REEMA SALKANversusSUMER SINGH SALKAN

350                     [2018] REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   12 S.C.R. 350              [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A                              REEMA SALKAN
                                        v.
                           SUMER SINGH SALKAN
                       (Criminal Appeal No. 1220 of 2018)
B                            SEPTEMBER 25, 2018
             [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND
                    DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
             Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – During the
      pendency of the application u/s.125, issue of interim maintenance
C
      travelled upto Supreme Court which granted appellant-wife
      Rs.20,000/- p.m as interim maintenance commencing from 1st Nov.
      2014 – However, Family Court fixed the final maintenance amount
      @ Rs.10,000/-p.m. starting from 17th July, 2003 till 8th Dec. 2010 –
      No maintenance was granted with effect from 8 th Dec. 2010 –
D     Revision petition filed by appellant, partly allowed by High Court
      directing respondent to pay Rs. 9,000/- p.m from 9th Dec. 2010
      onwards – Held: Family Court held that the respondent neglected
      to maintain the appellant – Such finding of fact has been upheld by
      the High Court – Both the Courts have concurrently found that, in
      law, the respondent was obliged to maintain the appellant – However,
E
      principle invoked by the High Court for determination of monthly
      maintenance amount on the basis of notional minimum income of
      the respondent as per current minimum wages in Delhi is untenable
      – Regard must be had to the living standard of the respondent and
      his family, his past conduct in successfully protracting the disposal
F     of the maintenance petition filed in the year 2003, until 2015;
      coupled with the fact that a specious and unsubstantiated plea was
      taken by him that he was unemployed from 2010, despite the fact
      that he is highly qualified and an able-bodied person; his monthly
      income while working in Canada in the year 2010 was over
      Rs.1,77,364/- – At this distance of time, keeping in mind the spiraling
G
      inflation rate and high cost of living index today, to do complete
      justice between the parties, respondent shall pay Rs.20,000/- p.m
      to the appellant with effect from January 2010 and at the rate of
      Rs.25,000/- per month with effect from 1st June, 2018 until further
      orders – Impugned judgment of the High Court modified.
H
                                       350
         REEMA SALKAN v. SUMER SINGH SALKAN                           351


       Allowing the appeal, the Court                                 A
       HELD: 1.1 The Family Court unambiguously held that the
respondent neglected to maintain the appellant, for the elaborate
reasons recorded in its judgment dated 28th January, 2015. That
finding of fact was upheld by the High Court. The Family Court
has also found as a fact that the appellant was unemployed, though    B
she is an MA in English and holds a Post-graduate Diploma in
Journalism and Mass Communication and is also a Law Graduate
enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi. The High Court has not
disturbed that finding recorded by the Family Court. Resultantly,
both the Courts have concurrently found that, in law, the
respondent was obliged to maintain the appellant. [Para 9]            C
[356-G-H; 357-A-B]
       1.2 During the pendency of the maintenance application filed
by the appellant on 16th July, 2003, the respondent’s father filed
a civil suit which, according to the appellant, was intended to
prevent attachment of the family property of the respondent from      D
execution of the order in her favour passed in the maintenance
proceedings. The suit for declaration filed by the respondent’s
father was dismissed on 30th August, 2003, after a full-fledged
trial but to prevent attachment of land/family property in interim
maintenance case, he moved an application for restoration of the
suit. Further, despite the injunction order passed by the Delhi       E
High Court dated 28th October, 2004, which was operating against
the respondent, he approached the courts in Canada and obtained
an ex-parte divorce allegedly to escape the liability to pay the
maintenance amount and also adopted delaying tactics in the
progress of the subject maintenance proceedings. [Para 12] [357-      F
G-H; 358-A-B]
       1.3 The High Court took into account all the relevant
aspects and justly rejected the plea of the respondent about
inability to pay maintenance amount to the appellant on the finding
that he was well educated [B.Com, M.A (Economics) & MBA
from USA] and an able-bodied person. Therefore, it was not open       G
to the respondent to extricate from his liability to maintain his
wife. The view so taken by the High Court is unassailable. [Para
13] [358-D-E; 360-F]
       1.4 The principle invoked by the High Court for
determination of monthly maintenance amount payable to the            H
352            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A     appellant on the basis of notional minimum income of the
      respondent as per the current minimum wages in Delhi is
      untenable. Regard must be had to the living standard of the
      respondent and his family, his past conduct in successfully
      protracting the disposal of the maintenance petition filed in the
      year 2003, until 2015; coupled with the fact that a specious and
B
      unsubstantiated plea was taken by him that he is unemployed
      from 2010, despite the fact that he is highly qualified and an able-
      bodied person; his monthly income while working in Canada in
      the year 2010 was over Rs.1,77,364/-; and that Supreme Court
      in an earlier Criminal Appeal (where interim maintenance was in
C     issue) had prima facie found that the cause of justice would be
      subserved if the appellant is granted an interim maintenance of
      Rs.20,000/- per month commencing from November 1, 2014. At
      this distance of time, keeping in mind the spiraling inflation rate
      and high cost of living index today, to do complete justice between
      the parties, the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per
D
      month to the appellant towards the maintenance amount with effect
      from January 2010 and at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month with
      effect from 1st June, 2018 until further orders. The impugned
      judgment of the High Court is accordingly modified in the
      aforementioned terms. [Paras 15, 16] [361-B-F-G]
E           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
      No. 1220 of 2018
            From the Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2018 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in Revision Petition (Criminal) No. 204 of 2015

F           Petitioner-in-person.
            Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, Rajnish Kumar Jha, Advs. for the
      respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
G
             2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order passed
      by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated May 31, 2018 in Revision
      Petition (Criminal) No.204 of 2015, whereby the High Court partly allowed
      the revision petition preferred by the appellant and was pleased to set
H
          REEMA SALKAN v. SUMER SINGH SALKAN                                  353
                 [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

aside the judgment and order dated 28th January, 2015 in Petition No.363      A
of 2014, passed by the Judge, Family Courts, North Rohini, Delhi, to the
limited extent of not granting maintenance amount to the appellant/wife
from 10th December, 2010 onwards. The High Court instead directed
the respondent/husband to pay the maintenance amount at the rate of
Rs.9,000/- per month from 9th December, 2010 onwards to the appellant/
                                                                              B
wife.
       3. There is a chequered history of litigation between the parties.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts for determination of the
present appeal are that the appellant and the respondent got married on
24th March, 2002, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Infantry
Hostel, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi. The respondent, being a permanent            C
resident of Canada, had assured the appellant that he would take her
with him to Canada on 28th March, 2002 on a Tourist Visa. However,
soon after the marriage, relations between the appellant and the
respondent became strained. The respondent, being a permanent resident
of Canada, returned to Canada without making any arrangements to              D
take the appellant to Canada even on a Tourist Visa, as assured. Rather,
he caused impediments in issuance of the Tourist Visa to the appellant,
by giving an application in writing in that behalf to the Canadian
Immigration Department. As relations between the appellant and the
respondent became strained, the appellant filed a complaint before the
Women Cell against the respondent and her in-laws. On 16th July, 2003,        E
she also filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for grant of maintenance of Rs.2 lakh per month from the
respondent before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. Be it noted
that during the pendency of the said application, interim maintenance
amount was fixed, which issue travelled upto this Court by way of Criminal    F
Appeal Nos.2347-2349/2014, which was disposed of by this Court on
28th October, 2014 on the finding that the cause of justice would be
subserved if the appellant was granted a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month
as interim maintenance commencing from November 1, 2014. However,
for the reasons stated by the Family Court in its judgment dated 28th
January, 2015, the final maintenance amount was fixed at Rs.10,000/-          G
per month starting from 17th July, 2003 till 8th December, 2010 and no
maintenance was granted with effect from 8th December, 2010. The
application for maintenance, filed in 2003, was finally disposed of on 28th
January, 2015 in the following terms:
                                                                              H
354             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A                                       “Relief:
                 In view of my finding on issue no.1 above the petition u/s 125
             Cr.P.C. is partly allowed and the respondent is directed to pay
             maintenance to the petitioner as under:-
             1. From the date of filing of the petition i.e. 17.07.2003 till
B            08.12.2010, @ of Rs.10,000/- per month.
             2. With effect from 08.12.2010 onwards the petitioner is not entitled
             to any maintenance and her claim in this respect stands dismissed.
             The respondent shall clear off the arrears of maintenance if any,
C            within three months from the date of order. Any payment made
             towards interim maintenance during the pendency of the present
             petition and any maintenance paid for the concurrent period, as
             per the order passed by any other competent court in any other
             proceeding/litigation between the parties, the money already
             deposited by the orders of the Superior Courts or by the order of
D            the predecessor of this court, by the respondent shall be adjusted,
             if required. No orders as to costs.
             File be consigned to record-room.”
            4. Against this decision, the appellant filed a revision petition before
      the High Court being Revision Petition (Criminal) No.204 of 2015, which
E
      has been partly allowed on the following terms:
             “85. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28.01.2015 is set-
             aside to the extent of non granting the maintenance in favour of
             the petitioner /wife from 09.12.2010 onwards. However, the
             impugned maintenance in favour of the petitioner/wife till
F
             08.12.2010 at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month is upheld. The
             respondent is directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs.9,000/-
             per month from 09.12.2010 onwards. Hence, the present revision
             petition is allowed. The arguments of the learned counsel for the
             respondent and the judgments relied upon by the respondent are
G            of no help.
             86. The present petition is allowed and disposed of in the above
             terms.”
            5. The respondent has not filed any independent petition to assail
      the judgment of the High Court rather, it is the appellant who has
H
          REEMA SALKAN v. SUMER SINGH SALKAN                                 355
                 [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

questioned the correctness of the quantum of maintenance amount as           A
determined by the Family Court and the High Court, by filing the present
appeal. As a result, the sole question to be decided in the present appeal
is regarding the quantum of monthly maintenance amount payable by
the respondent to the appellant.
       6. According to the appellant, the High Court in the impugned         B
judgment has inter alia overlooked the following points while determining
the monthly maintenance amount payable by the respondent to the
appellant:
      (i) Order dt. 28.10.2014 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal
      no.2347-49 of 2014 filed by Appellant against reduction & non-         C
      payment of interim maintenance, whereby this Court granted
      Rs.20,000/- interim maintenance, cannot be reduced as there has
      been no change in circumstances of parties since then. Rather, it
      can only be increased in final maintenance;
      (ii) Appellant’s Evidence, Affidavit of Financial Status Exhibited     D
      proves that Respondent owns vast capital assets including 26.50
      bigha (6.625 hectare) agricultural land in Meerut, UP;
      (iii) Respondent [B.Com, MA (Economics) & MBA from USA]
      has worked in USA, Dubai, Canada for nearly 20 years and hence
      can be presumed to be gainfully occupied, a fact which he is           E
      concealing, besides having savings, investments, social & medical
      security and insurance of Canada Govt.; and
      (iv) Respondent’s last disclosed salary for the year 2010, on the
      basis whereof quantum could have been calculated. As per the
      last disclosed salary of Cad $48,372.34 p.a. (equal to Rs.21,28,368/   F
      - @Rs.44 per Cad.$), monthly salary comes to Rs.1,77,364/-. Even
      if minimum increase @ 5% per annum is added to salary of base
      year i.e. 2010, Respondent’s monthly salary would be Rs.2,51,800/
      -. In absence of disclosure, this is a reasonable presumption for
      increase in salary. On adding Rs.50,000/- per month agricultural
      income, Respondent’s monthly income can be presumed to be              G
      Rs.3 Lakh.
       7. The respondent, on the other hand, has supported the decision
of the High Court but at the same time, by way of counter affidavit filed
to oppose this appeal, has urged that the impugned judgment suffers
from flawed reasoning on the following counts:                               H
356            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A           (a) The High Court does not deal with the reasoning of appreciation
            of evidence.
            (b) The High Court does not notice that the Family Court, after a
            trial, has had an opportunity to observe the demeanour of the
            parties and has commented on it.
B           (c) In Paragraph 38 of the judgment, the High Court doesn’t
            overturn the reasoning of the reduction of the interim maintenance
            from Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only).
            (d) The High Court does not overturn the reasoning that she has
            not established anywhere that she, as a lawyer and an admittedly
C           well educated and competent professional, is unable to maintain
            herself.
            (e) The High Court also noted the scandalous allegations made
            by the Petitioner, against the Respondent’s family which would
            reinforce his allegation of the Petitioner’s vindictiveness.
D
            (f) The High Court has noted judgments of various High Courts
            wherein the principle laid down is that the laws of maintenance
            are supposed to support but not enrich; payments cannot continue
            ad-infinitum.
            (g) The wife, too, is expected to mitigate her own losses by showing
E
            at least some semblance of effort at work and earning.
            (h) The maintenance should be in accordance with tenure of
            marriage, meaning thereby that long tenure marriages with
            children or even with just a long term investment of time, loss of
            earnings and so on can be computed monetarily, but not so a 4
F
            day marriage resulting in a 15 year litigation, driven by a desire
            for vengeance with a motive to harass.
           8. We have heard the appellant appearing in-person and Ms.
      Malavika Rajkotia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
G           9. As aforesaid, the sole question is about the quantum of monthly
      maintenance amount payable by the respondent to the appellant. In that,
      the Family Court has unambiguously held that the respondent neglected
      to maintain the appellant, for the elaborate reasons recorded in its
      judgment dated 28th January, 2015. That finding of fact has been upheld
      by the High Court vide the impugned judgment. The Family Court has
H
          REEMA SALKAN v. SUMER SINGH SALKAN                                   357
                 [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

also found as a fact that the appellant was unemployed, though she is an       A
MA in English and holds a Post-graduate Diploma in Journalism and
Mass Communication and is also a Law Graduate enrolled with the Bar
Council of Delhi. The High Court has not disturbed that finding recorded
by the Family Court. Resultantly, both the Courts have concurrently found
that, in law, the respondent was obliged to maintain the appellant.
                                                                               B
       10. The Family Court, however, restricted the liability of the
respondent to pay maintenance amount only between 17 th July, 2003
and 8th December, 2010, which view did not commend to the High Court.
The High Court, instead directed the respondent to pay a monthly
maintenance amount to the appellant even after 9th December, 2010, but
limited the quantum to Rs.9,000/- per month.                                   C

       11. The High Court has recognized the fact that the appellant was
not in a position to maintain herself but it restricted the maintenance
amount to Rs.9,000/- per month on the finding that the respondent was
unemployed and had no source of income. However, having found that
the respondent was well- educated and an able-bodied person, the High          D
Court went on to hold that he was liable to maintain his wife. The High
Court further noted that the respondent had failed to produce any evidence
regarding his unemployment or that he had no source of income.
Resultantly, the High Court posed a question as to how the respondent
was able to manage his affairs after his return from Canada, since 2010.       E
Therefore, the High Court applied notional income basis to arrive at his
(respondent’s) minimum income of Rs.18,332/- as per the current
minimum wages in Delhi, as a person possessing qualifications of B.Com.,
MA (Eco.) and MBA from Kentucky University, USA, and on that basis,
directed the respondent to pay Rs.9,000/-per month to the appellant from
9th December, 2010 onwards until further orders.                               F

        12. The manner in which the proceedings, instituted by the appellant
under Section 125 Cr.P.C., have progressed from 2003 leaves much to
be desired. During the pendency of the maintenance application filed by
the appellant on 16th July, 2003, the respondent’s father filed a civil suit
which, according to the appellant, was intended to prevent attachment          G
of the family property of the respondent from execution of the order in
her favour passed in the maintenance proceedings. The suit for declaration
filed by the respondent’s father was dismissed on 30th August, 2003,
after a full-fledged trial but to prevent attachment of land/family property
                                                                               H
358             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A     in interim maintenance case, he moved an application for restoration of
      the suit. Further, despite the injunction order passed by the Delhi High
      Court dated 28 th October, 2004, which was operating against the
      respondent, he approached the courts in Canada and obtained an ex-
      parte divorce allegedly to escape the liability to pay the maintenance
      amount and also adopted delaying tactics in the progress of the subject
B
      maintenance proceedings. Furthermore, the Magistrate granted interim
      maintenance of Rs.25, 000/- per month from the date of filing of the
      maintenance petition on the prima facie finding that the respondent’s
      monthly salary, earned in Canada, was over Rs.1 lakh in the year 2003.
      That issue was finally resolved by this Court vide order dated 20th
C     October, 2014 by observing that the cause of justice would be subserved
      if the appellant was granted a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as an interim
      maintenance, commencing from November, 2014. That interim
      arrangement was continued till the final disposal of the maintenance
      petition by the Family Court.
D            13. Be that as it may, the High Court took into account all the
      relevant aspects and justly rejected the plea of the respondent about
      inability to pay maintenance amount to the appellant on the finding that
      he was well educated and an able-bodied person. Therefore, it was not
      open to the respondent to extricate from his liability to maintain his wife.
      It would be apposite to advert to the relevant portion of the impugned
E     judgment which reads thus:
            “79. The respondent during the cross examination has admitted
            that he too is B.Com, M.A.(Eco.) and MBA from Kentucky
            University, USA; the respondent is a Canadian citizen working
            with Sprint Canada and is earning Canadian $(CAD) 29,306.59
F           as net Annual Salary. However, he has claimed that he has resigned
            from Sprint Canada on 23.11.2010 and the same has been accepted
            on 27.11.2010 and the respondent since then is unemployed and
            has got no source of income to maintain himself and his family.
            80. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed the case under
G           Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 for grant of maintenance as she does
            not know any skill and specialised work to earn her livelihood i.e.
            in paragraph 26 of maintenance petition against her husband.
            However, the respondent husband who is well educated and comes
            from extremely respectable family simply denies the same. The
H
   REEMA SALKAN v. SUMER SINGH SALKAN                                   359
          [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

respondent husband in his written statement does not plead that         A
he is not an able-bodied person nor he is able to prove sufficient
earning or income of the petitioner.
81. It is an admitted fact emerging on record that both the parties
got married as per Hindu Rights and Customs on 24.03.2002 and
since then the petitioner was living with her parents from 10.08.2002   B
onwards, and the parents are under no legal obligation to maintain
a married daughter whose husband is living in Canada and having
Canadian citizenship. The plea of the respondent that he does not
have any source of income and he could not maintain the wife is
no answer as he is mature and an able bodied person having good
health and physique and he can earn enough on the basis of him          C
being able bodied to meet the expenses of his wife. In this context,
the observation made in Chander Prakash v. Shrimati Shila
Rani, AIR 1968 Del 174 by this Court is relevant and reproduced
as under:
   “7.........an able bodied young man has to be presumed to be         D
   capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably
   to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say
   that he is not in position to earn enough to be able to maintain
   them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodied
   person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he       E
   is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to
   discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child.”
82. The husband being an able-bodied person is duty bound to
maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself under the
personal law arising out of the marital status and is not under         F
contractual obligation. The following observation of the Apex Court
in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, AIR 2014 SC 2875, is
relevant: -
   “3.….Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of
   Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) was conceived to           G
   ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman
   who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the
   provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by
   the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if
   they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not
                                                                        H
360            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A               necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an
                unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her
                basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to
                lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the
                house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come
                into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in
B
                case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of
                this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive
                her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to
                the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in
                consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is
C               the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not
                become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly
                created where under she is compelled to resign to her fate and
                think of life “dust unto dust”. It is totally impermissible. In fact,
                it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if
                the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if
D
                he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an
                order from the court that the wife is not entitled to get
                maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible
                grounds.
                                                                (emphasis applied)
E
            83. The respondent’s mere plea that he does not possess any
            source of income ipso facto does not absolve himself of his moral
            duty to maintain his wife in presence of good physique along with
            educational qualification.”
      The view so taken by the High Court is unassailable. Indeed, the
F
      respondent has raised a plea to question the correctness of the said
      view, in the reply affidavit filed in this appeal, but in our opinion, the
      finding recorded by the High Court is un-exceptionable.
             14. The only question is: whether the quantum of maintenance
      amount determined by the High Court is just and proper. The discussion
G
      in respect of this question can be traced only to paragraph 84 of the
      impugned judgment which reads thus:
            “84. So far, the quantum of maintenance is concerned nothing
            consistent is emerging on record to show the specific amount
            which is being earned by the respondent after 2010, however the
H
          REEMA SALKAN v. SUMER SINGH SALKAN                                    361
                 [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

      husband is legally bound to maintain his wife as per the status of        A
      a respectable family to which he belongs. The husband being able-
      bodied along with high qualification B.Com, M.A.(Eco) and MBA
      from Kentucky University, USA could earn at least minimum of
      Rs. 18,332/- as per the current minimum wage in Delhi. Therefore,
      the petitioner being wife is entitled to Rs. 9,000/- per month from
                                                                                B
      09.12.2010 onwards till further orders.”
       15. The principle invoked by the High Court for determination of
monthly maintenance amount payable to the appellant on the basis of
notional minimum income of the respondent as per the current minimum
wages in Delhi, in our opinion, is untenable. We are of the considered
opinion that regard must be had to the living standard of the respondent        C
and his family, his past conduct in successfully protracting the disposal
of the maintenance petition filed in the year 2003, until 2015; coupled
with the fact that a specious and unsubstantiated plea has been taken by
him that he is unemployed from 2010, despite the fact that he is highly
qualified and an able-bodied person; his monthly income while working           D
in Canada in the year 2010 was over Rs.1,77,364/-; and that this Court
in Criminal Appeal Nos.2347-2349/2014 has prima facie found that the
cause of justice would be subserved if the appellant is granted an interim
maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month commencing from November 1,
2014. At this distance of time, keeping in mind the spiraling inflation rate
and high cost of living index today, to do complete justice between the         E
parties, we are inclined to direct that the respondent shall pay a sum of
Rs.20,000/- per month to the appellant towards the maintenance amount
with effect from January 2010 and at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month
with effect from 1st June, 2018 until further orders. We order accordingly.
       16. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay the enhanced             F
maintenance amount, as determined in terms of this order, to the appellant
within a period of eight weeks from today after duly adjusting the amount
already deposited in Court/paid to the appellant till date. The appellant
will be entitled to forthwith withdraw the maintenance amount deposited
by the respondent in Court, if any. The impugned judgment of the High           G
Court is accordingly modified in the aforementioned terms.
      17. The appeal is allowed in the aforementioned terms.


Divya Pandey                                                  Appeal allowed.
                                                                                H