Signed judgment

Findings 1. The parties agreed to monthly support of ₹12,000 beginning in June. The WhatsApp exchange of 25 May establishes that obligation. 2. The central issue is whether the transfer made on 3 June satisfied the June support obligation or repaid Leena’s advance of Nikhil’s share of the final rent. Reasons 3. On 2 June, Leena expressly requested that repayment of the rent be kept separate from June support. Nikhil replied, “Okay, sending tomorrow,” without clarifying that he intended the transfer to count as support instead. 4. Although the transfer was labelled “June support,” that description is relevant but not conclusive. Nikhil acknowledged that he should have clarified his intention. Having considered the contemporaneous messages and the parties’ explanations, the court finds Leena’s interpretation more persuasive on the balance of probabilities. Order 5. Leena’s claim is allowed. Nikhil shall pay ₹12,000 in outstanding June support. 6. This decision concerns only the disputed June obligation and does not determine any separate claim for repayment of the rent advance.