Smt. Tikeshwari Chouhan vs Shri Anil Chouhan
2022 Latest Caselaw 7388 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                    NAFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                      F.A. (MAT) No. 50 of 2019

                Judgment Reserved on : 18.11.2022

                Judgment Delivered on : 08.12.2022

Smt. Tikeshwari Chouhan, W/o Shri Anil Chouhan, aged about 32
years, D/o Shri Ashok Singh Thakur, R/o Gali No. 9, Vivakanand
Ashram, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.)

                                                  ---Appellant/Defendant

                                Versus

Shri Anil Chouhan, S/o Shri Laxman Singh Chouhan, aged about
34 years, R/o Senior M.I.G. 49, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil &
District Raipur (C.G.)

                                                 ---- Respondent/Plaintiff



For Appellant                : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent               : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Adv.


               Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
              Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

                             CAV JUDGMENT

Per N.K. Chandravanshi, J.

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/wife

against the judgment & decree dated 17.10.2019 passed by First

Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in H.M.A. No.

322/15 whereby application filed by respondent/husband seeking

divorce under Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

(henceforth "The Act, 1955") was allowed in favour of

respondent/husband.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that an application under

Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Act, 1955 was filed by the

respondent/husband for grant of decree of divorce before Family

Court, Raipur pleading inter alia that his marriage was solemnized

with the appellant/wife on 17.05.2011 according to Hindu rites and

rituals, but after marriage attitude and behaviour of wife was not

good and respectful towards husband and his parents. She

always used to quarrel and abuse on petty issues along with them.

After 10 days of their marriage, marriage of younger sister of

husband was scheduled to be held and on the said occasion

relatives were coming, at that time, wife started quarreling with

them to live separately. Paternal house of wife is also at Raipur,

hence, she used to go there without informing husband and

despite several efforts to bring her back, she did not return for

many days. After about 4-5 months of their marriage, she went to

her paternal home without informing them and when she was

talked over telephone by husband, she got angered and used filthy

language and also threatened to commit suicide, then husband

somehow managed to bring her back. On 25.04.2012, she again

quarreled with husband to live separately from his parents and

threatened to implicate them in dowry case and send them to jail.

She also refused to celebrate their first wedding anniversary on

17.05.2012, as at that time she was at her parental home. On

assurance given by the parents of wife, that she will not quarrel

and also not compel to live separately, husband brought her back

on 30.05.2012, but after few days, she again started quarreling on

petty issues with her husband and mother-in-law and also insisting

to live separately. Whenever husband tried to explain her not to do

such type of act, she threatened to commit suicide by saying that

"you always keep your parents' side". When mother-in-law did not

permit her to keep fast, as she (wife) was pregnant at the relevant

point of time, then wife quarreled with her in front of husband and

his father. Thereafter, wife did not talk with husband for many days

and due to her such attitude, mother of husband was compelled to

do household work, as wife did not do the said household work.

Firstly when the husband & his family members has made

complaint to her father about her such attitude & behaviour, then

her brother came and took her at parental house, while going, the

wife threatened to kill their child. From December, 2012 to June,

2013, wife did not return, hence, husband made complaint (Ex.P-1)

at Police Station Amanaka, Raipur on 12.06.2013.

2.1. On being given intimation (Ex.P-2) under Section 155 of the

Cr.P.C., husband made complaint on 22.06.2013 (Ex.P-3) at

Mahila Police Station, Raipur. On the same day, wife delivered

female child and when the said fact was informed to the husband,

he went to the Hospital to meet them, but she refused to come

back with him. Despite being asked by husband, wife did not

permit him to celebrate birth of child by organizing function at his

house.

2.2. After first phase of counseling held between 6.7.2013 to

12.8.2013, on 18.08.2013, wife alongwith her parents and brother

came to the house of husband and her parents threatened, that if

they will not keep their daughter, then she would commit suicide by

ablazing herself in front of all, thereafter, her parents left her at her

matrimonial home. Feeling aggrieved & dissatisfied with the

allegation made by her parents, husband returned Centro Car,

which he had received in the marriage. After 1 or 2 months, wife

again started quarelling to live separately from her in-laws and

threatened them to commit suicide and also kill their daughter by

slamming. On 17.03.2014, she again started compelling husband

to live separately in the separate house, otherwise she will commit

suicide, therefore, they started living separately in a room situated

at outside of parental house of husband. It is further alleged that on

27.10.2014, wife again insisted to live in separate rented house

and imprecate husband and cut her hand by blade and was going

to jump from roof with an intention to end her life. On being

informed, her parents and police personnel came and explained

her. After coming back from police station, wife again asked to take

rented house, thereafter, as per her wish, on 27.10.2014 husband

left her at her parental home and on 30.10.2014, he made

complaint (Ex.P-4) to Mahila Police Station, thereafter, again

counseling held between 17.11.2014 to 18.02.2015, wherein

counsellors explained them. On 31.12.2014, wife quarreled with

husband and abused his parents and imprecated them, who had

gone to pilgrimage. Thereafter, on many times like on 15.1.2015 &

15.2.2015, wife quarreled with husband and his family members

and also imprecated them.

2.3. On 27.03.2015, a Durga Ashtimi Puja was organized by

mother of husband. On that day also, wife quarreled with them,

abused them and also damaged the articles of Puja. On being

informed, police came there and explained the wife. On same day

i.e. on 27.03.2015, wife left her matrimonial home alongwith their

daughter without informing husband. Since then, she has left the

company of husband and residing at her parental home, despite

repeated efforts, she did not return. Hence, the husband filed the

aforesaid application under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Act, 1955

seeking divorce.

3. In reply, wife/appellant denied all the allegations levelled

against her and has pleaded that neither she has quarreled with

husband nor her mother-in-law nor pressurized him to live

separately from her in-laws, rather husband used to ask her to

bring golden chain and bracelet from her parents. It is alleged that

husband and his family members used to scold her over petty

issues and assaulted her also. It is also alleged that her in-laws

used to pressuriz her to give dowry articles, which she received in

her marriage, in the marriage of sister of her husband and when

she refused to do so, then her mother-in-law humiliated and

quarreled with her. It is further alleged by the wife that she was

tortured physically and mentally by her husband and in-laws, even,

she was not provided proper treatment at the time of birth of her

child, therefore, she had come to her parental home and her child

was born while residing there. Appellant/wife further pleaded that

husband had made false complaints many times against her at

police station only to create false evidence against her. Thus,

husband and his family members themselves have harassed her

physically & mentally and have filed application for divorce, on

false and fabricated grounds.

4. Learned Family Court, after framing issues on the basis of

pleadings of the parties and after affording due opportunity of

hearing to them, has granted decree of divorce in favour of

respondent/husband on the ground of cruelty meted out to him by

the appellant/wife. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife would submit that the

learned Family Court has granted decree of divorce on the ground

of cruelty but respondent/husband has not taken such plea in his

petition. It is further submitted that in order to prove cruelty, the

husband has pleaded alleged inappropriate conduct and behavior

of wife but the same has not been proved by adducing any

concrete evidence, rather husband himself does not want to keep

her with him, therefore, he created atmosphere, by which, wife was

compelled and forced to live at parental house. Husband and his

mother used to torture her physically and mentally on various

counts, only because wife refused to give her L=h/ku in the

marriage of her sister in law. Thus, matrimonial offence is

committed by husband and as per matrimonial jurisprudence, the

party, who is guilty of committing matrimonial offence, cannot be

termed as aggrieved party to grant decree of divorce. In the

instant case, wife is always ready to live with her husband but

husband has categorically denied in his statement to keep her with

him.

5.1 It is further submitted that, after granting decree of divorce

vide judgment dated 17.10.2019, on very next day i.e. on

18.10.2019 appeal was filed by the wife and vide order dated

18.11.2019, effect & operation of the impugned judgment & decree

was stayed by this Court, despite that husband performed second

marriage on 23.11.2019. This conduct shows that husband himself

is not ready to keep wife with him and has filed divorce petition on

false and fabricated grounds. It is further submitted that although

cruelty has not been proved by the husband, despite that if alleged

inappropriate conduct and behaviour of wife are seen, then it is

evident from the facts narrated by husband in his pleadings and

counselling papers Ex.P-10 (Page 59 to 61), that there are two

sets of alleged dispute between the parties, firstly before first set of

counselling held between 6.7.2013 to 12.8.2013, and secondly,

second set of counseling held between 17.11.2014 to 18.02.2015.

It is submitted that after first set of counseling, on 18.8.2013, wife

went to her matrimonial home and then till 27.10.2014, both were

resided together and enjoyed matrimonial life. Thus, husband had

condoned and forgiven wife's alleged misconduct / behaviour.

Therefore, alleged misconduct or behaviour prior to 27.10.2014

could not be taken into consideration to assume cruelty on the part

of wife, as counselling papers dated 12.01.2015 & 18.02.2015

(page 61) do not show any matrimonial offence committed by wife,

which could be termed as cruelty up to the level for granting

decree of divorce. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Dr. N.G. Dastane

v. Mrs. S. Dastane 1 and R. Balasubramanian v. Smt.

Vijaylakshmi 2.

5.2. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife further argued that

dispute between husband and wife were normal domestic dispute,

which happens in families of such financial status, as parties in the

instant case have. In this regard, he relied in the case of Gurbux

Singh v. Harminder Kaur 3, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held

that mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of

married life which happens in day to day life in all families would

1 1975 (2) SCC 326 2 AIR 1999 SC 3070 3 AIR 2011 SC 114

not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Hence, it is prayed that appeal may be allowed by setting aside the

judgment & decree of the trial Court.

6.    On      the    contrary,     learned       counsel      for     the

respondent/husband     would     submit   that   after     marriage   on

17.05.2011, marital life of husband & wife was not well and

ultimately on 27.03.2015, wife has deserted the husband, in

between, their married life was neither well nor peaceful, as since

beginning wife used to quarrel with husband and his mother and

frequently used to go to her parental home without informing them.

When, it was objected, she abused them and also threatened to

send them behind the bar in dowry case. She also threatened

many times to commit suicide, because she always used to

pressurize husband to live separately from his old aged parents,

whereas respondent/husband is only son of his parents, due to

such offensive and arrogant behaviour, husband had made four

written complaints at police station on various dates. It is further

submitted that after first set of counselling held between 6.7.2013

to 12.8.2013, they lived together, despite that her conduct and

behaviour did not change towards them and she again returned in

her earlier offensive and arrogant attitude, threatened them to

commit suicide and cut her hand by blade & due to pressure

created by her, respondent left her to her parental home. On being

complaint made by respondent/husband, again counseling held

between them, despite that she did not change her behavour and

after making quarrel and assaulting and abusing husband and his

mother, she left her matrimonial home on 27.03.2015 along with

their daughter. Despite various efforts made by husband, conduct

and behaviour of the wife did not change and she did not return

matrimonial home, due to which husband sufferred various mental

and physical torture, which has been proved by him by adducing

oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, there is no illegality or

infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court

in the instant appeal, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

8. It is evident from the record that marriage between the

parties was held on 17.05.2011 and appellant/wife is residing

separately from her husband since 27.03.2015. In this regard,

husband - Anil Chouhan (PW-1) has alleged her inappropriate

conduct and behaviour by stating that she frequently used to go to

her parental home without informing them and live there for long

time. On being asked about the same, she used to misbehave &

abuse in filthy language. He has further deposed that wife always

insulted the respondent/husband and his parents, as she always

insisted him to live separately from his parents by threatening him

to implicate them in dowry case and to commit suicide. Husband

(PW-1) has further deposed that looking to her persistent such

conduct and behaviour, he had made complaint on 12.6.2013

(Ex.P-1) at Police Station Amanaka, Raipur. But, police did not

take any action and give written information under Section 155 of

the Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-2), thereafter, he again made written complaint

on 22.6.2013 (Ex.P-3) at Mahila Police Station, Raipur mentioning

several misconduct and misbehaviour of wife.

9. Statement of husband - Anil Chouhan (PW-1) would go to

show that pursuant to the aforesaid complaints, counseling was

held between 6.7.2013 to 12.08.2013 in Family Reconciliation

Centre. Thereafter, they lived together, but after few months, she

again started quarreling with husband and mother in law and

insisted husband to live separately from his parents, else she

threatened, to commit suicide. To save matrimonial life, husband

lived separately alongwith wife in the same house, despite that her

conduct and behaviour did not change and she further insisted him

to take rented house at different place. When husband refused to

do so, then she attempted to commit suicide by cutting her hand

and also going to jump from roof. On being informed by husband

to the parents of the wife & Police on 27.10.2014, they came and

explained her not to do such type of act, despite that her conduct &

behaviour did not change and as per her wishes, husband left her

at her parental house. In this regard, he again made complaint

(Ex.P-4) on 30.10.2014 at Mahila Police Station, Raipur. Again

counseling was held between 17/18.11.2014 to 18.02.2015.

Thereafter, they again lived together but her attitude did not

change and even many times she imprecated husband and his

parents.

9.1 Husband - Anil Chouhan (PW-1) has further deposed that, on

27.03.2015 when husband had gone to attend Durga Ashtmi puja

organized by his mother, then wife went there and quarreled with

them and also ransacked the articles of Puja. On that day also, on

being called, police had come and explained the wife, despite that

she left her matrimonial home on same day without informing

husband. On 2.4.2015, husband again made written complaint

(Ex.P-7) to Police Station Kabir Nagar, Raipur but police gave

written intimation vide Ex.P-8 under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C.

suggesting him to take shelter of the Court. In the cross-

examination also, husband has stated that wife insisted him to live

separately from his parents and always quarrel on petty issues.

Evidence shows that as per wishes of wife, they lived separately

for few months from his parents, despite that, conduct and

behavior of the wife did not change.

10. Statement of husband - Anil Chouhan (PW-1) is well

supported by his father - Laxman Singh Chouhan (PW-2). Though

husband and his father have admitted in their cross-examination

that wife has never made complaint against them but

appellant/wife - Smt. Tikeshwari Chouhan herself has admitted in

her examination-in-chief that once she had injured herself with an

intention to end her life. She has also admitted in her cross-

examination (In paragraph 25) that on the issue of living

separately, quarrel took place between them. She has also

admitted in paragraph 27 of her cross-examination that she

quarreled with her husband but she specifically admitted that

quarrel always happened with her mother-in-law. She has admitted

that on 29.5.2012, her parents and others had gone to the house

of husband and assured them that she will live in her matrimonial

home well. Thus, aforesaid admissions of respondent/wife also

corroborates the statements of husband (PW-1) and his father

(PW-2), respectively about persistent misconduct and

misbehaviour of wife.

11. Counseling papers (Ex.P-10) [Page 59 to 61] and written

complaints made by husband to the police dated 12.6.2013

(Ex.P-1), dated 22.06.2013 (Ex.P-3), dated 30.10.2014 (Ex.P-4) &

dated 2.4.2015 (Ex. P-7) also support the statement of husband

and his father about persistent misbehaviour and threat to commit

suicide given by wife/appellant for about two years. Husband -

Amit Chouhan (PW-1) and his father Laxman Singh Chouhan

(PW-2) have also stated that they had informed about such

inappropriate behaviour of wife to her maternal uncle - Salik Singh

Thakur, through whom their marriage was settled. Hence, he may

have a good defence witness from side of the appellant/wife but he

has not been examined by her. Appellant/wife except herself has

not adduced any witness in support of her defence.

12. The Supreme Court in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.)

(1994) 1 SCC 33 held that mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a)

can broadly be defined, as that, conduct which inflicts upon the

other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not

possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental

cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably

be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the

wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put-up with such

conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary

to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the

health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard

must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties,

the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties

ever living together in case they are already living apart and all

other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible

nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case

may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be

determined in each case having regard to the facts and

circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and

allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they

were made.

13. The Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh Versus Jaya Ghosh

(2007) 4 SCC 511 has indicated the illustrative cases wherein the

inference of mental cruelty can be drawn. Para 101 is relevant and

quoted below:

"101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty". The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive :

(I) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.

(ii) On comprehensive appriasal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.

(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.

(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.

(v) A sustained course of abusive and

humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.

(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.

(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.

(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.

(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have

intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.

(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.

(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty."

14. Applying the above legal propositions, if we see the

pleadings & evidence surfaced on record of instant case and

consider the whole matrimonial life of parties, then we find that

after few months of marriage, marital life of husband and wife did

not go well due to persistent quarrelsome conduct and behaviour

of wife, as she not only quarrelled and insulted her husband to live

separately but she also abused and humiliated his parents. She

also threatened to implicate them in dowry case and to commit

suicide. Due to all these disputes, she used to leave her

matrimonial home again and again, as a consequence, husband

made various written complaints at police station; counseling was

also held between them at Family Reconciliation Centre, there

also husband made complaint about her such conduct and

behaviour. After counseling between 6.7.2013 to 12.8.2013, she

again started living alongwith her husband since 18.8.2013 but

she did not change her attitude and arrogance and again started

insisting husband to live separately, due to this, they lived

separately in the same house but it goes worthless. Wife herself

has admitted that at times she quarreled with husband but her

quarrel always happened with her mother-in-law. She has also

admitted that quarrel had taken place with regard to live separately

from her in-laws and once she had cut her hand with intention to

end her life. Due to such conduct and behaviour, husband had

made four complaints against her on various dates and counseling

again held between them in between 17.11.2014 to 18.02.2015

(Ex.P-10 page 60-61) wherein she had assured that she will not

threat to commit suicide but she remained with her earlier attitude

and, therefore, husband again had made complaint (Ex.P-7) to the

police narrating her entire conduct & misbehaviour.

15. Thus, husband -Anil Chouhan (PW-1) has proved about

continuous misconduct and misbehaviour of wife on various counts,

towards him and also towards his parents. Continuous harrassment

by wife to husband to live separately from his parents and to fulfill

her such wish persistently giving threat to commit suicide, which

compelled husband to make various complaint against her. In this

regard husband has narrated various incidents. Hence, it could not

be said that they are mere trivial irritations, quarrels or normal wear

and tear of married life, because it happened between the parties for

about two years. Such conduct and behaviour of wife for such a long

period, of-course constitute physical and mental cruelty by her

against respondent/husband, as held by the Apex Court in the case

of Samar Ghosh (Supra). Because with such persistent

misbehave and threat given by wife, how peaceful married life may

go on.

16. Although, in case of Dr. N.G. Dastane (supra), Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held that decree of divorce may be refused on

the ground of cruelty, if the same has been condoned by person,

who alleges the cruelty being committed against him/her. But, in

the instant case, after counseling in the year 2013, both the parties

again resided together and since conduct and behaviour of wife

did not change and she again started and continued her earlier

attitude, humiliating husband and his parents and also

pressurizing him to live separately and commit suicide and,

therefore, husband has again made two written complaints vide

Ex.P-4 & P7 about her such conduct and behaviour, hence, it

cannot be said that after condonation of earlier marital offence of

wife, she lived peaceful life with husband. In the case of Dr. N.G.

Dastane (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed in

paragraph 58 that,...... 'Condonation' under Section 23(1)(b)

therefore means conditional forgiveness, the implied condition

being that, no further matrimonial offence shall be committed. In

the instant case, it is apparent from evidence available on record

that even on the assumption that respondent/husband had

condoned the cruelty / matrimonial offence of wife, but

appellant/wife by her subsequent conduct violated the conditional

forgiveness, thereby she revived the original cause of action

against her, hence, arguments advanced on behalf of

appellant/wife in this regard has no substance.

17. Thus, considering the overall facts, as has been proved by

the husband against wife, we are of the opinion that the trial Court

has not committed any error in granting decree of divorce in favour

of husband on the ground of cruelty meted out to him by

appellant/wife.

18. Accordingly, the FAM, being devoid of substance, is liable to

be and is hereby dismissed. A decree be drawn-up accordingly.

19. Now coming to grant of alimony to wife, as per affidavit filed

by the appellant/wife, she is getting Rs.4,000/- and her daughter

is getting Rs.1,500/- per month from husband in a maintenance

proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. after settlement in

Lok-Adlat held between them, vide order dated 08.12.2018,

thereafter, an application has also been filed seeking

enhancement of the maintenance amount. She has also stated in

her deposition that she is not having any property in her own

name. The respondent/husband has also filed affidavit, wherein

he has stated that he has no property of his self ownership, rather

they are having two houses & one plot, but the same are in the

name of his father & mother and he is running only a photocopy

shop to earn his livelihood.

20. Thus, considering the overall financial status and other

circumstances of both the parties and in order to avoid further

litigation between them, it would be appropriate for us to grant

alimony of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the wife. Accordingly, it is

directed that respondent/husband shall pay maintenance of

Rs.10,000/- per month to the appellant/wife, which she is entitled

to receive through the court below.

                 Sd/-                                      Sd/-
           (Goutam Bhaduri)                         (N.K. Chandravanshi)
              Judge                                       Judge

Amit/-