Daily Archives: January 13, 2012

Pay 3 lakhs one time + 1/3 rd of your salary as Ransom !! otherwise face arrest !!!

Lower Court : Pay 3 lakhs one time + 1/3 rd of your salary as Ransom !! otherwise face arrest !!!

===========================================================

Husband has to move to Supreme court to be rescued !!!

===========================================================

Supreme Court of India
Munish Bhasin & Ors. vs State on 20 February, 2009
Author: J Panchal
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, J.M. Panchal

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 344 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 637 of 2008) Munish Bhasin & Ors. … Appellants Versus

State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr. … Respondents JUDGMENT

J.M. PANCHAL, J.

Leave granted. The complainant (wife of first appellant) to whom notice was ordered on 25.01.2008 is impleaded as second respondent.

2. Heard Counsel.

3. The appellant (accused no. 1) assails the condition imposed by the High Court requiring him to pay a sum of Rs.12,500/- as maintenance to his wife and child while granting anticipatory bail to him and his parents with reference to the complaint filed by his wife for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The marriage of the appellant was solemnized with Ms. Renuka on December 05, 2004. She has filed a complaint in November 2006, against the appellant and his parents for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code on the grounds that after marriage she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty for bringing less dowry and that her stri-dhan entrusted to them has been dishonestly misappropriated by them.

5. Apprehending arrest, the appellant and his parents moved High Court of Delhi for anticipatory bail. The application came up for consideration before a Learned Single Judge of the High Court on 22.02.2007. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepted notice and submitted that the matter was essentially a matrimonial dispute and therefore the parties should be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Cell of the Delhi High Court. The Learned Judge agreed with the suggestion made by the Additional Public Prosecutor and directed the parties to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Cell of the Delhi High Court on March 02, 2007. The case was ordered to be listed on 10.05.2007. The Learned Judge further directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant and his parents, before the next date of hearing, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/ Arresting Officer concerned, subject however, to the condition that the appellant and his parents shall surrender their passports to the Investigating Officer and shall file affidavits in the Court that they would not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

6. From the records, it appears that the conciliation proceedings failed and therefore the bail application was taken up for hearing on merits. On representation made by the wife of the appellant, the counsel of the appellant was directed to produce appellant’s salary slip. Accordingly, the salary slip of the appellant was produced before the Court which indicated that the appellant was drawing gross salary of Rs.41,598/- and after deductions of advance tax etc., his net salary was Rs.33,000/-. The Learned Single Judge of the High Court took the notice of the fact that the appellant had the duty to maintain his wife and the child and therefore as a condition for grant of anticipatory bail, directed the appellant, by the order dated 07.08.2007 to pay a sum of Rs.12,500/- per month by way of maintenance to his wife and child. The Learned Single Judge also directed to pay arrears at the rate of Rs. 12,500/- per month from August 2005, that is Rs. 3,00,000/- within six months. The imposition of these conditions for grant of anticipatory bail is the subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal.

7. From the perusal of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 438, it is evident that when the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub- section (1) to release an accused alleged to have committed non-bailable offence, the Court may include such conditions in such direction in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including (i) a condition that a person shall make himself available for interrogation by police officer as and when required, (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer, (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and (iv) such other conditions as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section. Sub-section (3) of Section 437, inter alia, provides that when a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section (1), the Court shall impose the following conditions-

(a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter,

(b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and

(c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

The Court may also impose, in the interests of justice, such other conditions as it considers necessary.

8. It is well settled that while exercising discretion to release an accused under Section 438 of the Code neither the High Court nor the Session Court would be justified in imposing freakish conditions. There is no manner of doubt that the Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case can impose necessary, just and efficacious conditions while enlarging an accused on bail under Section 438 of the Code. However, the accused cannot be subjected to any irrelevant condition at all. The conditions which can be imposed by the Court while granting anticipatory bail are enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 and sub- section (3) of Section 437 of the Code. Normally, conditions can be imposed (i) to secure the presence of the accused before the investigating officer or before the Court, (ii) to prevent him from fleeing the course of justice, (iii) to prevent him from tampering with the evidence or to prevent him from inducing or intimidating the witnesses so as to dissuade them from disclosing the facts before the police or Court or (iv) restricting the movements of the accused in a particular area or locality or to maintain law and order etc. To subject an accused to any other condition would be beyond jurisdiction of the power conferred on Court under section 438 of the Code. While imposing conditions on an accused who approaches the Court under section 438 of the Code, the Court should be extremely chary in imposing conditions and should not transgress its jurisdiction or power by imposing the conditions which are not called for at all. There is no manner of doubt that the conditions to be imposed under section 438 of the Code cannot be harsh, onerous or excessive so as to frustrate the very object of grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code. In the instant case, the question before the Court was whether having regard to the averments made by Ms. Renuka in her complaint, the appellant and his parents were entitled to bail under section 438 of the Code. When the High Court had found that a case for grant of bail under section 438 was made out, it was not open to the Court to direct the appellant to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- for past maintenance and a sum of Rs.12,500/- per month as future maintenance to his wife and child. In a proceeding under section 438 of the Code, the Court would not be justified in awarding maintenance to the wife and child. The case of the appellant is that his wife Renuka is employed and receiving a handsome salary and therefore is not entitled to maintenance. Normally, the question of grant of maintenance should be left to be decided by the competent Court in an appropriate proceedings where the parties can adduce evidence in support of their respective case, after which liability of husband to pay maintenance could be determined and appropriate order would be passed directing the husband to pay amount of maintenance to his wife. The record of the instant case indicates that the wife of the appellant has already approached appropriate Court for grant of maintenance and therefore the High Court should have refrained from granting maintenance to the wife and child of the appellant while exercising powers under section 438 of the Code. The condition imposed by the High court directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.12,500/- per month as maintenance to his wife and child is onerous, unwarranted and is liable to be set aside.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds. The direction contained in order dated August 07, 2007 rendered by Learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in Bail Application No. 423 of 2007 requiring the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.12,500/- per month by way of maintenance (both past and future) to his wife and child is hereby deleted. Rest of the directions contained in the said order are maintained. It is however clarified that any amount received by the wife of the appellant pursuant to the order of the High Court need not be refunded by her to the appellant and will be adjusted subject to the result of application for maintenance filed by wife of the appellant under Section 125 of the Code before the appropriate Court.

10. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. …………………………J.

[R.V. Raveendran]

…………………………J.

[J.M. Panchal]

New Delhi;

February 20, 2009.
12

Souce : http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/949074/

woman can claim maintenance both under section 125 and also sec 24 of HMA !!!! ….

Therefore, the primary requirement for granting maintenance under section 24 of the Act is the absence of any income for the applicant to maintain himself or herself

===========================================================

Madras High Court

Amutha @ Symaladevi : vs K.Thirumoorthy @ Thirumalaisamy … on 25 August, 2009

DATED: 25.08.2009

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

C.R.P.(P.D.) No.4001/2008

Amutha @ Symaladevi : Petitioner

Vs.

K.Thirumoorthy @ Thirumalaisamy : Respondent

PRAYER: Revision filed against the order dated 18.09.2008, made in I.A.No.92/2008 in H.M.O.P.No.234/2008 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Erode.

For petitioner : Mr.B.Dyaneshwaran

For respondent : Mr.C.Prakasam

O R D E R

Whether a pre-existing order for payment of maintenance granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code is a bar for maintaining an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is the question raised in this civil revision petition. The facts in outline :-

2.The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 06.11.2000 as per the Hindu Rites and customs. In the said wed lock a female child was born to the parties in the year 2001. The marriage life was cordial during the inception. However, crack developed in their married life on account of an alleged intimacy between the respondent and one Papathi. Though the petitioner suffered everything for a better tomorrow, the respondent was indifferent. Ultimately, the petitioner was constrained to leave the matrimonial home along with her daughter.

3.The petitioner filed an application for maintenance before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode. The said maintenance petition filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. was registered as M.C.No.63/2006. The application was allowed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as per order dated 29.07.2008 and the respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- every month to the petitioner and a sum of Rs.500/- to her daughter as maintenance.

4.While the matters stood thus, petitioner filed a petition for divorce under section 13(1)(1A)(1B) of the Hindu Marriage Act [for short, ‘the Act’] before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode. The said application was taken on file as H.M.O.P.No.234/ 2006.

5.The petitioner also filed an application in I.A.No.92/2008 under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for interim maintenance during the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings.

6.The said application was contested by the respondent by filing counter. Respondent mainly resisted the claim on the ground that the divorce petition itself could be taken up for early hearing and as such, it was not necessary to consider the interlocutory application in the meantime. The Judgment of the Judge :-

7.The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner was awarded maintenance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in M.C.No.63/2006 and as such, the application invoking Section 24 of the Act was clearly not maintainable.

8.The legality and correctness of the said order is the subject matter in the civil revision petition.

Discussion :-

9.The cause of action for filing a petition under section 24 of the Act would arise only when there is a matrimonial proceeding initiated by the husband or wife. Therefore, the primary requirement for claiming maintenance under section 24 of the Act is the pendency of a matrimonial proceeding. This provision was introduced with a laudable object of ensuring maintenance to a party to the proceeding so as to enable him or her to maintain during the pendency of such proceedings. This provision also permits the Court to award reasonable amount for the purpose of conducting the matrimonial proceeding. Concept of maintenance :-

10.The term "maintenance" has not been defined in the Act. Therefore, the definition given to the term "maintenance" in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 assumes significance. Section 3(b) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 gives an inclusive definition to the term "maintenance". As per the said definition, maintenance includes in all cases, provisions for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment and in the case of an unmarried daughter, reasonable expenditure incidental to her marriage.

11.The concept of maintenance as per Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pre-supposes that the party has no independent income sufficient for his or her support. Therefore, the primary requirement for granting maintenance under section 24 of the Act is the absence of any income for the applicant to maintain himself or herself during the pendency of the proceeding. While deciding an application under section 24 of the Act, the Judge was expected to consider the entire factual matrix, which includes the inability of the party to maintain herself or himself during the pendency of the proceeding as well as the income of the opposite party and to arrive at the amount of maintenance which should be just and reasonable. Therefore, this provision is a measure of social justice.

12.The remedy provided under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is totally for a different purpose. This remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the Family Court to award maintenance under section 24 of the Act. The scope of the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. is very limited. It is purely a summary proceeding. Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. permits the Court to vary the order. Therefore, Section 125 Cr.P.C. operates in an entirely different sphere.

13.There is no ceiling prescribed for the purpose of granting maintenance under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 24 of the Act seeks to maintain an equilibrium between the two parties to the litigation during the pendency of the proceeding as it makes provision for payment of maintenance for a party who was in a disadvantageous position to maintain and to contest the proceeding on account of poor economic condition.

14.The parties to the proceeding should be in a position to maintain the standard of living consistent with their status. Living does not mean luxurious living. The intention of the parliament was to strike a balance so as to enable the parties to contest the matter effectively. In short, in case of matrimonial proceeding initiated by the husband, the wife should be in a reasonable financial condition to maintain herself during the pendency of the proceeding. In case she was not having the financial resources to maintain herself, naturally, she would be denied of an opportunity to contest the proceeding.

15.The amount awarded under section 125 Cr.P.C. is not static. It could be modified on an application by a party to the proceeding. In case there was a pre-existing order to pay maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C., the said order could be taken note of by the matrimonial Court in a proceeding under section 24 of the Act. However, currency of such order would not stand in the way of the Court in granting maintenance under section 24 of the Act.

16.Therefore, the Family Court, in an application under section 24 of the Act, was entitled to consider the order passed by the Magistrate under section 125 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of arriving at the interim maintenance. The maintenance under section 24 of the Act is interim in nature, which would be in operation till the disposal of the matrimonial proceedings. Therefore, the maintenance proceedings initiated under section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be dismissed on the ground of a pre-existing order under section 24 of the Act. In all such cases, the respective Courts had to exercise the discretion in accordance with the legal principles and the quantum has to be fixed after taking into account the prior proceedings initiated by the parties for the purpose of maintenance. In any case, the proceeding under section 24 of the Act cannot be dismissed on the ground of currency of an order under section 125 Cr.P.C. The legal principles :-

17.The Supreme Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, (1978) 4 SCC 70 :: AIR 1978 SCC 1807, held that Social justice is not constitutional claptrap but fighting faith which enlivens legislative texts with militant meaning. Mr.Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer in His Lordship’s inimitable style observed thus :- "9.This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advance the cause  the cause of the derelicts."

18.The Supreme Court in Sudeep Chaudhary vs. Radha Chaudhary, [AIR 1999 SC 536] held that the amount awarded under section 125 Cr.P.C. by way of maintenance was adjustable against the amount awarded in the matrimonial proceeding.

19.The question as to whether a prior application for maintenance was a bar for a subsequent application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was considered by a learned Judge of this Court in Manoj Vanaja vs. Gopu [1991 MLJ 290] and the legal position was explained thus :- "It is necessary in this connection to remember that the right conferred under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is in the nature of a special right, arising on initiation and during the pendency of the proceedings by one or the other of the parties to the marriage, under the provisions of that Act. Under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the pendency of proceedings under that Act, is an essential condition for the exercise of the right either by the wife or the husband, as the case may be, to seek an order for payment of the expenses of the proceeding and a monthly sum sufficient for his or her support. It is thus clear that the right to claim maintenance or litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is not made available generally to the parties to a marriage, but only when a proceeding between the spouses is pending under that Act, and in that respect, the right conferred under Section 24 of that Act, is in the nature of a special statutory right not in any manner outside the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The purpose behind Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is that parties to a matrimonial cause should not take undue and unfair advantage of a superior financial capacity to defeat the rightful claims of a weaker party and the proceedings under Section 24 of that Act serve a limited purpose, i.e., during the pendency of proceedings under that Act, to enable the weaker party to establish rights without being in any manner hindered by lack of financial support. If the special nature of the statutory right under Section 24 of that Act and its purpose, are borne in mind, it is at once clear that the enforcement of that right, cannot in any manner be hedged in by a consideration of proceedings otherwise initiated, either under Section 125, Cr. P.C. or under the ordinary law. Further more, in this case, the finding recorded by the court below is to the effect that the respondent had not paid to the petitioner even the amounts of maintenance awarded in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. and there can, therefore, be absolutely no justification whatever for declining to countenance the claim of the petitioner for maintenance on the ground of the prior proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. It may also be pointed out that in proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. the power of the Magistrate is limited to an award of monthly maintenance not exceeding Rs.500 in the whole, and under Section 127(2) and (4), Cr. P.C. provision is made for the cancellation or variation of the magisterial order, as a consequence of a decision of a competent civil court and for the civil court to take into account the amount paid to or recovered by a person, pursuant to an order under Section 125, Cr. P.C. The aforesaid provisions do not in any manner impinge upon the specifical statutory right conferred under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Upon the parties to a proceeding under the provisions of that Act. It would, therefore, follow that the prior proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C, cannot be put against the petitioner, as a ground for declining to entertain her claim for maintenance in enforcement of her statutory right under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act."

20.The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent placed reliance on a Judgment of this Court in G.Ramanathan Vs. Revathy [1989 Crl. L.J. 2037] in support of his contention that it was not permissible to maintain two parallel proceedings. In the said case, a proceeding for divorce was pending before the Civil Court and without filing an application for interim maintenance, the petitioner approached the Magistrate invoking Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Judge observed that if an Order regarding maintenance is passed by the Civil Court, the Magistrate has to set aside the Order granting maintenance and therefore, the proper course should be to approach the Civil Court itself where the proceeding was pending. The said Judgment is not an authority for the proposition that a pre-existing Order for maintenance dis-entitles a party to file an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

21.The learned Trial Judge has committed a jurisdictional error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under section 24 of the Act on the ground of a pre-existing order under section 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the order impugned in this revision petition is liable to be set aside, and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Trial Judge for fresh consideration on merits and as per law.

22.The civil revision petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. M.P.No.1/2008 is closed.

tar

To

The Principal Sub Court, Erode.

Source
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1746603/

திருமணங்கள் செர்கத்தில் நிச்சயக்கபடுகின்றன …ஆனால் மகளிர் காவல் நிலையங்களில் முடிகின்றன

அன்புள்ள நண்பர் அவர்களுக்கு

வணக்கம்

தாய் தந்தையரை போற்றுவது, மதிப்பது, புகழ்வது எல்லாம் உங்க வயசுக்காரர்களுக்கு இயல்பு. இதைதான் எங்களுக்கும் (அடுத்த தலைமுறை) சொல்லிக்கொடுத்தீர்கள் . மிக்க நன்றி !

ஆனால் இன்றைய தலைமுறை (இப்போது 25 ..30ல் இருப்பவர்கள்) , ஏன் இபோது 40 வயதில் இருப்பவர்கள் கூட , அம்மாவை புகழந்தால் …புகழ்ந்தால் என்ன அம்மாவுக்கு சோறு போட்டாலே, இந்த காலத்துப் பெண்கள் (மருமகள்) விரும்புவதில்லை

விரும்பாதது மட்டுமில்லை, பல வீடுகளில் இதுவே பெரும் பிரெச்சனையாய் போய், கோர்ட்டு கேஸ் என்று போய்விடுகிறது

இந்தியாவில் முதியோர் இல்லங்கள் தான் இப்போது *புதிய* trend .. முதியோர் இல்லங்கள் பெரும் பிசினஸ். 30 வருடங்கள் முன் முதியோர் இல்லம் என் கேள்விப்பட்டால் அசிங்கமாய் பார்ப்பார்கள் …. இப்போது சகஜமாகி விட்டது .

திடீரென இந்தியாவில் அதுவும் சாதரண குடும்அங்களிலிம் இப்படி ஆக காரணமென்ன ?

முதியோர் இல்லங்களில் இருப்பவர்கள் எல்லாம் குழந்தை குட்டி இல்லாதவர்கள் இல்லை. முதியோர் இல்லங்களில் இருப்பவர்களை, அவர்களது பிள்ளைகள் திருமணத்துக்கு முன்னமே (பிள்ளைகளின் திருமணத்துக்கு முன்னமே) வீட்டை விட்டு விரட்டி விட்டார்கள் என்று சொல்லவும் வாய்ப்பில்லை ….. வெகு வெகு குறைவான வீடுகளில் மட்டுமே திருமணத்துக்கு முன் பெற்றோர் தனியாய் வசிக்கின்றனர். திருமணம் ஆகும் வரை காப்பாற்றிக்கொண்டு , அன்ஆய் ஆசையாய் இருந்த மகன், திருமணம் ஆன பின் தன் பெற்றோரை காப்பாற்ற முடிவதில்லை . மகனுக்கு திருமணம் ஆனபின் மகனை பெற்றோர்கள் அனாதையாய் தெருவில் நிற்கின்றனர்

மனைவிக்கு எதிராய், தாயை காப்பாற்றுவேன் என்று மகன் ஆரம்பித்தால் அவன் மனைவி கோர்ட்டு கேஸ் என்று போட்டுத்தள்ளுகிறாள் .

தாங்களே googleல் false dowry case என்று தேடிப்பாருங்கள் . 1000க்கணக்கில் செய்திகளும், அனுபவங்களும் கிடைக்கும். இவற்றில் பல கேஸ்கள் சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட்டு வரை போயிருக்கின்றன … பல அப்பாவி தாய் தந்தையரின் வாழ்நாளே கோர்ட்டு கேஸ் என்று பாழாகி இருக்கிறது

இது தான் பிள்ளையை பெற்ற தாய் தந்தயரின் இன்றைய சகஜமான நிலைமை (எல்லாரும் இப்படி இல்லை …அனால் இந்த நிலை அதிகரித்துக்கொண்டு தான் வருகிறது)

பல கோர்டுகள் கத்தியும் கதறியும் எந்த முகாந்திரமும் இல்லாமல் பெற்றோரும் பெரியோரும் கைதாவது (அல்லது பெரும் பணம் செலவழித்து தம் விடுதலையை பெருவது ) வழக்கமாகிவிட்டது

“……    It must also be borne in mind that the object behind the enactment of Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act is to check and curb the menace of dowry and at the same time, to save the matrimonial homes from destruction.

Our experience shows that, apart from the husband, all family members are implicated and dragged to the police stations.

Though arrest of those persons is not at all necessary, in a number of cases, such harassment is made simply to satisfy the ego and anger of the complainant.  ……….” என்ற சென்னை உயர் நீதி மன்ற ஜஸ்டிஸ் திரு ரகுபதி அவர்களின் ஆர்டரடை இங்கே http://judis.nic.in/judis_chennai/qrydisp.aspx?filename=15228 படித்தால் விஷயத்தின் தீவிரம் உங்களுக்கு புரியும்

அன்புடன்

விநாயக்