allegation made against him by the respondent No.1. he admitted in
Para 20 of his cross-examination that he has not made any
arrangement of their maintenance while they are residing separately
from him.
10
13. Be that as it may, there is allegation and counter allegation against
each other regarding their behaviour, but the fact remains that the
respondent No.1 is his wife and respondents No. 2 & 3 are his
daughters. It is the petitioner’s moral and legal duty to maintain his
wife and children.
14. The scope and object of Section 125 of CRPC has been considered
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Anju Garg and
Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg‘ 2022 SCC Online SC 1314, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 9 and 10 of its judgement has held
that:-
“9) At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony,
anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is
required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some
suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to
sustain herself and the children, as observed by this
Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors. 1.
This Court in the said case, after referring to the
earlier decisions, has reiterated the principle of law
as to how the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C
have to be dealt with by the Court. It held as under:
“In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [(1987) 1
SCC 624 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 237] the Court opined
that : (SCC p. 631, para 16)
16. “… Proceedings under Section 125 [of
the Code], it must be remembered, are of a
summary nature and are intended to
enable destitute wives and children, the
11latter whether they are legitimate or
illegitimate, to get maintenance in a
speedy manner.”
8. A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) v.
Veeraswamy (K.) [(1991) 2 SCC 375 : 1991 SCC
(Cri) 442] , while discussing about the basic
purpose under Section 125 of the Code, opined
that : (SCC p. 378, para 3)
3. “Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is meant to achieve a social
purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy
and destitution. It provides a speedy
remedy for the supply of food, clothing,
and shelter to the deserted wife.” 1 (2015)
6 SCC 353
9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria
v. State of Gujarat [(1996) 4 SCC 479 : 1996 SCC
(Cri) 762] , while adverting to the dominant
purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled
that : (SCC p. 489, para 15)
15. “… While dealing with the ambit and
scope of the provision contained in
Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne
in mind that the dominant and primary
object is to give social justice to the
woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and
to prevent destitution and vagrancy by
compelling those who can support those
who are unable to support themselves but
have a moral claim for support. The
12
provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy
remedy to those women, children and
destitute parents who are in distress. The
provisions in Section 125 are intended to
achieve this special purpose. The
dominant purpose behind the benevolent
provisions contained in Section 125 clearly
is that the wife, child and parents should
not be left in a helpless state of distress,
destitution and starvation.”
10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 :
(2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] ,
reiterating the legal position the Court held :
(SCC p. 320, para 6)
6. “… Section 125 CrPC is a measure of
social justice and is specially enacted to
protect women and children and as noted
by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander
Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70
: 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within
constitutional sweep of Article 15(3)
reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution
of India. It is meant to achieve a social
purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy
and destitution. It provides a speedy
remedy for the supply of food, clothing
and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives
effect to fundamental rights and natural
duties of a man to maintain his wife,
children and parents when they are unable
to maintain themselves. The aforesaid
13position was highlighted in Savitaben
Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat
[(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787] .”
11. Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v.
Neelamma [(2014) 14 SCC 452 : (2015) 1 SCC
(Cri) 407 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 346] , it has been
stated that it is a piece of social legislation
which provides for a summary and speedy relief
by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable
to maintain herself and her children”.
10) This Court had made the above observations as
the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case
had conducted the proceedings without being alive to
the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the
provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an
impression has also been gathered by this Court in
the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded
the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty
of the husband to provide financial support to the
wife and to the minor children. The husband is
required to earn money even by physical labour, if he
is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation,
except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned
in the statute. In Chaturbhuj vs, Sita Bai2, it has been
held that the object of maintenance proceedings is
not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to
prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife,
by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a
speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125
Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially
enacted to protect women and children. It also falls
14
within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3),
reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.”
15. From perusal of the materials and evidence produced by the parties,
it reflects that both the parties have made allegation and counter
allegation against each other, but their relationship have not been
denied. The learned Family Court after considering the entire
documentary as well as oral evidence produced by the parties,
comes into conclusion that there is a sufficient cause for the
respondent/wife to live separately from her husband/petitioner, which
is based on proper appreciation of evidence and there is no infirmity
or perversity, which dragged this Court to interfere with the same.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Sunita Kachhawaha
and Others v. Anil Kachhawaha’ AIR 2015 SC 554, has observed in
Para 8 of its order that:-
“8. The proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is
summary in nature. In a proceeding under Section
125 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary for the court to
ascertain as to who was in wrong and the minute
details of the matrimonial dispute between the
husband and wife need not be gone into. While so,
the High Court was not right in going into the
intricacies of dispute between the appellant-wife and
the respondent and observing that the appellant-wife
on her own left the matrimonial house and therefore
she was not entitled to maintenance. Such
observation by the High Court overlooks the evidence
of appellant-wife and the factual findings, as recorded
by the Family Court. ”
15
17. While deciding the case, the learned Family Court after considering
the status of the parties and earning capacity of the
petitioner/husband as well as the respondent No.1/wife and also the
evidence produced by the parties with respect to their financial
position, granted Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife
and Rs. 5000/- each per month to the respondents No.2 and
3/daughters till their majority or till their disability due to their physical
or mental incapability.
18. Considering the present cost of living, the amount awarded to the
respondents cannot be said to be exorbitant or excessive. It is to
ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or
vagrancy on account of the failure of marriage and not as a
punishment to the other spouse. The sufficiency of the quantum has
to be adjudge, so that the wife is able to maintain herself with
reasonable comfort. In the matter of ‘Rajnesh v. Neha‘ 2021 (2) SCC
324, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Para 78 to 84 that:
“78. The factors which would weigh with the Court
inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable
needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the
applicant is educated and professionally qualified;
whether the applicant has any independent source of
income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her
to maintain the same standard of living as she was
accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the
applicant was employed prior to her marriage;
whether she was working during the subsistence of
the marriage; whether the wife was required to
sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing
16the family, child rearing, and looking after adult
members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation
for a non-working wife.
79. In Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain 34 this Court held
that the financial position of the parents of the
applicant-wife, would not be material while
determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of
interim maintenance is conditional on the
circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a
claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or
his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance
that the wife is educated and could support herself.
The court must take into consideration the status of
the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for
her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon
factual situations; the Court should mould the claim
for maintenance based on various factors brought
before it.
80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the
husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for
his own maintenance, and dependent family members
whom he is obliged to maintain under the law,
liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into
consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of
maintenance to be paid. The Court must have due
regard to the standard of living of the husband, as
well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of
living. The plea of the husband that he does not
possess any source of income ipso facto does not
absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if
he is able bodied and has educational qualifications.
17
81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between
all relevant factors. The test for determination of
maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the
financial status of the respondent, and the standard of
living that the applicant was accustomed to in her
matrimonial home. The maintenance amount awarded
must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of
the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife
should neither be so extravagant which becomes
oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor
should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to
penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be
adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself
with reasonable comfort.
82. Section 23 of HAMA provides statutory guidance
with respect to the criteria for determining the
quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section
23 of HAMA provides the following factors which may
be taken into consideration : (i) position and status of
the parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii) if
the petitioner/claimant is living separately, the
justification for the same, (iv) value of the claimant’s
property and any income derived from such property,
(v) income from claimant’s own earning or from any
other source.
83. Section 20(2) of the D.V. Act provides that the
monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman
and/or the children must be adequate, fair, reasonable,
and consistent with the standard of living to which the
aggrieved woman was accustomed to in her
matrimonial home.
18
84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hedge v Smt. Saroj
Hegde laid down the following factors to be
considered for determining maintenance :
“1. Status of the parties.
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.
3.The independent income and property of the
claimant.
4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has
to maintain.
5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in
a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the
matrimonial home.
6. Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any.
7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter,
education, medical attendance and treatment
etc. of the applicant.
8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant.
9. Some guess work is not ruled out while
estimating the income of the non-applicant when
all the sources or correct sources are not
disclosed.
10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of
litigation.
11. The amount awarded under Section 125
Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded
under Section 24 of the Act.”
19
19. So far as the income tax return filed by the petitioner and his yearly
income shown in the copy of said income tax return filed in the
present criminal revision is concerned, the income tax return is not
the conclusive proof of yearly income of the petitioner for grant of
maintenance amount and it is not an accurate guide of real income.
In the matter of “Kiran Tomar and Others v. State of U.P. and
Another” 2022 SCC Online SC 1539, in Para 10 of its judgement,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:-
“10 On the first aspect, it is well-settled that income
tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate
guide of the real income. Particularly, when parties are
engaged in a matrimonial conflict, there is a tendency
to underestimate income. Hence, it is for the Family
Court to determine on a holistic assessment of the
evidence what would be the real income of the second
respondent so as to enable the appellants to live in a
condition commensurate with the status to which they
were accustomed during the time when they were
staying together. The two children are aged 17 and 15
years, respectively, and their needs have to be duly
met.”
20. Therefore, taking into consideration all these facts and the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, further in view of the judgment
of Kiran Tomar (supra), the income tax return cannot be taken as an
accurate guide to determine the maintenance amount and the said
document does not help the petitioner in the present case, this Court
is of the opinion that the learned Family Court has rightly considered
the application of the respondents and granted monthly maintenance
20
of Rs. 25,000/- to them, which is payable from the date of application
and the maintenance amount towards the respondents No. 2 and
3/daughters is payable till their majority or till their disability due to
their physical or mental incapability.
21. No illegality or perversity is found in the impugned order and
therefore, the revision petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed.
Interim order, if any, shall stands vacated.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved