Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Revati Kulkarni seeks ₹5,000 from Nikhil Kulkarni, alleging that this amount remained unpaid from the ₹12,000 monthly maintenance obligation for February. Nikhil says he paid ₹5,000 directly to Revati’s landlord and ₹7,000 to Revati, following a written arrangement between them. He asks that the February claim be dismissed. He does not seek to change the monthly order or claim a right to make similar deductions in other months. 2. The supplied interim maintenance order requires Nikhil to pay Revati ₹12,000 monthly. It allows a direct payment of an expense to count only where the parties agree in writing. The parties accept the wording of that order. Issues for determination 3. The sole material issue is whether the written exchange and payments establish that the ₹5,000 paid to the landlord counted toward February’s maintenance under the order. Nikhil bears the burden of proving the basis for that credit. If he does not establish it, Revati’s claim for the disputed ₹5,000 would remain unpaid on this record. Submissions of the parties 4. Revati submits that the order requires written agreement before a direct expense payment can count. She initially argued that the messages might not establish the required agreement and that the bank records prove only the recipients and amounts, not the purpose of the payments. In her later submissions, however, Revati accepts that she asked how to send February’s ₹12,000, directed Nikhil to pay ₹5,000 to her landlord and the remaining ₹7,000 to her, and that the exchange supports agreement to that specific February split. She continues to ask for the ₹5,000 only if the exchange does not satisfy the order. 5. Nikhil submits that the exchange was made before payment, expressly concerned February’s ₹12,000, and set out the two recipients and amounts. He says he followed it by making both payments. He agrees that the arrangement is limited to February and does not claim that it changes the order for future months. Evidence and findings 6. The order is an accepted record and establishes both the monthly amount and the written-agreement condition (exhibit-2-e1). The bank confirmations establish, as accepted facts, that ₹5,000 was paid to the landlord on 3 February 2026 and ₹7,000 to Revati on 4 February 2026 (exhibit-2-e2). Those confirmations do not independently establish the purpose of the landlord payment. 7. The WhatsApp exchange states that Nikhil asked how to send February’s ₹12,000; Revati replied, “Pay the landlord ₹5,000 first; send the remaining ₹7,000 to me”; and Nikhil replied, “Okay” (exhibit-2-e3). The record describes the conversation as available for inspection on Nikhil’s phone with dates and surrounding messages. The supplied account of the exchange is consistent across the submissions. Most importantly, Revati herself accepts that the exchange supports agreement to this specific February split (statement-5; statement-7). The record does not establish any agreement for future months, and none is found. Reasons 8. The burden-of-proof rule requires the party seeking recognition of the credit to support it with specific facts or records. The reliable-records rule gives weight to written messages and payment records while requiring attention to what each actually proves. Nikhil has met his burden on the narrow February issue. The order’s condition is written agreement, not a particular form of document or a separate statement using technical language that the payment is “maintenance.” 9. Read in context, the exchange is not merely an instruction to pay a landlord unrelated to the maintenance obligation. Nikhil asks how to send February’s stated ₹12,000; Revati divides that amount between the landlord and herself; and Nikhil agrees. The amounts total exactly ₹12,000. The accepted bank records then show that Nikhil made the two payments in the specified amounts to the specified recipients. The written exchange and the payments together establish that the landlord payment was part of the agreed February arrangement. 10. Revati’s argument that the bank records do not themselves prove purpose is correct but does not decide the case. The purpose is established by the written exchange, which the bank records corroborate by showing that the agreed payments were made. Revati’s acknowledgment is not treated as a substitute for evidence; it is consistent with the text of the exchange and confirms that she does not dispute its meaning as to February. Her concern that the arrangement should not extend to future months is also well-founded, but Nikhil expressly limits his request to February. No broader credit is granted. 11. The evidence therefore establishes that Nikhil paid the full February amount in the agreed manner: ₹5,000 to the landlord and ₹7,000 to Revati. Revati’s request for an additional ₹5,000 for that month is not supported once the credit permitted by the order is applied. This decision concerns only the February payment and does not determine any other month or alter the monthly obligation. Final order 12. The issue whether the ₹5,000 landlord payment counts toward February maintenance is established in Nikhil’s favor. Revati’s claim for the additional ₹5,000 for February is denied and dismissed. The February obligation of ₹12,000 is treated as satisfied by the two proven payments. No payment is ordered from Nikhil to Revati on this claim. No future deduction or change to the maintenance order is authorized by this judgment.