2024 INSC 530 SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 1 of 27

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO S. OF 2024

(@ Special Leave to Petition (Crl.) Nos.672-675 OF 2024)

KIRAN JYOT MAINI …APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

ANISH PRAMOD PATEL …RESPONDENT (S)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO S. OF 2024

(@ Special Leave to Petition (Crl.) Nos.1168-1171 OF

2024)

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAM NATH, J.

CRL. APPEAL NOS…………../2024@ SLP(CRL.) NOS.672 -

675/2024:

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals arise out of the impugned

order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the Delhi High

Court in CRL.M.C. 406/2023 & CRL.M.A.

4294/2023, CRL.M.A. 4907/2023, CRL.M.A.

17294/2023, whereby the Court has directed the

respondent to pay only 20% of the total arrears

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 2 of 27

of interim maintenance granted by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar to the

appellant in appeals before it. The present

appeals also challenge the rejection of the

appellant’s prayer for attachment of bank

account of the respondent and payment of the

complete arrears of Rs. 65,00,000/- (Rupees

Sixty-Five Lakhs only), as on date of the

impugned judgement, towards interim

maintenance.

3. The factual background of the present case is

that the marriage between the appellant -wife

and the respondent-husband was solemnized on

30.04.2015 and, within one year, on 13.04.2016

FIR No.34/2016 was registered on the basis of

the complaint made by the appellant -wife at

Police Station Mahila Thana, Gautam Budh

Nagar, U.P. under Sections 498A/323/504 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860

1 and Sections 3/4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

2. In respondent’s

Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition before the

1

In short, “IPC”

2

In short, “Act, 1961”

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 3 of 27

Allahabad High Court seeking stay on arrest and

quashing of FIR, vide order dated 06.05.2016 the

High Court referred the parties to mediation and

thereby granted stay on arrest of the respondent.

The Writ Petition was subsequently dismissed on

merit vide order dated 22.09.2016.

4. Appellant thereafter preferred Application No.

4622 of 2016 under Section 12 of the Protection

of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

3

before Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar,

wherein an application seeking interim

maintenance had also been filed by her under

Section 23 of the PWDV Act. The Judicial

Magistrate, vide order dated 10.05.2018 ,

directed the respondent to pay interim

maintenance of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Five

Thousand Only) to the appellant. Both the

parties challenged this order through two

separate appeals before the Additional Sessions

Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar. Vide order dated

01.02.2019, the Additional Sessions Judge

modified the order of the Judicial Magistrate and

3

In short, “PWDV Act”

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 4 of 27

directed the respondent to pay Rs.45,000/- per

month to the appellant and Rs.55,000/ - per

month to her daughter. The appeal preferred by

the respondent was dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by the order of interim maintenance,

the respondent preferred an Application bearing

No. 12860/2019 under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973

4. before the High

Court of Allahabad and the matter was again

referred to mediation vide order dated

09.04.2019. The mediation between the parties

failed on 06.07.2019 and the appellant preferred

a Criminal Application No. 41/2019 under

Section 31(1) of PW DV Act against the

respondent for non-compliance of order dated

01.02.2019 i.e. for non-payment of interim

maintenance. Summons were issued by the

Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Third,

Gautam Budh Nagar. The summons were

challenged by the respondent before the High

Court of Allahabad through Application No.

33533/2019 under Section 482 of CrPC. Vide

4

In short, “CrPC

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 5 of 27

order dated 16.09.2019, the summons were

stayed and vide order dated 13.12.2019, the High

Court of Allahabad directed expeditious disposal

of application of appellant under Section 12 of

PWDV Act pending before the Judicial Magistrate

as there was no stay operating in the

proceedings.

6. Upon application made by the respondent, the

proceedings in Application No. 4622 of 2016

under Section 12 of PWDV Act and Criminal

Application No. 41/2019 under Section 31(1) of

PWDV Act were transferred to Tis Hazari Courts,

Delhi vide order dated 13.08.2021 passed by this

Court. Case No. 41/2019 was registered at Delhi

as Case No. 882/2022 and Case No. 4622/2016

was registered as Case No. 691/2022. Notices

were issued to the parties on 04.04.2022 by the

Mahila Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi. In the meantime,

the High Court of Allahabad vide order dated

14.03.2023 dismissed the applications filed by

the respondent under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being

Application No. 33533/2019 and Application No.

12860/2019 as infructuous on the statement

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 6 of 27

made by his counsel. Respondent preferred a

Criminal Revision Petition and a Criminal

Miscellaneous Application before the High Court

of Delhi which were registered as Criminal

Revision Petition No. 298 of 2023 and Criminal

Miscellaneous Case No. 1951 of 2023,

respectively, praying for similar reliefs as before

and challenging the orders of interim

maintenance.

7. The appellant filed a petition under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India read with Section 482,

Cr.P.C. seeking appropriate directions including

attachment of the accounts of the respondent, in

the cases pending before the Mahila Court, Tis

Hazari, Central, New Delhi, and the same was

registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.

406 of 2023. Vide order dated 08.05.2023, the

High Court of Delhi disposed of the

Miscellaneous Application file by the appellant in

the petition and directed the respondent to pay

10% of the total arrears of interim maintenance

due till 31.12.2022, that is, 10% of Rs.

52,95,000/- as immediate interim relief to the

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 7 of 27

petitioner therein within a period of fifteen days

from the date of the order.

8. In the proceedings before the Mahila Court at Tis

Hazari, Delhi, the above order of the High Court

was modified and the Court directed the

respondent to pay Rs. 2 Lakhs to the appellant

within twenty-four hours and remaining amount

of Rs. 3,92,500/- (Rupees Three Lacs Ninety-Two

Thousand and Five Hundred Only) before

09.06.2023.

9. The High Court of Delhi while finally disposing of

the appellant’s petition under Article 227 along

with criminal revision and the miscellaneous

application filed by the respondent, directed the

respondent to pay 20% of the total arrears of

interim maintenance to the petitioner therein,

that is, 20 % of 65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Five

Lakhs only) within a period of twenty days. The

High Court further rejected the appellant’s

prayer for attachment of the respondent’s bank

accounts and for payment of complete arrears of

maintenance as on the date of the judgment,

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 8 of 27

towards interim maintenance granted to the

appellant vide order dated 01.02.2019 passed by

the Additional Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh

Nagar in Appeal Nos.39 & 62 of 2018. The High

Court further directed the Metropolitan

Magistrate, Mahila Court, Central District, Tis

Hazari Court to decide the quantum of the

interim maintenance amount payable monthly

by the respondent to the appellant in the case

pending before it within three months, after

taking into consideration income affidavit of both

the parties. This order is challenged before us by

the appellant wife on the ground that the

respondent husband has disregarded the order

of interim maintenance by not paying any

amount towards interim maintenance since the

last 5½ years.

10. The respondent-husband has contested against

these appeals on the grounds that the appellant

has been gainfully employed all these years

during the pendency of the cases, has several

assets in the form of immovable property, and

with regard to her minor daughter from her

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 9 of 27

previous marriage, she has already received

maintenance amount of Rs. 40 Lakhs. The

learned senior counsel for both the parties

vehemently disagreed on the amount of interim

maintenance that ought to be paid to the

appellant by the respondent. But they appear to

be in agreement of the strained relationship

between the parties which is stated by both

parties to be beyond the scope of reconciliation.

11. This Court also heard the parties in camera to

discuss the possibility of a reunion but during

the course of the proceedings both parties stated

that they are willing to have their marriage

annulled by mutual consent as there remains no

possibility of the parties reuniting and the

marriage now only exists on paper.

12. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the

respective parties at length.

13. At the outset it is relevant to be noted and does

not seem to be in dispute that differences arose

between the parties within the first year of

marriage itself and the appellant -wife and

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 10 of 27

respondent-husband have been living separately

since the last nine years. It also appears from the

record that the parties were referred to mediation

at several stages by different courts and all

efforts for reconciliation and to continue the

marriage have failed, and there is no possibility

of a reunion between the part ies. Thus, it

appears that the marriage between the parties

has irretrievably broken down.

14. It is also apparent from the record that complaint

for cruelty, hurt, and dowry demand against the

respondent was registered by the appellant

within the first 11 months of their marriage

followed by an application seeking protection

under section 12 of PWD V Act filed by the

appellant. An application seeking interim

maintenance was filed by the appellant under

section 31(1) of the PWDV Act. Shortly thereafter,

the respondent filed a petition under

section17(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954,

seeking dissolution of marriage on grounds of

cruelty. All these proceedings have since been

pending and several challenges have been made

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 11 of 27

by both parties in the order of interim

maintenance as granted by the Judicial

Magistrate and subsequently modified by the

Additional Sessions Judge.

15. The above admitted facts of long -standing

separation between the parties, prolonged and

multiple litigations pending adjudication, and

several failed attempts at reconciliation are

evidence of the fact that the marriage between

the parties has completely broken down.

16. In Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar

5,

this Court observed that a marriage can be

dissolved by the courts on the grounds of

irretrievable breakdown of marriage only when it

appears that it has become impossible to save the

marriage, all efforts for reunion have failed and

the Court is convinced beyond any reasonable

doubt that there are no chances of the marriage

surviving and succeeding.

5

(2011) 5 SCC 234.

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 12 of 27

17. Further, this Court had observed in Ashok

Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri

6, that upon

considering the cumulative effect of all necessary

factors and that the marriage has perished due

to long standing differences between the parties,

and thus no useful purpose, emotional or

practical, would be achieved by prolonging the

suffering of the parties and in postponing the

inevitable end to their relationship, the Court can

pass an order for dissolution of marriage.

18. This Court in a catena of judgments over the

years has exercised its inherent powers to

dissolve a marriage under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India where it finds that the

marriage is dead, unworkable, beyond repair,

emotionally perished and has thus irretrievably

broken down, even though no gr ounds for

divorce as provided in the applicable law are

made out in the facts of the case.

19. In Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan

7, this

Court noted that it has the discretionary power

6

(1997) 4 SCC 226.

7

(2022) 15 SCC 754.

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 13 of 27

under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India

to dissolve the marriage on the ground of

irretrievable breakdown of marriage while

exercising the discretion cautiously on the basis

of the factual matrix in each case, evaluated on

objective criteria and factors. This Court further

held that whether the marriage has irretrievably

broken down is to be factually examined and

firmly established. The factors to be considered

in such examination are such as, period of

cohabitation after marriage, when they had last

cohabited, nature and gravity of allegations made

by the parties, orders passed in previous or

pending legal proceedings , attempts at

reconciliation or settlement and their outcomes,

period of separation and such other similar

considerations.

20. In the present case, the parties cohabited after

marriage for less than a year and have been living

separately since the last nine years. The nature

of allegations made by the appellant are grave as,

according to her, she was subjected to cruelty,

hurt, and dowry demands by the respondent,

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 14 of 27

and she has also initiated criminal action against

her husband. Multiple attempts at reconciliation

between the appellant and respondent have been

made by the Courts at different stages but all

efforts have been futile. Multiple legal

proceedings are pending between the parties and

do not appear to possibly conclude in the near

future. This factual position is admitted by both

the parties before this Court and they have also

mutually agreed that they have no intention of

continuing their union as husband and wife.

Therefore, we are of the opinion that while the

interest of the appellant-wife to be compensated

needs to be protected through a one -time

settlement, this is a fit case to exercise the

discretionary powers vested in this Court under

Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to

dissolve the marriage between the parties.

21. Thus, considering all the facts and

circumstances of the case and analysing the

same in light of the considerations stated above,

the marriage between the appellant-wife and

respondent-husband is ordered to be dissolved in

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 15 of 27

exercise of this Court’s powers under Article 142

of the Constitution of India.

22. The next contention in this case is with respect

to the amount of maintenance to be paid by the

respondent-husband to the appellant-wife. While

the issue of interim maintenance is now closed

with the dissolution of the marriage, the interest

of the wife still needs to be protected so that she

does not suffer financially. The parties have

vehemently argued and contested each other’s

financial position, their individual incomes, and

the assets owned by each other. In order to

establish the correct financial position of both

the parties, they have filed their respective

affidavits of income and assets as ordered by this

Court.

23. Before we go into the details of the financial

position of the parties, we find it necessary to

discuss the law laid down for adjudication and

determination of one -time settlement in

matrimonial disputes. This Court in a series of

judgments has touched upon the question of

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 16 of 27

one-time settlement and the factors that should

be taken into consideration while determining

fair amount of permanent alimony. While the

cases deal with maintenance under different

provisions of law, the principle for determination

of maintenance by way of one-time settlement

apply equally to all statutes and personal laws.

24. In Vinny Paramvir Parmar v. Paramvir

Parmar

8, this Court held that there cannot be a

fixed formula or a straitjacket rubric for fixing the

amount of permanent alimony and only broad

principles can be laid down. The question of

maintenance is subjective to each case and

depends on various factors and circumstances as

presented in individual cases. This Court in the

above judgment stated that the courts shall

consider the following broad factors while

determining permanent alimony – income and

properties of both the parties respectively,

conduct of the parties, status, social and

financial, of the parties, their respective personal

needs, capacity and duty to maintain others

8

2011 (13) SCC 112.

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 17 of 27

dependant on them, husband’s own expenses,

wife’s comfort considering her status and the

mode of life she was used to during the

subsistence of the marriage , among other

supplementary factors. This was further

reiterated by this Court in Vishwanath Agrawal

v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal

9, while

observing that permanent alimony is to be

granted after considering largely the social

status, conduct of the parties, the parties’

lifestyle, and other such ancillary factors.

25. A two-judge bench of this Court in Rajnesh v.

Neha and Another

10, elaborated upon the broad

criteria and the factors to be considered for

determining the quantum of maintenance. This

judgment lays down a comprehensive framework

for determining the quantum of maintenance in

matrimonial disputes, particularly focusing on

permanent alimony. The primary objective is to

prevent the dependent spouse from being

reduced to destitution or vagrancy due to the

9

(2012) 7 SCC 288.

10

(2021) 2 SCC 32.

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 18 of 27

failure of the marriage, rather than punishing the

other spouse. The court emphasizes that there is

no fixed formula for calculating maintenance

amount; instead, it should be based on a

balanced consideration of various factors. These

factors include but are not limited to:

i. Status of the parties, social and financial.

ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and dependent

children.

iii. Qualifications and employment status of the

parties.

iv. Independent income or assets owned by the

parties.

v. Maintain standard of living as in the

matrimonial home.

vi. Any employment sacrifices made for family

responsibilities.

vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working

wife.

viii. Financial capacity of husband, his income,

maintenance obligations, and liabilities.

The status of the parties is a significant factor,

encompassing their social standing, lifestyle, and

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 19 of 27

financial background. The reasonable needs of

the wife and dependent children must be

assessed, including costs for food, clothing,

shelter, education, and medical expenses. The

applicant’s educational and professional

qualifications, as well as their employment

history, play a crucial role in evaluating their

potential for self-sufficiency. If the applicant has

any independent source of income or owns

property, this will also be taken into account to

determine if it is sufficient to maintain the same

standard of living experienced during the

marriage. Additionally, the court considers

whether the applicant had to sacrifice

employment opportunities for family

responsibilities, such as child-rearing or caring

for elderly family members, which may have

impacted their career prospects.

26. Furthermore, the financial capacity of the

husband is a critical factor in determining

permanent alimony. The Court shall examine the

husband's actual income, reasonable expenses

for his own maintenance, and any dependents he

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 20 of 27

is legally obligated to support. His liabilities and

financial commitments are also to be considered

to ensure a balanced and fair maintenance

award. The court must consider the husband's

standard of living and the impact of inflation and

high living costs. Even if the husband claims to

have no source of income, his ability to earn,

given his education and qualifications, is to be

taken into account. The courts shall ensure that

the relief granted is fair, reasonable, and

consistent with the standard of living to which

the aggrieved party was accustomed. The court's

approach should be to balance all relevant

factors to avoid maintenance amounts that are

either excessively high or unduly low, ensuring

that the dependent spouse can live with

reasonable comfort post-separation.

27. Additionally, the judgment addresses specific

scenarios such as the right of residence under

the PWDV Act, the impact of the wife’s income on

maintenance, and the needs of minor children.

Even if the wife is earning, it does not bar her

from receiving maintenance; the Court should

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 21 of 27

assess whether her income suffices to maintain

a lifestyle similar to that in the matrimonial

home. The judgment also considers the expenses

associated with the care of minor children,

including educational expenses and reasonable

amounts for extracurricular activities. Serious

disability or illness of a spouse, child, or

dependent family member, requiring constant

care and recurrent expenditur e, is also a

significant consideration. Key precedents cited to

reach this broad framework include Manish Jain

v. Akanksha Jain

11

, Shailja & Anr. v.

Khobbanna

12

, and Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v.

Anil Kachwaha

13

, which reinforce these

principles and provide a sound, reasonable and

fair basis for determining maintenance in

subsequent cases.

28. In the case at hand, both the parties have

submitted their affidavits of assets as ordered by

this Court. It appears from the material on record

that both the parties are well educated, gainfully

11

(2017) 15 SCC 801.

12

(2018) 12 SCC 199.

13

(2014) 16 SCC 715.

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 22 of 27

employed, have high standards of living, and also

have dependants to be taken care of. The

respondent-husband is working as the Vice

President of Deutsche Bank and has stated in the

affidavit to be earning a gross monthly salary of

around over Rs. 8 Lakhs and more than Rs. 5

Lakhs per month as net salary after deductions.

Respondent states to have dependant parents

who reside in the United States of America, but

they also have a cumulative annual income of

over Rs. 28 Lakhs. Respondent is responsible for

their medical expenses and stay when they are

visiting India. Respondent has also stated that he

has a dependant aunt with around Rs.55,000/-

medical expenses monthly being borne by him for

her. Apart from this, the respondent has

estimated his personal monthly expenses to be

around Rs. 4 Lakhs. The respondent has

submitted that, apart from certain stock

investments and fixed deposits, he has no other

properties in the form of assets. This submission

is challenged by the appellant-wife by stating

that respondent-husband allegedly owns a

property in Pune which was their matrimonial

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 23 of 27

home and he also owns another immovable

property in New Jersey, USA.

29. The appellant-wife in her affidavit of assets has

stated that she is currently working as Head of

Human Resources with Sarla Holdings (P) Ltd.

with a salary of Rs.1,39,000/- per month. She

states that she is currently staying in her

parental home for which she pays rent to her

parents, and her dependants include her parents

and her minor daughter. She has estimated that

her monthly necessary expenses amount to over

Rs. 4 Lakhs. Apart from this, she has also stated

that she has to spend around Rs. 75,000/- per

month towards the living and education

expenses of her minor daughter. Respondent has

vehemently contested this and has impressed

upon his submission that the daughter is

appellant’s child from her previous marriage and

she had received Rs.40 Lakhs as p ermanent

alimony in that case towards the maintenance of

the appellant and her daughter. She has

submitted that her assets include certain

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 24 of 27

immovable properties which she bought in the

last few years.

30. Both the parties appear to have similar

standards of living, which the appellant-wife has

continued to enjoy after their separation as well.

It is evident from their submissions that though

both of them are well qualified and gainfully

employed, the respondent -husband earns

approximately five times the monthly income of

the appellant-wife. Respondent-husband has

certain obligations towards three dependants,

his own expenses, and certain bank loans, but

he also evidently has the financial capacity to

maintain his former wife.

31. This Court explored the possibility of one-time

settlement between the parties and in the course

of the proceedings, the appellant-wife had put

forth a demand of Rs. 5 to 7 Crores as one-time

settlement which would cover her maintenance

expenses and necessary requirements. On the

other hand, the respondent-husband expressed

his willingness to pay only Rs. 50 Lakhs towards

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 25 of 27

permanent alimony, submitting that the

appellant is employed, has several assets, and

that he has no obligation to maintain her

daughter as he never adopted her.

32. It is not in dispute that the respondent has the

legal obligation as also the financial capacity to

maintain his wife after dissolution of marriage. It

is also necessary to ensure that the award of

maintenance or permanent alimony should not

be penal but should be for the purposes of

ensuring a decent living standard for the

appellant wife. Considering the material on

record, the factors stated above, the

considerations noted herein, and the arguments

advanced by the learned senior counsel on both

sides, this Court is of the opinion that the

demand made by the appellant is exceptionally

high but, at the same time, the amount offered

by the respondent is insufficient in the broader

rubric of maintenance considerations.

33. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances,

the social and financial status of the parties,

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 26 of 27

their current employments as well as future

prospects, standards of living, and their

obligations, liabilities, and other expenses, a one-

time settlement amount of Rs. 2 Crores would be

a balanced and fair amount. This amount would

also cover all pending and future claims. Thus,

we fix the said amount as permanent alimony to

be paid by the respondent to the appellant within

a period of four months.

34. Consequently, the appeals are allowed, the

orders and judgments of the courts below are set

aside, any pending cases be disposed of

accordingly, and the decree of divorce be granted

in exercise of this Court’s power under Article

142 of the Constitution of India. Further, the

respondent-husband shall pay Rs. 2 Crores

towards permanent alimony to the appellant-wife

within the time stipulated above. Parties would

be at liberty to file certified copies of this order

before the respective Courts where the cases,

both civil and criminal, are pending whereupon

the Court concerned shall pass appropriate

orders closing such proceedings.

SLP(Crl.) Nos. 672-675 & 1168-1171of 2024 Page 27 of 27

35. No order as to costs.

CRL. APPEAL NOS……………….@SLP(CRL.) NOS -

1168-1171 OF 2024:

36. Leave granted.

37. These appeals are also disposed of in similar

terms/directions/observations, as above.

………………………………..……J

(VIKRAM NATH)

………………………………..……J

(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)

NEW DELHI

JULY 15, 2024