Even assuming for a moment that there was a divorce between the parties, it would be relevant at this juncture to refer to the reported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajathi v. C. Ganesan MANU/SC/0412/1999 : AIR 1999 SC 2374. The Hon'ble Court in paragraph 7 held thus
Even though wife was unable to prove that husband has remarried, yet the fact remained that the husband was living with another woman. That would entitle the wife to live separately and would amount to neglect or refusal by the husband to maintain her. Statement of the wife that she is unable to maintain herself would be enough and it would be for the husband to prove otherwise. {Para 33}
34. It clearly follows from the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the husband is remarried and living with another woman that itself entitles the wife to live separately and would amount to neglect or refuse by the husband to maintain her.
In the instant case, it is admitted position that, the applicant has remarried with some another woman. Therefore, in the facts of this case it was not necessary for the wife to prove that, the husband has neglected or refused to maintain her. In fact as per the aforesaid pronouncement, the burden was on the husband to prove otherwise.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
Criminal Application No. 3897 of 2007
Decided On: 15.12.2009
Gulabrao Nagorao Ingole Vs. Dwarkabai Gulabrao Ingole
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sambhaji Shiwaji Shinde, J.
Citation: 2010 CRLJ 1471,MANU/MH/1468/2009.
1. This application takes exception to the judgment and order dated 13th September, 2007 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Revision No. 109/2005. It is further prayed by the applicant that the judgment and order dated 11th August, 2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First class (2nd Court), Wardha, in Misc. Criminal Application No. 19/2004 should be confirmed.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The non-applicant herein is the original applicant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wardha. She is legally wedded wife of the original non-applicant and their marriage was solemnized before about 40 years back in the year 1961. After the marriage the original applicant started cohabiting with the original non-applicant at his house. From this wedlock, the original applicant and original non-applicant had no issue. Since 40 years there was no dispute between the original applicant and the original non-applicant but since last two years the original non-applicant started to ill-treat the original applicant and beat her. There was a quarrel about one year back and then the original non-applicant drove the original applicant from his house. She started to reside at Jamni in her parents' house.
3. It is further case of the original applicant/wife that at about three months back, she had been to the house of original non-applicant with intention to cohabit with him, but he did not allow her to stay in a house. Therefore, she again returned to Jamni. She is old aged lady and is unable to do any thing. She has no source of income. Further the original non-applicant during the span of two years did not provide any money for her maintenance. According to the original applicant, he is in Government service and earns handsome salary. The original applicant/wife requires Rs. 1,500/-per month towards her maintenance.
4. The original non-applicant/husband filed his reply at Exhibit 10. He has denied that the original applicant is his legally wedded wife and she resided with him for 40 years. There was no ill-treatment by the original non-applicant since last two years and he did not drove her out of the house about one year back. The original non-applicant submitted that the original applicant was married with him on 25/6/1961. Thereafter the original applicant came to his house and resided 2-3 days only. There is no cohabitation for 2-3 days. Then the original applicant went to her parents' house at Jamni for Aakhadi festival. Since then the original applicant never came to the house of original non-applicant to live married life. Thereafter there was a divorce between them on 14-7-1965 as per the customs prevalent in their society. In view of this divorce, the original applicant has given up her right of maintenance from the original non-applicant. Since the date of divorce the original applicant is residing with her parents. After the divorce, the original non-applicant has performed second marriage with one Durgabai from whom the original non- applicant has begotten five children. In such circumstances, the original applicant is not entitled to get any maintenance.
5. According to the original non-applicant/husband, he is now retired from his services who was working as a Instructor in I.T.I., Nagpur. His two sons are running Tea Canteen. The original non-applicant has also filed proceedings in Industrial Court, which are pending. Due to this pendency, the original non-applicant is not getting any pension from his services. He has no source of income. Therefore, he is not able to give any maintenance to the original applicant. Therefore, the original non-applicant prayed that the application is liable to be rejected.
6. The trial Court has framed as many as five points for its determination and the application filed by the original applicant/wife came to be rejected.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11-8-2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (2nd Court), Wardha, the non-applicant herein wife filed Criminal Revision No. 109/2005. The revisional Court by judgment and order dated 13-9-2007 allowed the revision and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class( 2nd Court), Wardha came to be set aside. The application for maintenance filed by the wife came to be allowed. Hence, this criminal application filed by the applicant/husband.
8. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the marriage with non-applicant has taken place on 25-6-1961. After the marriage, the non-applicant resided with the applicant for a period of 2-3 days. There was no cohabitation. The applicant tried his level best to convince the non-applicant, but she refused. Therefore, the parties decided to get separated and they executed divorce agreement as per their custom on 14-7-1965 in presence of witnesses.
9. The learned Advocate invited my attention to Clause (6) of the said deed and submitted that the case filed by the applicant for restitution of conjugal rights against the non- applicant Dwarkabai by will came to an end. The learned Advocate further submitted that in cross-examination, the non- applicant Dwarkabai admitted that after the marriage, she resided for four years and thereafter she started residing with her parents at Jamni. She also admitted that thereafter she never went to reside with the applicant Gulabrao. She also admitted that she never went to reside with the applicant. She has also stated in her cross-examination that she has written the application as per instructions of her Advocate. It is further submitted that the non-applicant made a false statement in paragraph 2 of the application for grant of maintenance. In fact the non-applicant has written in the said application that there was no dispute between the applicant and non-applicant since from last 40 years. But the applicant from the last two years started to ill-treat the non-applicant and beat her without any fault on her part. According to the learned Advocate the statement is totally contradictory to the findings given by both the Courts below and therefore, it shows the conduct of the non-applicant while approaching the Court.
10. It is further submitted that the revision is filed suppressing the fact for mutual agreement of divorce. The non-applicant filed application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of maintenance before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (2nd Court), Wardha. The Judicial Magistrate First Class (2nd Court), Wardha has rightly held that there is no evidence on the part of the present non- applicant that the present applicant deserted her and neglected her. On the contrary, it has been held that she is residing separately from the present applicant at her own accord. It is further held that the non-applicant has not proved that the applicant is getting pension and therefore, the application for maintenance filed on behalf of non-applicant has rightly been rejected by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (2nd Court), Wardha.
11. It is further submitted that the Sessions Judge, Wardha has not framed the essential point while entering and deciding the revision filed by the present non-applicant. The learned Advocate invited my attention to paragraph 5 of the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Wardha and submitted that, the Sessions Court in said paragraph has stated that, "it is admitted position that marriage of Dwarkabai took place 40 years back and admittedly Dwarkabai is not residing with Gulabrao and she was not residing with Gulabrao when the application was filed."
12. It is further submitted that it is important to note that in the present case Gulabrao never neglected or refused to Dwarkabai. When divorce took place, that time Gulabrao was not married second time. It is by consent and agreement the parties have chosen to reside separately and admittedly for last 4 years before filing of application and even prior to filing of application Dwarkabai never resided with Gulabrao and this fact has been admitted by her in her cross-examination. Therefore, the learned Advocate submits that the reasoning given by the Sessions Judge, Wardha is not sustainable in law.
13. It is further submitted that Sub-section (4) of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that, "no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent".
14. The learned Advocate further invited my attention to the judgment reported in case of Malayaiah v. Smt. G.S. Vasantha Lakshmi and Ors. MANU/KA/0117/1996 : 1997 Cri.L.J. 163 and submitted that in paragraph 6 of the said judgment, it has been stated
Sub-section (4) of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code disentitles a wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in cases where the husband and wife live separately by mutual consent.
15. The learned Advocate further submitted that when the wife is living separately on her own accord with her parents and there is no evidence of ill-treatment by husband and husband has not refused or rejected the wife to maintain and it has not established by wife then grant to maintenance by wife by revisional Court without giving reasons is not proper.
16. The learned Advocate further invited my attention to the reported judgment of this Court in case of Sanjay Sudhakar Bhosale v. Khristina Sanjay Bhosale 2008 Cri.L.J. 833 (BOM.).
17. The learned Advocate further invited my attention to the reported judgment in the case of Anil Kumar Mamgain v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. 2007 Cri.L.J. 725 (UTR.). Therefore, the learned Advocate for the applicant submits that this matter required consideration. The application deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the revisional Court.
18. The learned Advocate appearing for the non-applicant submitted that the application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by the applicant is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. It is further submitted that, it is pertinent to note that under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if the non-applicant had preferred a revision and the revision was allowed, the applicant could only file revision against the decision of the revisional Court. Since it becomes the first revision filed by the husband who was the respondent in the revision filed by the wife.
19. The learned Advocate invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Balbir Kaur alias Hamir Kaur, 1983 Crimes 952. On the basis of the said judgment, the leaned Advocate submits that the revision is maintainable if both the revision applications are not filed by the same parties. Therefore, the learned Advocate submits that the statutory remedy under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. was available but was not invoked by the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant cannot invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. when alternate remedy is available.
20. The learned Advocate in support of his contention relied on the reported judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0103/1977 : AIR 1978 SC 47. It is further submitted that the inherent powers under Section 482 cannot be invoked when alternate remedy is available. The criminal application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
21. The learned Advocate further submitted that though the contention of the applicant that there was divorce as per customs on 14-7-1965 such custom was not proved as per the judgments of the Courts below. The applicant/husband as per his pleadings performed second marriage with Durgabai in 1966. Due to such admissions given by the applicant, it is evident that the non-applicant Dwarkabai could not cohabit with the applicant since 1966. Thus, on the basis of the applicant's own pleadings, it is established that the non- applicant had never deserted the applicant.
22. It is further submitted that admittedly the applicant was in Government Service and is getting pension. The applicant has two sons from his second wife and are running a Tea Stall and are not dependent on applicant. The daughters also got married and are not depending on the applicant. Since both the Courts below have held that the marriage of the applicant with non-applicant was not legally dissolved as it was not established that there was a custom of getting divorce by mutual consent. Thus, it was rightly held by the revisional Court that the applicant is liable to pay maintenance to the non-applicant/wife. It is further submitted that the wife can claim maintenance at any point of time and there is no limitation as such for filing application for maintenance.
23. The learned Advocate in support of his contention relied on the reported judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Golla Seetharamulu v. Golla Rathanamma and Anr. 1991 Criminal 1533. The learned Advocate, therefore, submits that the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that 'there is no limitation period for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.' It was also held that 'plea of waiver is not available to husband'. Therefore, the wife has rightly filed the application for maintenance and same has rightly been entertained by the revisional Court.
24. The learned Advocate further submitted that, in the alleged divorce deed, there was stipulation about the relinquishment of right of maintenance, however the said contention is not sustainable in the eye of law. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the reported judgment in case of Rajnit Kaur v. Pavittar Singh MANU/PH/0415/1991 : 1992 Cri.L.J. 262 held that "such an agreement between the husband and wife is opposed to public policy and is not valid under the provisions of 125 of Criminal Procedure code." Thus, it was rightly observed by the revisional Court in para 8 of the judgment that the document purportedly is of no value in the eye of law.
25. The learned Advocate further submitted that the applicant is staying with his second wife since 1966, the non applicant had a valid reason to stay separately from her husband and it cannot be said that the non-applicant has deserted her husband without reasonable excuse. It is further submitted that as per Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C., the non- applicant had sufficient reason for living away from the husband. The word "cruelty" in old Cr.P.C. has been replaced by the words "sufficient reason' in Cr.P.C. 1973. Thus the Sessions Judge has rightly held that there was desertion by the wife in the instant case.
26. The learned Advocate further submitted that as per definition of "wife" in Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, "if the divorced wife is unable to maintain herself and she has no remarried, she will be entitled to maintenance allowance." It has come on record that the non-applicant has not remarried and therefore, she is unable to maintain herself and therefore, the learned Advocate submits that the application deserves to be dismissed.
27. I have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant and non-applicant at length. Perused the application and annexures thereto and documents made available by the parties and also the case law relied on the subject. After perusal of criminal application which was filed on behalf of the non-applicant/wife for grant of maintenance it is clear that, the non-applicant is legally wedded wife of the applicant and their marriage was solemnized before forty years i.e. in the year 1961. So far ill-treatment meted out by the applicant to non- applicant is concerned, the relevant pleadings in application are as under:
It is submitted that there are no issues to the applicant from the non-applicant during their wedlock. It is submitted that there were no disputes between the applicant and the non-applicant during the residence of the applicant with the non-applicant from last forty years, but it is submitted that the applicant from the last two years started to ill-treat the non-applicant and beat her without any fault on her part. Accordingly, the non-applicant, before one year picked up quarrel with the applicant and gave filthy abuses other and ultimately drove out of the house and did not allow her to enter the house. There being no alternative the applicant was required to shift her residence at Jamni, Tahsil-Seloo, District-Wardha and since then she is living at Jamni
28. In reply to aforesaid averments in the application for maintenance filed by the non-applicant/wife, the applicant/husband herein in para 2 of the written statement filed on 30th June, 2004 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wardha has stated thus:
The alleged applicant is not the wife of the non-applicant and hence no question of wedlock and no question of issues. It is false that the alleged applicant and non-applicant resided together since last 40 years and there was no dispute.
In the said para, it is further stated that
The alleged applicant never resided with the non-applicant in any year since last forty years up till now and hence no question to drove the alleged applicant out of the house.
To para 4 of the application for maintenance, it is replied by the applicant/husband that -
It is false that the alleged applicant is legally wedded wife of non-applicant.
29. Therefore, in reply to paragraphs 2 and 4 of the application for maintenance, the applicant/husband even denied the factum of marriage between the parties. It means as stated by the applicant/husband himself that the non- applicant is not the wife of the applicant and there is no question of wedlock and no question of issues. However, surprisingly in paragraph 8 of the written statement it is further stated that,
It is submitted that the alleged applicant Dwarkabai was married with the non-applicant on 25-6-1961. Then the alleged applicant came to the house of the non-applicant and resided about 2-3 days. It is submitted that there was no cohabitation and even not consumed marital life with the alleged applicant during 2-3 days since the marriage dated 25-6-1961.
In the said paragraph, it is stated that,
Thereafter the alleged applicant and the non-applicant took divorce as per the custom on 14-7-1965 in presence of the witnesses and they have singed on that divorce deed. As per that divorce deed dated 24-7-1965 the alleged applicant never come to the house of the non-applicant for leading marital life with the non-applicant.
30. On careful perusal of paragraphs 2, 4 and 8, it would clearly reveal that, the applicant herein who was non-applicant before the Court below has taken different stand on oath in the same written statement filed on his behalf. Therefore, the question would arise, whether this Court should exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to entertain the application on behalf of a person who approaches with two different stands through his written statement before the competent Court ? Certainly the applicant who takes contradictory stand before the competent Court has not approached the Courts below with clean hands. Therefore, the conduct of the applicant disentitles him for invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is apparent that by taking different stands in paragraphs 2, 4 and 8 the applicant/husband has certainly misled the competent Court.
31. The Courts below have recorded the findings that there was a marriage between the applicant and non-applicant in the year 1961. The contention of the applicant/husband that there was a customary divorce between the parties, has been negated by the revisional Court. There is no separate adjudication by any competent Court on the point of customary divorce and even no specific point was framed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class while entertaining the contention of the applicant/husband that there was a customary divorce and as per the term in the said divorce deed, the wife is not entitled for the maintenance. It is admitted position that, there was no legal divorce between the parties. Therefore, the revisional Court in paragraph 8 of its judgment held that,
After going through the record, it appears that original of the said document was brought by Gulabrao at the time of evidence. On the basis of that this xerox copy was exhibited. However it is material to note that there is absolutely no evidence on record about any such customary divorce. I find that the said document has no legal sanctity. Thus, the document purporting to be a divorce deed is of no value in the eye of law and hence that is of no help for deciding the dispute between the parties.
32. On perusal of the contents of the application and upon hearing learned Advocate appearing for the applicant, no case is made out to upset the aforesaid findings recorded by the revisional Court. Therefore, there was no legal divorce. The customary divorce has not been proved by the applicant by way of bringing any evidence on record about any such custom to take such customary divorce.
33. Even assuming for a moment that there was a divorce between the parties, it would be relevant at this juncture to refer to the reported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajathi v. C. Ganesan MANU/SC/0412/1999 : AIR 1999 SC 2374. The Hon'ble Court in paragraph 7 held thus
Even though wife was unable to prove that husband has remarried, yet the fact remained that the husband was living with another woman. That would entitle the wife to live separately and would amount to neglect or refusal by the husband to maintain her. Statement of the wife that she is unable to maintain herself would be enough and it would be for the husband to prove otherwise.
34. It clearly follows from the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the husband is remarried and living with another woman that itself entitles the wife to live separately and would amount to neglect or refuse by the husband to maintain her.
In the instant case, it is admitted position that, the applicant has remarried with some another woman. Therefore, in the facts of this case it was not necessary for the wife to prove that, the husband has neglected or refused to maintain her. In fact as per the aforesaid pronouncement, the burden was on the husband to prove otherwise. That apart the statement of the wife that she is unable to maintain herself was sufficient and it was for the husband to prove otherwise. It is also well settled by this time that, even the divorcee woman is entitled for the maintenance if evidence is brought on record to that effect and as long as she is not remarried. In the instant case, the revisional Court has recorded the findings that there was no legal or customary divorce between the parties. Therefore, once the finding is recorded that there was no customary divorce, then the second question would naturally arise that, if the husband has remarried during the subsistence of first marriage, whether the wife is entitled for the maintenance ? This question is already answered by the aforesaid discussion and by the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajathi v. C. Ganesan MANU/SC/0412/1999 : AIR 1999 SC 2374 cited (Supra).
35. In the light of observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajathi v. C. Ganesan MANU/SC/0412/1999 : AIR 1999 SC 2374 cited (Supra), the findings recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class that the wife failed to establish that husband has refused and neglected to maintain wife has to be discarded.
36. Coming to the another aspect of the matter that whether the applicant/husband is having sufficient source to maintain the wife to pay the maintenance is concerned, it is admitted position that the applicant/husband was working in the Government Department and he is receiving pension. In absence of any assertion in his reply before the Courts below that he is earning a particular amount, the inference drawn by the revisional Court that the wife is entitled for Rs. 1,500/towards maintenance and the applicant/husband has sufficient source to pay Rs. 1,500/-, is correct finding recorded by the revisional Court which needs no inference. The applicant/husband did not approach the Courts below with specific assertion that he is getting specific amount of pension or he has limited source of income by bringing on record about his source of income. Therefore, the revisional Court has rightly held that the applicant/husband is having sufficient source of income to pay the maintenance amount to non- applicant/wife. It would not be out of place to take the note of written notes of argument filed on behalf of the non- applicant/wife that the applicant was in Government service and is getting pension. The applicant has two sons from second wife and they are running tea stall and not depending on applicant and the daughters of the applicant from second marriage have also got married and are not depending on the applicant.
37. The applicant has contended that the wife has approached to the Court for claiming maintenance after 40 years from the date of their separation. In support of his contention the learned Advocate has relied on the reported judgment of the Karnataka High Court in case of Malayaiah v. Smt. G.S. Vasantha Lakshmi and Ors. MANU/KA/0117/1996 : 1997 Cri.L.J. 163. According to the applicant, since there was divorce the non-applicant/wife is not entitled for the maintenance. The learned Advocate, therefore, relying on the aforesaid judgment and submitted that if there is a divorce, the wife is not entitled to claim the maintenance. In fact is not necessary to give a specific findings on this point since the aforesaid judgment refers to 'divorce by mutual consent' and in the instant case, the wife has denied the fact of divorce. That apart, as already observed in foregoing paras that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has by back in 1999 held that 'even the divorcee woman is entitled for the maintenance.'
38. The another point which is raised by the learned Advocate for the applicant that there is a gap of forty years and after that application for maintenance is filed is concerned, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Golla Seetharamulu v. Golla Rathanamma and Anr. MANU/AP/0096/1990 : 1991 Cri.L.J. 1533 held that
Section 125, Cr.P.C. has not restricted the period to claim maintenance. When statute has not prohibited wife to claim maintenance within any period of limitation, the husband is not entitled to plead that his wife has waived her right to claim maintenance due to long lapse of 10 or 12 years after she left his house. Due to the changed circumstance in her parents' house, her parents may not be willing to maintain her and they may not be in a position to maintain her since other children have grown up and some other problems might have cropped up in her family. Under these circumstances the husband is not entitled to raise the plea that the wife is waived her right to claim maintenance after a long lapse of 12 years.
39. The learned Advocate for the applicant has further argued that no separate points were framed by the revisional Court on each aspect while entertaining the revision application filed by the non-applicant/wife is concerned, the perusal of findings recorded by the revisional Court would show that, the revisional court has discussed and has given findings on each point though technically specific points were not framed on each aspects of the matter. Since proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code are some ought of civil nature, the rules of evidence do not strictly apply to the said proceedings and therefore, the contention of the applicant that no specific points were framed by the revisional Court and therefore, the said judgment and order is not sustainable in law, is required to be rejected.
40. The learned Advocate appearing for the non- applicant/wife has raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of the criminal application by the husband against the judgment and order passed in revision by contending that, the revision is maintainable before this Court and therefore, this Court may not entertain this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent pronouncement in case of Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2009) 2 SCC 370 held that though the remedy of revision under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code is available, that itself would not debar the High Court from exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, I do not find any force in the said submissions advanced by the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant/wife.
41. The contention raised by the learned Advocate for the applicant that in view of the conditions in the divorce deed, the wife was not entitled to claim maintenance, it has been already discussed herein above that the theory of customary divorce has been negated by the revisional Court when there is no legal divorce between the parties. There is no question of following any condition as contended by the leaned Advocate appearing for the applicant. That apart, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Ranjit Kaur v. Pavittar Singh MANU/PH/0415/1991 : 1992 Cri.L.J. 262 held that such an agreement between the husband and wife is opposed to public policy and is against clear intendment of provisions of Section 125."
42. In the above background and discussion herein above, the application filed by the applicant/husband challenging the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Revision No. 109/2005 dated 13-9-2007 deserves to be rejected.
43. In my considered view, the revisional Court taking into consideration the documents as well as the evidence brought on record and after appreciating rival contentions has rightly allowed the claim of the non-applicant/wife.
Therefore, the Criminal Application stands dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
The miscellaneous applications, if any, stands disposed of, in view of the dismissal of the main application.
No comments:
Post a Comment