Chetram Mali Vs Karishma Saini on 21 Nov 2023

Posted on November 23, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court held as follows:

From Para 6,

6. XX
…
It may be noticed that though respondent claims to have no independent source of income but has reasonable educational background being a graduate from Delhi University. She appears to have voluntarily undertaken social work as claimed despite there being no impediment for undertaking a meaningful employment. The spouse having a reasonable capacity of earning but who chooses to remain unemployed and idle without any sufficient explanation or indicating sincere efforts to gain employment should not be permitted to saddle the other party with one sided responsibility of meeting out the expenses. The equivalence does not have to be with mathematical precision but with the objective to provide relief to the spouse by way of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, who is unable to maintain and support during the pendency of proceedings and to ensure that party should not suffer due to paucity of source of income. The provision is gender neutral and the provisions of Section 24 & 25 of HMA provide for the rights, liabilities and obligations arising from marriage between the parties under HMA.

Chetram Mali Vs Karishma Saini on 21 Nov 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

K.S.Sumi Mol Vs Suresh Kumar E.K. on 31 Jul 2023

Posted on October 28, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court passed these guidelines in order to achieve speedy disposal of Matrimonial and family related matters.

From Para 6,

6. In view of the above, and in the absence of any specific Rules regarding the speedy disposal of cases relating to marriage and family affairs within a time frame, we hereby lay down the guidelines for strict observance by all the Family Courts in Delhi, till such time rules are formulated by the State Government in consultation with the High Court of Delhi.
“Guidelines
a. Issue of Summons: When a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and to file the written statement of his defence, if any, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on that defendant:
Provided that no such summons shall be issued when a defendant has appeared at the presentation of plaint and admitted the plaintiff‟s claim:
Provided further that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons.
Provided further, the time taken for conciliation, mediation or interaction shall be excluded.
b. Inspection: (1) All parties shall complete inspection of all documents disclosed within thirty days of the date of filing of the written statement. The Court may extend this time limit upon application at its discretion, but not beyond thirty days.
(2) Any party to the proceedings may seek directions from the Court, at any stage of the proceedings, for inspection or production of documents by the other party, of which inspection has been refused by such party or documents have not been produced despite issuance of a notice to produce.
(3) Such application shall be disposed of within thirty days of filing such application, including filing replies and rejoinders (if permitted by Court) and hearing.
(4) If the above application is allowed, inspection and copies thereof shall be furnished to the party seeking it, within five days of such order.
(5) No party shall be permitted to rely on a document, which it had failed to disclose or of which inspection has not been given, save and except with leave of Court.
c. Admission and Denial of Documents: Each party shall submit a statement of admissions or denials of all documents disclosed and of which inspection has been completed, within fifteen days of the completion of inspection or any later date as fixed by the Court.
d. Case Management Hearing: The court shall hold the first Case Management Hearing, not later than four weeks from the date of filing of affidavit of admission or denial of documents by all parties to the suit.
In a Case Management Hearing, after hearing the parties, and once it finds that there are issues of fact and law which require to be tried, the court shall-
(i) frame the issues after examining pleadings, documents and documents produced before it, and on examination conducted by the court under Rule 2 of Order X, if required;
(ii) List the number of witnesses to be examined by the parties;
(iii) Fix the schedule of the dates and evidence led by parties with all endeavour to complete the evidence in six months.
(iv) Fix the date for oral arguments within ten days and it shall be open for the Court to limit the time for oral submissions having regard to the nature and complexity of the matter.
(v) Fix the date for filing the written arguments and a party shall, within four weeks prior to commencing the oral arguments, submit concisely and under distinct headings written arguments in support of their case to the Court and such written arguments shall form part of the record and shall be filed within fifteen days;
(vi)No adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of filing the written arguments unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, considers it necessary to grant such adjournment.
(vii)Set time limits for parties and their advocates to address oral arguments.
In fixing dates or setting time limits, the court shall ensure that the arguments are closed not later than two months from the date when the evidence of the parties was concluded.
(viii)The interim applications for ‘maintenance pendente lite’, ‘interim custody’ and all other miscellaneous applications relating to marriage/family affairs shall be decided within 90 days from the date of filing.
e. Judgment & Decree: (1) The court, shall, within thirty days of the conclusion of arguments, which shall not extend beyond sixty days, pronounce judgment and copies thereof shall be issued to all the parties to the dispute through electronic mail or otherwise.”

K.S.Sumi Mol Vs Suresh Kumar E.K. on 31 Jul 2023

Deepti Vs Anil Kumar on 19 Sep 2023

Posted on October 15, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court held that Family Courts cannot grant divorce on ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage.

From Para 4,

4. The Respondent also alleged that from the very first day of marriage, Appellant created scenes at night hours and most of the times did not allow him to enjoy his conjugal rights. She refused him to have access to her and inflicted cruelty upon him. He further alleged that he was allowed by the Appellant only 30-35 times (approximately) to enjoy conjugal relations since their marriage.

From Para 7 and 8,

7. In respect of the ground of cruelty, the Family Court has held that “there was no normal and healthy sexual relationships between (Respondent) and his wife (Appellant) and same has resulted in striking at the very foundation of their marriage. It has been well settled that normal and healthy sexual Relationships between both spouse is one of the basic ingredients for happy and harmonious marriage as the marriage without sex is an anathema. Sex is foundation of marriage and without a vigorous and harmonious sexual activity it would be impossible for any marriage to continue.”
8. The Family Court after holding that there was denial of conjugal relations, noticed that parties had been living separately for more than 11 years and held that the marriage had broken down beyond repair and thus held that the Respondent had successfully established cruelty and thus granted a decree of divorce against the Appellant.

From Para 17,

17. Said ground is clearly not available to the Respondent and the Family Court has erred in returning a finding that there is denial of conjugal relationship by the Appellant. The allegations of the Respondent of denial of conjugal relationship are vague and without any specifics. He has alleged that he was allowed by the Appellant only 30-35 times (approximately) to enjoy conjugal relations since their marriage. This clearly shows that there was never any complete denial.

From Para 25,

25. In terms of the Judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Shilpa Sailesh (supra), the power to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice to both the parties. Such a power is not vested in the High Courts leave alone the Family Courts.
26. In the instant case, the Family Court has merely considered the fact that the parties have lived separately for 11 years and granted divorce on the ground of breakdown of marriage. Such an exercise of powers is not conferred on the Family Court. Family Courts have to restrict their considerations to the parameters of the provision of grant of divorce strictly in accordance with the Act. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground in the Act.
27. Even the Supreme Court while considering exercise of discretionary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India takes into account several factors and longevity of period is only one of them. Reference may be had to Para 41 of Shilpa Sailesh (supra) extracted hereinabove. Supreme Court has placed a word of caution that “grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage by this Court is not a matter of right, but a discretion which is to be exercised with great care and caution, keeping in mind several factors ensuring that ‘complete justice’ is done to both parties. It is obvious that this Court should be fully convinced and satisfied that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvation and, therefore, dissolution of marriage is the right solution and the only way forward. That the marriage has irretrievably broken down is to be factually determined and firmly established.”
28. In the present case, the Family Court has erred in travelling beyond the scope of its powers to grant divorce.

Deepti Vs Anil Kumar on 19 Sep 2023

Mohit Gupta and Ors vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 16 Oct 2006

Posted on October 15, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench judge at Delhi High Court held that Shivcharan Lal Verma and Anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh is the precedent that is binding and not the Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam And Others.

From Para 8,

8. These are undoubtedly strong words and clearly show that a person who ostensibly contracts a marriage with a woman and lives with her as husband and wife would also be covered within the meaning of the expression “husband” used in Section 498-A IPC. But the matter does not stop here. The Supreme Court, in the case of Shivcharan Lal Verma (supra), which is a decision of a three-judge bench, was of the contrary view. The facts in that case were that during the lifetime of the first wife, Shivcharan married for the second time. But after the marriage both the first wife and Shivcharan tortured the second wife as a result of which she ultimately committed suicide by burning herself. The incident occurred inside the house while Shivcharan and his first wife were in one room and the second wife was in the other. One of the questions which arose before the Supreme Court was whether the provisions under Section 498-A can at all be attracted since the marriage with the second wife itself was null and void, the same having been performed during the lifetime of the first wife. In answer to this question the Supreme Court observed that there was considerable force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that so far as conviction under Section 498-A was concerned, inasmuch as the alleged marriage with the second wife, during the subsistence of a valid marriage with the first wife, was null and void, the same cannot be sustained. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 498-A IPC. Going by this a decision, it is clear that the Supreme Court was of the view that as the second marriage was null and void, Shivcharan could not be regarded as a “husband” within the meaning ascribed to it under Section 498-A IPC. Although the learned Counsel for the respondent had, as noted above, made submissions to the effect that this was not a binding precedent, I don’t see as to how this is would not constitute a binding precedent. The point in issue arose out of the facts of the case. It was specifically raised and specifically answered. The ratio of the decision is that a male partner to a null marriage cannot be covered by the expression “husband” as appearing in Section 498-A IPC. It is another thing that the Supreme Court in the case of Shivcharan Lal Verma (supra) did not discuss this question with the same degree of elaboration as in the case of Reema Aggarwal (supra). But, this by itself cannot be construed to mean that in Shivcharan lal Verma (supra), the Supreme Court did not consider the entire scope and ambit of the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. It must also be pointed out that the decision in Shivcharan Lal Verma (supra) has not been noticed in Reema Aggarwal (supra) although the latter decision is later in point of time. So, the decision in Reema Aggarwal (supra) has to be regarded as per incuriam. The second point that has to be kept in mind is that the decision in Shivcharan Lal Verma (supra) has been rendered by a bench of three honourable judges whereas the decision in the case of Reema Aggarwal (supra) is by a bench of two honourable judges. Clearly, the decision in Shivcharan Lal Verma (supra) would be binding. In this context it would be pertinent to note the observations of a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002) 5 SCC 578 wherein the Supreme Court observed [at para 28]:
The well settled principle of precedents which has crystallised into a rule of law is that the bench of lesser strength is bound by the view expressed by a bench of larger strength and cannot take a view in departure or in conflict there from.
Therefore the decision in Shivcharan Lal Verma (supra) will clearly take precedence over the decision in Reema Aggarwal (supra).

Indiankanoon version:

Mohit Gupta and Ors vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 16 Oct 2006 (IK ver)

Casemine version:

Mohit Gupta and Ors vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 16 Oct 2006 (CM ver)

Citations: [2007 AD DEL 1 503], [2007 DRJ 93 606], [2006 DLT 135 390], [2007 DMC 1 47], [2006 SCC ONLINE DEL 1256], [2006 JCC 3 1923], [2007 JCC 3 1923]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/338837/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090c14e4b0149711176259

Mohit Gupta And Ors. vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 16 October, 2006

Index of Quash judgements is here and HMA Judgments is here.

Mahima Chaturvedi Vs Deepak Malhotra on 26 Jul 2021

Posted on October 10, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court held as follows while denying interim maintenance to a working wife.

From Para 5,

5. The learned Family Judge has observed in its order dated 18.06.2020 that the Object and Intent of Section 24 is to support the spouse who has no independent source of income. The learned Family Court has relied on the income affidavit of the appellant to arrive at a conclusion that the appellant is drawing a salary of Rs. 85,000/- per month and relied on the judgment of this Court in case titled K.N. vs R.G. Reported as MAT. APP(FC) no. 93/18 (date of decision – 12.02.2019) to hold that the provision of Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, are not meant to equalise the income of wife with that of the husband.

From Para 9,

9. Hence, we are clear that the appellant is a well-qualified professional and is drawing a salary of 85,000/- month which is adequate for a comfortable life. In K.N. v. R.G., it has been held that the provision of section 24 are not meant to equalize the income of the spouses but only to see that no spouse should suffer due to paucity of income. The purpose to grant maintenance is to tide over litigation expenses and to provide a comfortable life to the spouse.

Mahima Chaturvedi Vs Deepak Malhotra on 26 Jul 2021

Index of Maintenance Orders under HMA here.

Poonam Sethi Vs Sanjay Sethi on 07 Jan 2022

Posted on October 10, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Para 57,

57. Each and every individual is entitled to basic resources like food, shelter, clothing, education, medical expenses and other necessities required to live a dignified life. Morally and legally, it the obligation of both the parents to provide these amenities, according to the status of life being led by them, to their children by way of maintenance.

Poonam Sethi Vs Sanjay Sethi on 07 Jan 2022

Index of Maintenance Orders under HMA here.

Niharika Kundu Vs Shankar Ghosh on 12 Sep 2023

Posted on October 10, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court caught a liar in a HMA 24 proceeding.

From Para 6,

6. It is not in dispute that the appellant was M. Phil at the time of her marriage and was pursuing Ph.D which she has completed and is now having the qualification of Ph.D (Management) with professional qualification in Computers. While on the other hand the respondent is a simple graduate. It is also not denied that appellant was working at the time of her marriage at a Diamond Jewellery Showroom and was getting Rs.12,000/- per month. She had left her job since she was unable to attend her office since 22.05.2015.
7. From the submissions it is evident that not only is the appellant highly qualified but had been working even at the time of her marriage.

From Para 8,

8. The second aspect of significance is that the respondent had claimed that the appellant is working in the office of M.P. Udit Raj in Connaught Place and her claim that she is unemployed, is incorrect. In support of his assertions he had relied upon a CD showing the appellant working in the office of Mr. Udit Raj and also marking her attendance in the Register. The appellant who had initially taken a stand that she was not working, when confronted with this CD, gave an explanation that she has a friend working in the office of Mr. Udit Raj and at times when she goes to visit her friend, she also looks after the office work.

Niharika Kundu Vs Shankar Ghosh on 12 Sep 2023

Citations: [2023 SCC OnLine Del. 5624]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116590874/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/650084c876bd087c6be01592

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/5125330-niharika-ghosh-niharika-kundu

Maintenance denied to Highly qualified wife , who approach the Ld. court with unclean hands : DHC as on 21 September 2023

Index of Maintenance Orders under HMA here.

Kulvinder Singh Gehlot Vs Parmila on 22 Aug 2023

Posted on September 24, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court granted divorce to a couple who are separated for over 17 years…

From Para 17,

17. The divorce has been sought on the ground of cruelty. While “physical cruelty” is visible and easy to comprehend and determine, the more challenging aspect is “mental agony” which has been recognized as part of “cruelty” which once established, is a valid ground of divorce. The contours of “mental cruelty” were defined in case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1956 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 party.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.

From Paras 22 and 23,

22. During the trial, the allegations had not been established as held by the Order of Ld. Mahila Court, South District and amounts to a clear and categorical character assassination of the appellant as well as his family members.
23. It is not under challenge that the criminal proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the parties. A Police Station is not the best of places for anyone to visit. It is a source of mental harassment and trauma each time he was required to visit the Police Station, like the “Damocles Sword” hanging over his head, not knowing when a case would be registered against him and he would be arrested. The respondent had done everything to get the appellant and his family entrapped in the criminal case. Such conduct of making false allegations and constant threat of being summoned to Police Station are the acts which severely impact the mental balance and all the acts of cruelty.

From Para 27,

27. A law of divorce based mainly on fault is inadequate to deal with a broken marriage. Under the “Fault theory”, guilt has to be proved; divorce courts are presented with concrete instances of human behaviour as they bring the institution of marriage into disrepute. We have been principally impressed by the consideration that once the marriage has broken down beyond repair, it would be unrealistic for the law not to take notice of the fact, and it would be harmful to society and injurious to the interests of the parties. Where there has been a long period continuous separation, it may be fairly surmised 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. The Family Court ought to have visualised that preservation of such a marriage is totally unworkable which has ceased to be effective and would be a greater source of misery for the parties. The Family Court ought to have considered that a human problem can be properly resolved by adopting a human approach. In the instant case, not to grant a decree of divorce would be disastrous for the parties. Otherwise, there may be a ray of hope for the parties that after a passage of time (after obtaining a decree of divorce) the parties may psychologically and emotionally settle down and start a new chapter in life.

Kulvinder Singh Gehlot Vs Parmila on 22 Aug 2023

Citations: [2023 SCC ONLINE DEL 5122]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186009176/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/64e4d541d2752322a69ddb3d

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/constant-threat-of-arrest-and-wifes-false-allegations-has-become-source-of-mental-cruelty-delhi-hc-grants-divorce-to-aggrieved-husband-1491232

Index of Divorce Judgments here.

Rangesh Srinivasan Vs Madhulika Bawa on 07 Jun 2023

Posted on September 5, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Paras 12-14,

12. Going a step deeper, there is another aspect. While exercising the revisional scrutiny of an interim maintenance order passed in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, the revisional court for yet another reason cannot impose as a pre-condition to grant of stay on operation of the assailed interim maintenance order, such general rider of deposit of the entire amount of awarded maintenance ignoring the overall circumstances of the case. The provision under Section 397 CrPC confers suo motu powers on the Court of Sessions and the High Court. Wherever the statute confers suo motu powers on any judicial authority, such powers are always implicitly accompanied with attendant duty to invoke the powers in order to meet the ends of justice. Once an illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in a judicial order is brought to the notice of the revisional court under Section 397 CrPC, the Court cannot justifiably refuse to entertain the challenge on the grounds of non-compliance with the order impugned before it. From that angle also, in my view, there cannot be generalized direction not to stay the operation of the interim maintenance order solely on the ground that the revisionist did not deposit the entire amount of awarded maintenance. Of course, if otherwise the factual and legal matrix justifies, grant of stay can be denied as well.
13. It is clarified that in the present case this court has refrained itself from analysing as to whether operation of the interim maintenance order facing appellate challenge is otherwise liable to be stayed or not. This issue has to be considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the facts and circumstances of the case in the backdrop of settled legal position.
14. In view of above discussion, the petition is allowed and accordingly the impugned order is set aside, consequently remanding the matter back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to decide afresh as to whether the interim maintenance order passed by the magisterial court is liable to be stayed during pendency of the appeal.

Rangesh Srinivasan Vs Madhulika Bawa on 07 Jun 2023

Citations: [2023 Latest Caselaw 774 Del]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/185965631/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6481f4e9e2788a042a651529

https://www.latestlaws.com/judgements/delhi-hc/2023/june/2023-latest-caselaw-774-del

https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?CaseId=103202750100&Title=RANGESH-SRINIVASAN-Vs.-MADHULIKA-BAWA

https://legiteye.com/in-crl-mc-4349-of-2023-del-hc-once-an-illegality-or-impropriety-in-a-judicial-order-is-brought-to-notice-of-revisional-court-it-cannot-justifiably-refuse-to-entertain-the-challenge-on-grounds-of-non-compliance-with-the-order-impugned-before-it-delhi-high-court-justice-girish-kathpalia-07-06-2023/

Index of PWDV Act cases here. Index of Maintenance cases u/s 144 BNSS (125 Cr.P.C.) here.

Mamta Vs Pradeep Kumar on 05 Sep 2023

Posted on September 5, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Para 12,

12. Marriages under old Hindu Law are considered as a sacrament and did not recognize the concept of divorce. Once this union of marriage was established, the ties were for the entire life of the spouses which could not be severed under any circumstances. Complete shift of paradigm from the social ethos happened with the enactment of the Act, 1955 which not only introduced the concept of ‘monogamy’ but also defined certain grounds on which alone divorce could be granted. Despite this phenomenal change in the social ethos, the Act, 1955 recognises the ground of divorce only on “Fault Theory”. Unless the opposite party was shown to be at fault, whether it was for ‘Adultery’, ‘Cruelty’, ‘Desertion’ or other grounds as specified under Section 13 of the Act, 1955, no divorce can be granted. With the passage of time, experience has shown that many a times, the marriages do not work because of incompatibility and temperamental differences, for which neither party can be blamed. However, since only Fault Theory prevails, these parties end up warring with each other for years to come only because they have no way of exiting this relationship. While many debates have been held to introduce “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” as a ground, it has not met the approval and consent of the legislation. We are bound by limits as defined under the Act, 1955 and unless the fault of the other spouse is shown, the parties are left to suffer acrimonious relationship with no way to exit. In this backdrop, the facts of the present case may be considered.

From Para 30,

30. We conclude that in the present case the parties are living separately for 15 years now; there is no chance of reconciliation between the parties and such long separation peppered which false allegations, police reports and criminal trial has become a source of mental cruelty and any insistence either to continue this relationship or modifying the Family Court’s order would only be inflicting further cruelty upon both the parties. Living together in a marriage is not an irreversible act. But marriage is a tie between two parties and if this tie is not working under any circumstances, we see no purpose in postponing the inevitability of the situation.

Mamta Vs Pradeep Kumar on 05 Sep 2023

Citations: [2023 DHC 6384-DB]

Other Sources:

Index of Divorce judgments here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification

Chetram Mali Vs Karishma Saini on 21 Nov 2023

K.S.Sumi Mol Vs Suresh Kumar E.K. on 31 Jul 2023

Deepti Vs Anil Kumar on 19 Sep 2023

Mohit Gupta and Ors vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 16 Oct 2006

Mahima Chaturvedi Vs Deepak Malhotra on 26 Jul 2021

Poonam Sethi Vs Sanjay Sethi on 07 Jan 2022

Niharika Kundu Vs Shankar Ghosh on 12 Sep 2023

Kulvinder Singh Gehlot Vs Parmila on 22 Aug 2023

Rangesh Srinivasan Vs Madhulika Bawa on 07 Jun 2023

Mamta Vs Pradeep Kumar on 05 Sep 2023