Latest news with #SpecialMarriageAct
Time of India
3 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Divorce: Permanent alimony for wife revised by 2.5 times up by SC within 9 years of HC fixing it Rs 20,000 per month
The Supreme Court of India on May 29, 2025, ordered a husband to pay Rs 50,000 per month, which is 2.5 times the permanent alimony, with a 5% increase every two years. Earlier, the permanent alimony amount fixed by the Calcutta High Court in 2016 was Rs 20,000, with an increase of 5% every three years. The Supreme Court said: 'The wife, who in this case has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future.' Moreover, the Supreme Court also upheld the Calcutta High Court order, which asked the husband to redeem the home loan taken on the house and transfer the title deed to his former wife's name. The husband did not fight this point and duly complied with the order, but he challenged the fact of paying alimony for both his wife and son. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like When the Camera Clicked at the Worst Possible Time Read More Undo He, however, contended that his son is now 26 years old and is non-dependent. The husband also said that while it's true his income level has increased since the time of their divorce , he has since then remarried, and he has ageing parents also to take care of. After hearing and analysing the facts of the case, the Supreme Court said that, while they can't direct the husband to pay maintenance to his son, the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with the law. Hence, the Supreme Court accepted the husband's lawyer's contention about paying child maintenance but rejected his reservations about paying a higher alimony to the wife. Live Events The SC also said: 'Having considered the submissions and materials on record, we are of the view that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court requires revision. The husband's income, financial disclosures, and past earnings establish that he is in a position to pay a higher amount.' Read below to understand the rationale behind the Supreme Court's decision to more than double the monthly permanent alimony, along with the legal reasoning behind it. How did this alimony case go on for 17 years? According to the order of the Supreme Court dated May 29, 2025, here's a timeline of events: June 18, 1997: The couple married following Hindu ceremonies. August 5, 1998: A son was born to the newly married couple. July 2008: The husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty allegedly inflicted by the wife. Subsequently, the wife filed Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008 in the same suit under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance for herself and the minor son. January 14, 2010: The Trial Court, by order dated January 14, 2010, awarded interim maintenance of Rs 8,000 per month, along with Rs 10,000 for litigation expenses, to the wife. March 28, 2014: The wife then instituted a case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Trial Court, vide order dated March 28, 2014, directed the husband to pay maintenance of Rs 8,000 per month to the wife and Rs 6,000 per month to the minor son, along with Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. May 14, 2015: Aggrieved by this order, the husband filed an appeal before the Calcutta High Court. The High Court, by order dated May 14, 2015, directed the husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs 15,000 per month. January 10, 2016: The Trial Court, vide order dated January 1, 2016, dismissed the matrimonial suit, finding that the respondent-husband had failed to prove cruelty. July 14, 2016: Subsequently, by order dated July 14, 2016, the High Court noted that the respondent-husband was drawing a net monthly salary of Rs 69,000 and enhanced the interim maintenance to Rs 20,000 per month. June 25, 2019: The High Court, by order dated June 25, 2019, allowed the husband's appeal, granted a decree of divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage. February 20, 2023: The Supreme Court of India issued a notice confined to the question of enhancement of permanent alimony awarded to the wife. November 7, 2023: By interim order dated November 7, 2023, the Supreme Court, noting the absence of representation on behalf of the husband despite proof of service, enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs 75,000 with effect from November 1, 2023. The husband subsequently entered the appearance and filed an application seeking vacation of the said interim order. May 29, 2025: The Supreme Court's final judgement ordered the husband to pay Rs 50,000 per month as permanent alimony, with a 5% increase every two years. Legal arguments used by husband and wife The wife asks, why is she getting Rs 20,000 per month as alimony when her former husband is earning Rs 4 lakh per month? The former wife's lawyers said before the Supreme Court of India: 'The appellant-wife contends that the amount of Rs 20,000 per month, which the High Court made final, was originally awarded as interim maintenance. She submits that the respondent-husband has a monthly income of approximately Rs 4,00,000 and the quantum of alimony awarded is not commensurate with the standard of living maintained by the parties during marriage.' The husband counters his former wife's argument by saying he has to support expenses for his second marriage and old parents The husband's lawyers said before the Supreme Court of India: 'In response, the respondent-husband submits that his current net monthly income is Rs 1,64,039, earned from his employment. He has submitted salary slips, bank statements, and income tax returns for the year 2023-2024. He also submits that his monthly household expenses total Rs 1,72,088 and that he has remarried, has a dependent family, and aged parents. The husband contends that their son, now 26 years of age, is no longer financially dependent.' What did the Supreme Court of India say? According to the order of the Supreme Court dated May 29, 2025, here are the details: Having considered the submissions and materials on record, we are of the view that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court requires revision. The respondent-husband's income, financial disclosures, and past earnings establish that he is in a position to pay a higher amount. The appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future. Furthermore, the inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount. The Supreme Court's final judgement: Pay former wife Rs 50,000 per month as permanent alimony The Supreme Court said: In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs 50,000 per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife. This amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years. As regards the son, now aged 26, we are not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support. However, it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with educational or other reasonable expenses. We clarify that the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with law. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is modified to the extent that the permanent alimony payable to the appellant-wife shall be Rs 50,000 per month, subject to a 5% increase every two years, as noted above. Nikita Anand, Partner at Magnus Legal Services LLP, says: 'Maintenance is not charity but a right that must be calibrated to genuine financial realities and the lifestyle disruption caused by marital breakdown. The days of token alimony amounts may well be numbered.' Arnaz Hathiram, a digital media professional, says: "This is a classic case where alimony is granted by default irrespective of the outcome of the main divorce case. In the current scenario, parties had been separated since 2008 where maintenance to wife was granted on the husband's then income. In 2025, the Supreme Court has enhanced permanent alimony to the wife even where cruelty by her had been proven and divorce was granted to the husband on grounds of cruelty. When courts award alimony to wives despite cruelty proven, it leaves the husbands - who approach court for justice - with very little hope. In my opinion, the husband in this case just got freedom, not justice." Neelam Singh, Advocate on Record, Lucknow High Court, says: 'This judgment holds immense significance for women who, after divorce, are left unheard and unsupported when it comes to claiming maintenance from their husbands. Many are forced to run from pillar to post, struggling through the legal system just to secure a rightful order for themselves and their children—simply to survive with dignity in society. Prachi Dubey, Advocate, Delhi High Court, "By increasing the wife's maintenance to Rs 50,000 with incremental raises every second year, the court upheld in past decisions that inflation should be considered while providing spousal support and should be reflective of the standard of living during the marriage. It also made distinction between spousal and child support, maintained the position with respect to the son's rights to inherit, and accepted tacitly that the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is a ground for divorce." Singh adds: 'This judgment sets a significant precedent for wives and legitimate children who are often left with no option but to repeatedly approach the court to seek a dignified standard of living and rightful maintenance from their husband or father. It establishes a benchmark that reinforces the court's role as a guardian of justice—offering hope and support to women seeking financial stability and to children who depend on their father's support as they grow. It is indeed a remarkable, meaningful, and much-needed ruling that upholds both fairness and compassion.' Priyanka Desai, Co-founder and Partner, The Fort Circle, says: This judgment clarifies that maintenance can be increased based on the husband's higher income, irrespective of his remarriage. It also holds that financial support is not mandatory for a child who has attained majority. A key takeaway is that the maintenance amounts mentioned in the divorce decree is not set in stone and may be modified based on changed circumstances. Anand says: 'The Supreme Court refused to accept the husband's claimed reduction in income at face value. Despite his assertion that his current monthly net income was Rs 1,64,039, the court considered his "past earnings" and professional background, including his previous employment with a hotel at an annual salary exceeding Rs 21 lakh. This sends a clear warning that spouses cannot deliberately reduce their income or accept lower-paying positions to evade maintenance obligations. The court's approach creates a stronger deterrent against income suppression tactics and encourages a more robust assessment of a party's true earning potential based on their professional trajectory and historical income patterns.' Ruchita Datta, Partner, D&T JURIS, says: "The instant judgement is a reiteration of the fact that while deciding the alimony amount the court needs to weigh in various factors viz., residential rights, wife's status of living before divorce, any medical ailment, dependence of children, Inflation rates etc. In this case, the wife remained unmarried and had no other source of income to sustain herself except the amount which has been provided to her by her husband. So, therefore the amount of ₹20,000 provided to her as an alimony by the High court was enhanced by the Supreme Court to ₹50,000 per month along with 5 % increase after every two years keeping in mind the high cost of living and the prevailing inflation. In my opinion, it is imperative to be pragmatic while deciding the alimony amount as the amount so awarded will not only cater to her basic needs of sustenance but also provide her with a life of dignity and respect."
Hans India
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- Hans India
From Alia to Hina: Celebs Who Chose Intimate Home Weddings
In an era of lavish celebrity weddings, some stars are redefining the norm by opting for intimate home ceremonies. These heartfelt celebrations reflect a shift toward authenticity, simplicity, and emotional depth. Here's how Alia Bhatt, Sonakshi Sinha, and Hina Khan chose love and meaning over grandeur In recent years, several Bollywood celebrities have chosen to celebrate their weddings in the comfort of their homes, opting for intimate ceremonies over grand affairs. This trend reflects a shift towards personal and meaningful celebrations. Here are three notable actresses who embraced this approach. These actresses' choices highlight a broader movement in the entertainment industry towards personal and meaningful wedding celebrations. By hosting ceremonies at home, they not only ensured privacy but also created a warm and familiar environment to mark the beginning of a new chapter in their lives. This trend underscores a shift from opulence to authenticity, resonating with many who seek to celebrate love in its purest form. Alia Bhatt & Ranbir Kapoor: On April 14, 2022, Alia Bhatt and Ranbir Kapoor tied the knot in a private ceremony at Ranbir's residence, Vastu, in Mumbai. The couple, who had been dating since 2018, chose to keep their wedding low-key, surrounded by close family and friends. Alia looked radiant in an ivory sari, while Ranbir complemented her in a matching sherwani. The decision to host the wedding at home was influenced by their desire for an intimate celebration and considerations for privacy. Notably, all the wedding events, including the mehendi ceremony and after-party, were held at Vastu, making the occasion deeply personal and memorable. Sonakshi Sinha & Zaheer Iqbal: Sonakshi Sinha and Zaheer Iqbal's wedding on June 23, 2024, was a heartfelt affair held at Sonakshi's Bandra residence. The couple opted for a registered marriage under the Special Marriage Act, followed by traditional Hindu rituals performed in the presence of their families. Sonakshi chose to wear her mother Poonam Sinha's ivory chikankari sari, adding sentimental value to the occasion. She shared that it took them just five minutes to decide on their outfits, emphasizing their preference for simplicity. The couple's decision to have an intimate home wedding was driven by their desire to celebrate with close ones and avoid the stress of a grand event. Hina Khan and Rocky Jaiswal: Similarly, Hina Khan joined the list of celebrities who chose the serenity of home for their special day. She tied the knot with her longtime partner Rocky Jaiswal today in an intimate wedding ceremony held at her residence, surrounded by a close-knit circle of friends and family. Hina chose to keep her wedding away from the media spotlight. Her decision to marry at home reflects a growing desire to keep such milestones grounded, meaningful, and deeply personal. For Hina, celebrating this life-changing moment in the comfort of her home made the occasion all the more special. There's a certain magic in saying 'I do' under the same roof that holds your memories, your roots, and your true self. It's not just about minimalism, it's about emotional richness. The warmth of home, the familiarity of surroundings, and the presence of only those who matter most made her day not just memorable, but truly hers.
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Indian Express
In Ghaziabad, an interfaith love story and a three-year-old marriage, interrupted
They were neighbours, went to the same school, and fell in love six years ago. On August 29, 2022, the couple went to the office of the District Magistrate in East Delhi and married under the Special Marriage Act. Yet, on May 24, Akbar Khan, 29, and Sonika Chauhan, 25, by then married for three years, were reduced to their only identity – their faith. On May 25, Sonika's father, Laxman Singh Chauhan, went to the Indirapuram police station in Ghaziabad district of UP and accused Akbar of kidnapping his daughter and wrongfully confining her. A day later, the Ghaziabad Police first arrested Akbar's two sisters, a sister-in-law, a neighbour and then, him. While Akbar and his two sisters are now in judicial custody, the others were released a week later. The couple's friends and Akbar's family members say the 'two were together all the time' so the relationship didn't come as a surprise. 'It was a colony romance. Sonika and Akbar grew up at Nyay Khand in Indirapuram and went to the same school in Khoda (Ghaziabad). Later, when Akbar joined Shyam Lal College in Shahdara, Sonika shifted to Vigyan Vihar School in Indirapuram,' says Ashish Bisht, 23, a common friend of the couple. After college, Akbar, along with his brother Mohammad Arif, ran a couple of Jan Sewa Kendras (community centres that provide essential public services such as Aadhaar, PAN etc) in Indirapuram, and Sonika, after working at an established salon chain in Delhi, set up her own beauty parlour next door to Akbar's shops. In 2022, the two got married under the Special Marriage Act. Akbar's family shared photographs, which they claimed were taken after the wedding, in which Sonika's brother, 23-year-old Sahil, is seen with the couple. Sonika's father, however, says he has no idea of their relationship or that they were married. 'I only knew of Akbar as Sonika's acquaintance. I got to know of the marriage only on May 24,' he says. While Sonika's father didn't reveal the circumstances which led to him 'finding out' about her relationship or marriage to Akbar, Praveen Nagar, an 'active member' of the Bajrang Dal and RSS in Indirapuram, says, 'On May 23, we got to know of this interfaith couple and went to the police around 8.30 pm. I was among those at the police station.' The FIR was registered the following day. Akbar's family says they always knew the two were a couple. 'We were not even surprised when they told us they wanted to get married,' says Akbar's brother Arif, 31, the eldest of four siblings. Akbar's family originally belonged to Bihar's Purnia district and had shifted to UP's Ghaziabad almost 40 years ago, while Sonika's family hailed from Uttarakhand's Pauri Garhwal. 'It was sometime in 2013 or 2014 that we got to know about their relationship. They have been together since childhood – first in the same colony, then the same school. We never objected… Sonika was like our family,' says Arif. In 2014, Akbar's mother died of asthma. Five years later, his father died during a hernia operation. 'That was a tough time for our family, and Sonika stood with Akbar throughout,' says Arif. He says both families celebrated all festivals together as they lived merely a kilometre apart in Indirapuram. 'They would be at our house every Eid, and we would be at their house every Diwali. There was never an issue of religion, until some dharm ke thekedar (contractors of religion) found out about their relationship now. For three years after they got married, there was no trouble,' Arif says. The unravelling The FIR lodged by the Indirapuram police, however, presented a different picture. In his complaint, Sonika's father Chauhan claimed, 'On Saturday (May 24), at 6 pm, my daughter, who works at a salon, was kidnapped by Akbar and his brother Maksad Khan, who confined her inside their shop next door. When my wife and I reached Akbar's shop, four to five women of his family caught hold of us while Akbar and Maksad told us to get our daughter married to Akbar or they would kill us.' Chauhan further alleged that Akbar then ran away with his daughter from the shop. 'My daughter is scared of Akbar's threats and is under pressure from him,' Chauhan told police. On May 25, the Ghaziabad Police registered an FIR under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections related to, among others, wrongful confinement, kidnapping and rioting against Akbar, Maksad Khan, and four to five unidentified women. Police then raided Akbar's house in Indirapuram and arrested four women. They later arrested Akbar and 'handed over' Sonika to her parents. Neighbours say the family, along with Sonika, have since moved to their house in Pauri Garhwal. Before Akbar's arrest, a video of the couple shot inside a moving car surfaced. In the video, Sonika is seen saying, '… He is my husband, Akbar… For the last nine years, we have been together. Three years ago, we got married under the Special Marriage Act. Though my parents had an inkling about it, today… they thrashed me. I am scared, this is why I am leaving to live with my husband.' She says no action should be taken against Akbar's family or her own. 'No action should be taken against my husband's family. I don't want any action against my family either. I am going with my husband of my own accord.' When contacted on May 27, ACP (Indirapuram) Abhishek Srivastava had said they acted promptly once the FIR was lodged. 'We recovered Sonika from Ghaziabad and handed her over to her parents after due process. We also arrested Akbar and his two sisters based on the complaint from Sonika's father… The woman (Sonika) has been sent for a medical examination. She will record her statement before the magistrate in the next two to three days.' Arif, however, says, 'Police never recovered Akbar and Sonika. They surrendered to the police.' He shared a video purportedly showing the couple outside the residence of Ghaziabad's Police Commissioner. An attack follows A day after his arrest, Akbar's shop was attacked. On at least two WhatsApp groups — Indirapuram Yuva Morcha and Uttarakhand Samaj Adhikarik — a call was issued to the 'Hindu Parivar' to assemble outside Akbar's shop on May 26. 'The instances of love jihad are on a constant rise in Indrapuram… to stop the incidents of love jihad and demonstrate the unity of Hindus, we have to gather at the shop of Akbar at around 7 pm,' read one such message. 'We have to take to the streets to protect the honour of our daughters.' A group of around 60 men then attacked Akbar's shop and allegedly vandalised it. Police lodged an FIR against 50-60 unidentified men on May 27 under BNS sections related to rioting, among others. Speaking to The Indian Express, DCP (Trans-Hindon), Ghaziabad, Dasarath Nimish Patil said that though 10 men were identified in the case related to the attack on Akbar's shops, there were no arrests. 'They will be arrested soon,' he says. The Ghaziabad Police is yet to present Sonika before the Ghaziabad district court. 'The investigation is ongoing. We will present her before the court when she is ready,' DCP Patil said. Akbar and his two sisters continue to be in jail. Neetika Jha is a trainee reporter with The Indian Express, Delhi. She covers crime, health, environment as well as stories of human interest, in Noida and Ghaziabad. When not on the field she is probably working on another story idea. On weekends, she loves to read fiction over a cup of coffee (cold coffee if it is summer). The Thursday Murder club and Yellow face were her recent favourites. She loves her garden as much as she loves her job. She is an alumnus of Asian College of Journalism, Chennai. ... Read More
New Indian Express
28-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Scrap mandatory father's name rule: NGO to Centre, Karnataka governments
BENGALURU: Ondede, a human rights organisation, has urged both the state and Union governments to stop mandating the father's name in official documents for children of sex workers, gender minorities, Devadasis, and single women. As schools are set to reopen, the organisation stated that such requirements pose barriers to education, violate children's rights, and reinforce discrimination against marginalised communities. Among its 21 demands, the organisation urged the formulation of national and state-level policies that safeguard the rights of these communities and their children and that they are not violated. It stressed that members of these communities must be actively involved in the policy-making process. The organisation also called for an incentive of Rs 10 lakh for self-employment and to implement strict penalties for officials who show apathy or discrimination, as per existing laws. Geetha, secretary of Sadhana Mahila Sangha, an NGO supporting sex workers, said, 'Access to identity-based services such as education, healthcare, voter ID, and job reservations should be based solely on the mother's documents in the case of children from marginalised communities.' She said the demands are aimed at improving the overall quality of life for mothers and children from marginalised groups. Recalling her experience, transgender activist Akkai Padmashali said, 'Though my marriage was registered under the Special Marriage Act, after my divorce, I was granted sole custody of my child. Yet, when I approached the passport office, I encountered officials who were indifferent and biased.'
Indian Express
28-05-2025
- Indian Express
Interfaith couple's ‘secret marriage' sparks arrests, protests in Ghaziabad
A 29-year-old man was arrested Sunday for allegedly kidnapping a 25-year-old woman, after her father filed a complaint with the Ghaziabad Police. This came even as the duo, an interfaith couple, claimed they were married. Police also arrested the man's two sisters. On Monday, a group of around 60 men attacked the man's shop and vandalised it. Police have lodged an FIR in connection with this incident but have yet to make arrests. The couple — Sonika Chauhan and Akbar Khan — lived in Ghaziabad's Indirapuram. Sonika — in a video message recorded on Sunday before Akbar's arrest — said they fell in love nine years ago, but kept their relationship hidden from their families. On August 29, 2022, she claimed they had secretly gotten married at a Delhi SDM office under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. After the wedding, the couple didn't live together. On May 24, however, Sonika's family found out she had married a man from another community and disapproved of it. She then left the house to stay with her husband. A day later, Sonika's father, Laxman Singh Chauhan, went to the Indirapuram police station, accusing Akbar of kidnapping his daughter and wrongfully confining her. The Ghazibad Police then raided Akbar's home in the Nyay Khand area of Indirapuram and arrested two sisters. They later arrested Akbar and 'handed over' Sonika to her parents. Police registered an FIR under sections 127(2) (wrongful confinement), 352 (breach of peace), 304(2)(snatching), 87 (kidnapping) and 191(2)(rioting) of the BNS. Akbar's family could not be contacted. In his complaint, Chauhan claimed, 'On Saturday (May 24), at 6 pm, my daughter, who works at a salon, was kidnapped by Akbar and another man [who] confined her inside their shop next door.' In his complaint, Chauhan alleged that when he and his wife reached Akbar's shop, 'four to five women of his family caught hold of us while Akbar and [the other man] told us to get our daughter married to him [Akbar] or [they] would kill us.' Chauhan, in the complaint, further claimed Akbar ran away with his daughter from the shop. 'My daughter is scared of Akbar's threats and is under his pressure,' he told the police. When police raided Akbar's house, they didn't find the couple there; they arrested two of Akbar's sisters. Around this time on Sunday, a purported video of the couple shot inside a moving car surfaced. Sonika said in the video, '… He is my husband, Akbar… For the last nine years, we've been together. Three years ago, we got married under the Special Marriage Act. Though my parents had an inkling about it, today…, they thrashed me. I am scared, this is why I am leaving to live with my husband.' 'No action should be taken against my husband's family,' she said. 'I don't want any action against my family either. I am going with my husband of my own accord.' Following this, police traced the couple and arrested Akbar. When contacted, ACP (Indirapuram) Abhishek Srivastava said they acted promptly once the FIR was lodged. 'We recovered Sonika from Ghaziabad and handed her over to her parents after due process. We also arrested Akbar and his two sisters based on the complaint from Sonika's father… the woman had been sent for medical examination. She will record her statement before the magistrate in the next 2-3 days.' Asked how police arrested Akbar for kidnapping when he is married to Sonika, Srivastava said, 'We've not received any legal documents supporting the claim.' In connection with the vandalism of Akbar's shop, a video of which has surfaced, police registered an FIR against 50-60 unidentified men on Tuesday. 'We registered the FIR suo motu under sections 191(2) (rioting), 324 (4)mischief, 223 (disobeying public servant orders),' ACP Srivastava said. This FIR also stated that the 50-60 men are connected to the case in which Akbar has been arrested. 'The video is blurry. We are trying to identify those involved… legal action will be taken,' the ACP said. Ghaziabad Police Commissioner J Ravinder Goud said the woman is with her family. 'She is a major, and the statement she records in front of the magistrate will be final. Then she can stay wherever she wants to,' he said. Asked about Sonika's video, Goud said there are contradictory statements. 'At one place, the woman says she left home of her own free will, while in the next statement, she has denied it.' When The Indian Express reached Sonika's house on Tuesday, her father said they 'don't want to talk… police are doing what needs to be done'. A kilometre away, Akbar's home was locked.
