[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

This is what is provided in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, with regard to the filing of a caveat:

“Where a petition is expected to be lodged, or has been lodged, which does not relate to any pending appeal of which the record has been registered in the Registry of the Court, any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of such petition may lodge a caveat in the matter thereof, and shall thereupon be entitled to receive from the Registrar notice of the lodging of the petition, if at the time of the lodging of the caveat such petition has not yet been lodged, and, if and when the petition has been lodged, to require the petitioner to serve him with copy of the petition and to furnish him, at his own expense, with copies of any papers lodged by the petitioner in support of his petition. The caveator shall forthwith, after lodging his caveat, give notice thereof to the petitioner, if the petition has been lodged.”

Nowadays, in actual practice, where a Caveat is filed in the Supreme Court, the Advocate on Record of the caveator will get a message on his mobile phone immediately after an SLP is filed by the opponent and a diary number is generated on such filing of SLP. After the SLP is given a regular SLP number, it will not be listed by Supreme Court registry in the court unless a copy of the petition has been served on the caveator (or his advocate on record) and unless proof of such service is filed in the registry.

So, you or your advocate on record will get information as well as copy of the SLP filed by your opponent in the matter in which you have filed the caveat. Without that, the case will not be listed in the court.     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

As per Section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Public Information Officer is required to give reply to the RTI application within a maximum period of 30 days or otherwise reject the request for RTI information along with reasons within that period of 30 days.

However, where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the RTI reply shall be provided within 48 hours of the receipt of the request.

If the information on RTI application is not given within the aforesaid period, it shall be presumed that the authority has refused the information.

If the information is not given within the aforesaid period, the RTI applicant can file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 19 of the RTI Act. This appeal has to be filed within a further period of 30 days, though delay in filing appeal can be condoned if satisfactory cause is shown.

In your case, since the RTI reply is yet to be received even after 45 days, it can be considered that the information has been refused and you can file an appeal against refusal of such information.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

The period of limitation for filing appeal to the Sessions Court against an order of conviction passed by the Magistrate court (whether Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate) is only 30 (thirty) days.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

It is necessary to have a copy of the order that is to be challenged in the high court. Otherwise, what will you challenge? And, how will the high court decide without even having a copy of the order being challenged?

In fact, usually it is insisted that you must provide a certified copy of the order of the lower court while challenging the same before the high court. But, sometimes, the high court may agree to hear you on the basis of the an ordinary (or uncertified) copy of the order of the lower court. However, at least some copy of the order of the lower court is necessary for filing an appeal.

I have seen sometimes advocates filing an appeal without attaching the copy of the order, with the hope that by the time the registry of the high court examines the appeal papers, the copy of the order of the lower court would become available which they then attach. It may save some time in urgent matters.

In some high profile matters or urgent matters, sometimes an advocate may make a mention before the high court that he is filing the appeal during the course of the day and that it may be heard immediately. The high court may sometimes give a concession and direct an immediate listing.

All said and done, at the time of hearing of the appeal, it is necessary that the order of the lower court should be before the high court, whether it is a certified copy or an uncertified copy (if permitted by the high court).

As an aside, generally, the punishment awarded in a corruption case (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) is less than 3 years, and the Special Judge has the power to grant bail under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. in such cases after convicting the accused. So, why don’t you try that?

Meanwhile, you can keep your appeal ready if you have already heard the order being dictated in the open court; so that if the punishment is more than 3 years, then you immediately file the appeal before high court as soon as possible; of course, in such a situation, the accused may have to remain in jail at least for some time since the Special Judge will not have the power to grant bail where the punishment awarded is more than 3 years.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

The moment you say that the police had charge sheeted the case, it becomes a case instituted on a police report, even if the initial complaint was given by a private person. In fact, for that matter, in most of the cases, the initial complaint is given by private persons, and it is very rare that an FIR is registered on the basis of a complaint given by a police officer.

Moreover, the expression “police report” used in Section 238 Cr.P.C. refers to the “Report of police officer on completion of investigation” as mentioned in the heading of Section 173 Cr.P.C., which implies charge sheet.

Therefore, the case against you will be considered as a case instituted on a police report. Accordingly, procedure mentioned in Section 238 Cr.P.C. onwards will be adopted.

This trial will be conducted by the Magistrate court (which may also be Chief Judicial Magistrate), and NOT by the Sessions Court.

[Note: It is pertinent to point out that in Chapter 19 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Part A starting with Section 238 is for trial of “Cases instituted on a police report”. On the other hand, Part B starting with Section 244 is for trial of “Cases instituted otherwise than on police report”, i.e., for private complaints. And, Part C starting with Section 248 common to both these categories.]

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

Yes. The right to reputation has been considered as a facet of fundamental right, being a facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It has been declared so in several cases decided by the Supreme Court, the latest being the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221 : 2016 Cri LJ 3214 : AIR 2016 SC 2728.

For example, in the case of Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni, (1983) 1 SCC 124, the Supreme Court observed as under:

“…Article 21 which mandates that no one shall be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The expression “life” does not merely connote animal existence or a continued drudgery through life. The expression “life” has a much wider meaning. Where therefore the outcome of a departmental enquiry is likely to adversely affect reputation or livelihood of a person, some of the finer graces of human civilization which make life worth living would be jeopardised and the same can be put in jeopardy only by law which inheres fair procedures.”

Relying, inter alia, on the above observations in Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni case, in the case of State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani, (2003) 8 SCC 361 : AIR 2003 SC 3357, the Supreme Court held that:

“It is thus amply clear that one is entitled to have and preserve one’s reputation and one also has a right to protect it. In case any authority, in discharge of its duties fastened upon it under the law, traverses into the realm of personal reputation adversely affecting him, it must provide a chance to him to have his say in the matter. In such circumstances right of an individual to have the safeguard of the principles of natural justice before being adversely commented upon by a Commission of Inquiry is statutorily recognised and violation of the same will have to bear the scrutiny of judicial review.”

The right to reputation is a facet of right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. [see: (a) State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust, (2007) 3 SCC 587; (b) Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 16 SCC 14; Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 7 SCC 559.]

Recently, in the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221 : 2016 Cri LJ 3214 : AIR 2016 SC 2728, the Supreme Court observed that the reputation is an inextricable aspect of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was further held that the right to free speech cannot mean that a citizen can defame the other. Protection of reputation is a fundamental right. It is also a human right. Cumulatively it serves the social interest.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

Now, with the new Companies Act, 2013, it is also possible to have One Person Company which has only one shareholder, who can have 100% equity capital of such company. So, why don’t you start a One Person Company instead of a Private Limited Company?

In any case, if you still want to start a Private Limited Company with 100% shareholding, then the better practical option would be induct some family member or very close friend or trusted person as the second shareholder (and, who would also be a director) and keep most of the shares with you, which may be, say, 99% of the shares, while remaining miniscule percentage of shares can be given to such other trusted person. The Articles of Association of such company can be drafted appropriately to ensure that you retain most of the powers, to the extent permissible under law to one director.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

If it is joint property held by 4 brothers, which was not partitioned yet (as you have mentioned), then it was legally not correct on the part of the elder brother to sell it to someone without taking the consent of other 3 brothers. What to do now? Well, in case other 3 brothers merely want the share of the sale proceeds, you can talk to the elder brother; if he is willing to share the sale proceeds, then take it and settle the matter amicably. Otherwise, you may file a case to declare the sale deed null and void since it did not have consent of remaining 3 joint owners; and, also, you can ask for partition of the property.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

In the face of the facts stated by you, it is very difficult now for you to get your date of birth corrected in the Government records. This is so because the guidelines would not permit correction of date of birth after 5 years of joining the service, and you have already completed 8 years of service. The only possibility could be to go the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and try your best, explaining why there is a delay in making a request for change of date of birth, though I must caution you that there is little chance of success in CAT also. However, before you approach CAT, you should first make a formal request to the Government or the competent authority to changing the date of birth in your service records. Over all, the chance of success in the getting the date of birth corrected at this stage is very little in your case.

It is pertinent to point out that as per the existing Government guidelines, an alteration of date of birth of a Government servant can be made, with the sanction of a Ministry or Department of the Central Government, if —

(a) a request in this regard is made within five years of his entry into Government service;

(b) it is clearly established that a genuine bona fide mistake has occurred; and

(c) the date of birth so altered would not make him ineligible to appear in any School or University of Union Public Service Commission examination in which he had appeared, or for entry into Government service on the date on which he first appeared at such examination or on the date on which he entered Government service.

In this regard, it is pertinent to point out that in the case of Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 : AIR 1993 SC 1367, the Supreme Court observed as under:

“A Government servant, after entry into service, acquires the right to continue in service till the age of retirement, as fixed by the State in exercise of its powers regulating conditions of service, unless the services are dispensed with on other grounds contained in the relevant service rules after following the procedure prescribed therein. The date of birth entered in the service records of a civil servant is, thus of utmost importance for the reason that the right to continue in service stands decided by its entry in the service record. A Government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of the employment is, of course, not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age. It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in possession of irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant must do so without any unreasonable delay. In the absence of any provision in the rules for correction of date of birth, the general principle of refusing relief on grounds of laches or stale claims, is generally applied by the courts and tribunals. It is nonetheless competent for the Government to fix a time-limit, in the service rules, after which no application for correction of date of birth of a Government servant can be entertained. A Government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. The law of limitation may operate harshly but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the courts or tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire. Unless altered, his date of birth as recorded would determine his date of superannuation even if it amounts to abridging his right to continue in service on the basis of his actual age.”

“…Note 5 to FR 56(m) was incorporated only in 1979 and it provides for request to be made for correction of date of birth within five years from the date of entry into service but what is necessary to be examined is the intention of the rule-making authority in providing the period of limitation for seeking the correction of the date of birth of the Government servant viz. to discourage stale claims and belated applications for alteration of date of birth recorded in the service-book at the time of initial entry. It is the duty of the courts and tribunals to promote that intention by an intelligible and harmonious interpretation of the rule rather than choke its operation. The interpretation has to be the one which advances the intention and not the one which frustrates it. It could not be the intention of the rule-making authority to give unlimited time to seek correction of date of birth, after 1979, to those Government servants who had joined the service prior to 1979 but restrict it to the five year period for those who enter service after 1979. Indeed, if a Government servant, already in service for a long time, had applied for correction of date of birth before 1979, it would not be permissible to non-suit him on the ground that he had not applied for correction within five years of his entry into service, but the case of Government servant who applied for correction of date of birth only after 1979 stands on a different footing. It would be appropriate and in tune with harmonious construction of the provision to hold that in the case of those Government servants who were already in service before 1979, for a period of more than five years, and who intended to have their date of birth corrected after 1979, may seek the correction of date of birth within a reasonable time after 1979 but in any event not later than five years after the coming into force of the amendment in 1979. This view would be in consonance with the intention of the rule-making authority.”

In view of these reasons, it is very difficult now for you to get your date of birth corrected in the Government records, since it is beyond the time limitation fixed by the Government for this purpose.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

Since it is a direct recruitment to a new post, such Government servant will have to undergo probation period of the new post again and he will have to again get confirmed in the new post subject to satisfactory probation period completion. This is in spite of the fact that he was earlier working in a confirmed post under the same Government, wherein he had completed his probation period successfully.

In this regard, let me refer from the Office Memorandum O.M. No. 18011/3/88-Estt(D) dated 24.09.1992 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) which explains this position. The gist of this O.M. in this regard is as under:

If a Government servant is appointed to another post by direct recruitment either in the same department or a different department, it may be necessary to consider him for confirmation in the new post in which he has been appointed by direct recruitment irrespective of the fact that the officer was holding the earlier post on a substantive basis. Further confirmation in the new entry grade becomes necessary because the new post may not be in the same line or discipline as the old post in which he has been confirmed and the fact that he was considered suitable for continuance in the old post (which was the basis for his confirmation in that post) would not automatically make him suitable for continuance or confirmation in the new post the job requirements of which may be quite different from those of the old post.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

As per the latest information available on the relevant Government websites, in case the widow of the army personnel is no more alive, family pension is payable to the children up to 25 years of their age, or marriage or till they start earning a monthly income exceeding Rs. 3,500/- +  DA admissible from time to time, whichever is earlier.

Therefore, family pension would be payable to you only up to the age of 25 years subject to the condition that you are unmarried and unemployed as mentioned above.

See, for more details:

• http://www.pensionersportal.gov.in/ClassOfPen.asp
• http://indianairforce.nic.in/pdf/fam_pen.pdf
• http://www.dgrindia.com/directorate/kbs7.html

 

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

The relevant guidelines in respect of withdrawal of the resignation from Government service are contained in the Office Memorandum No. 28034/25/87-Estt(A) dated 11 February 1988 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training and the relevant extract is reproduced hereunder:

“A resignation becomes effective when it is accepted and the Government servant is relieved of his duties. If a Government servant who had submitted a resignation, sends an intimation in writing to the appointing authority withdrawing his earlier letter of resignation before its acceptance by the appointing authority, the resignation will be deemed to have been automatically withdrawn and there is no question of accepting the resignation. In case, however, the resignation had been accepted by the appointing authority and the Government servant is to be relieved from a future date, if any request for withdrawing the resignation is made by the Government servant before he is actually relieved of his duties, the normal principle should be to allow the request of the Government servant to withdraw the resignation. If however, the request for withdrawal is to be refused, the grounds for the rejection of the request should be duly recorded by the appointing authority and suitably intimated to the Government servant concerned.”

So, in accordance with these guidelines, if his resignation is still to be formally accepted by the competent authority, in that case due to his withdrawal of the resignation in the meanwhile, his resignation will now not be accepted. And, if his resignation has already been accepted formally, but he is yet to relieved of his duties, in that case also, generally withdrawal of resignation would be allowed; and, if the competent authority refuses to allow him to withdraw his resignation then the authority has to give reasons in writing and communicate the same to him.

So, your client may wait for a proper response from the competent authority. Most likely, withdrawal of his resignation would be allowed.

At this juncture, I may also point out that under Rule 26(4) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, in certain situations, in public interest, the competent authority may allow a Government servant to withdraw his resignation even after he has been relieved of his duties, though this is permissible only within 90 days and is subject to certain conditions.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

In the facts stated by you, the departmental proceeding against the suspended Government employee has ended in a minor penalty of censure. Presuming that he is a Central Government employee, in such a situation, the suspension period will be considered as on duty.

This is in accordance with the consolidated guidelines issued by the Central Government, Ministry of Personnel, Pensions & Public Grievances, Department of Personnel & Training, Office Memorandum No.11012/17/2013-Estt (A) dated 2^nd January 2014. The relevant extracts from the said guidelines, which deal with how the suspension period would be treated on conclusion of the proceedings” are reproduced below:

“A. If Exonerated

a) Where the Competent Authority is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant may be paid full pay and allowances.

b) Where the Competent Authority is of the opinion that the proceedings were delayed for reasons directly attributable to the Govt. servant, it may after notice to the Govt. servant and considering his representation – if any, order a reduced amount to be paid.

c) The period of suspension will be treated as period spent on duty for all purposes.

[FR 54 –B (3) & (4)]

B. Minor Penalty is Imposed

Where the proceedings result only in minor penalty being imposed, then the suspension is treated as wholly unjustified.

DoPT O.M. No. 11012/15/85 – Estt (A) dt. 3-12-1985

C. Other than exoneration / minor penalty

(a) The competent authority shall determine the amount to be paid, after notice to Govt servant and considering his representation-if any.

[FR 54 –B (5)]

(b) The period of suspension shall not be treated as duty unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose.

(c) If the Govt servant so desires, the period of suspension may be converted into leave of the kind due and admissible. (Note : Such leave can be in excess of 3 months in case of temporary Govt servants of 5 years in case of permanent Govt servants).

[FR 54 –B (7)]

NOTE : As per FR 54-B (9) wherever the amount allowed is less than full pay and allowances it shall not be less than the Subsistence Allowance already paid.

D. Death while under suspension

Where a Govt. servant under suspension dies before the disciplinary proceedings or the court proceedings against him are concluded, the period between the date of suspension and the date of death shall be treated as duty for all purposes and his family shall be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, for that period subject to adjustment of subsistence allowance already paid.

[FR 54 –B (2)]”

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

The expression “moral turpitude” is not defined in statutes. However, in some Government orders and court judgments, some indications / illustrations of its meaning are given.

In the case of Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1996) 4 SCC 17 : AIR 1996 SC 3300, the Supreme Court held that:

“Moral turpitude” is an expression which is used in legal as also societal parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having any connection showing depravity.

In the case of Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Punjab National Bank, (2010) 8 SCC 573, the Supreme Court held that:

“…it is evident that moral turpitude means anything contrary to honesty, modesty or good morals. It means vileness and depravity. In fact, the conviction of a person in a crime involving moral turpitude impeaches his credibility as he has been found to have indulged in shameful, wicked and base activities.”

In the case of Baleshwar Singh v. District Magistrate and Collector, AIR 1959 All 71, the Allahabad High Court held that:

“The expression ‘moral turpitude’ is not defined anywhere. But it means anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. It implies deprivity and wickedness of character or disposition of the person charged with the particular conduct. Every false statement made by a person may not be moral turpitude, but it would be so if it discloses vileness or deprivity in the doing of any private and social duty which a person owes to his fellowmen or to the society in general. If therefore the individual charged with a certain conduct owes a duty, either to another individual or to the society in general, to act in a specific manner or not to so act and he still acts contrary to it and does so knowingly, his conduct must be held to be due to vileness and deprivity. It will be contrary to accepted customary rule and duty between man and man.”

In the above case of Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1996) 4 SCC 17 : AIR 1996 SC 3300, the Supreme Court has reproduced the following extract from the Haryana Government circular:

“… The following terms should ordinarily be applied in judging whether a certain offence involves moral turpitude or not:

(1) whether the act leading to a conviction was such as could shock the moral conscience of society in general.

(2) whether the motive which led to the act was a base one.

(3) whether on account of the act having been committed the perpetrator could be considered to be of a depraved character or a person who was to be looked down upon by the society.

Decision in each case will, however, depend on the circumstances of the case and the competent authority has to exercise its discretion while taking a decision in accordance with the above-mentioned principles. A list of offences which involve moral turpitude is enclosed for your information and guidance. This list, however, cannot be said to be exhaustive and there might be offences which are not included in it but which in certain situations and circumstances may involve moral turpitude.”

 

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

Delay in judicial proceedings has become the norm. Unfortunate. But, it is a harsh reality in India. More than 3 crore cases are pending in Indian courts. There are cases which remain pending in one court itself for decades; and, then there is time taken in multiple appeals.

One can only sympathize with your situation. Some possible solutions could be: (1) to request the court to expedite the divorce case by mentioning the grounds that you have mentioned in this question; (2) if need be, to approach the high court to direct the lower court to decide the case in a time-bound manner; (3) to arrive at some sort of compromise with your wife (if necessary, by giving her some monetary or other compensation) so that she does not oppose the divorce or she agrees for a mutual consent divorce.

In the absence of a divorce decree from the court, it is not legally possible for you to marry again. And, of course, it is true that if your wife continues to oppose the divorce petition, and if you win in the first court, then there is a likelihood of her challenging that decision in the higher courts which may take some more years (unless you can convince her not to do so, by way of some compromise or mutual understanding arrived at between the two of you).

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Author]

Posts