It has been contended by petitioner No. Satish Prakash Satish Chandra, Cr. It has to be construed liberally so as to include the Court where the other litigation between the parties were pending. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Puneet Bhatia the son of petitioner No. In order to give incentives to such of the parties to resort to this alternative C. For the aforesaid reasons, I feel that the order dated Free for one month and pay only if you like it. Therefore, the necessity of deciding the question as to whether the word 'Court' appearing in first part of Section 16 is a reference to the Court where the dispute is pending or it can be construed as any Court other than the Court where the C. Simultaneously, it seems that Karishma Bhatia Nee Karishma Dua had also initiated some matrimonial proceedings against the present petitioners in Chandigarh.
© 2020 americanwota.com - All rights reserved. All Models are over 21 y.o.