Rejoinder on behalf of petitioner to respondent's reply in Hindu Marriage Act divorce petition with affidavit
0 of 108 blanks filled
IN THE COURT OF THE LD. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS,
NEW DELHI
H.M.A. CASE NO. HMA case number OF Year of the HMA case.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Petitioner's name: PETITIONER
VERSUS
Respondent's name: RESPONDENT
D.O.H.: Date of filing (D.O.H.)
INDEX
| S.NO. | PARTICULARS | PAGE(S) |
| 1. | REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE REPLY FILED BY THE RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT. |
DELHIPETITIONER
THROUGH
DATED:
ADVOCATE
IN THE COURT OF THE LD. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS,
NEW DELHI
H.M.A. CASE NO. HMA case number OF Year of the HMA case.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Petitioner's name: PETITIONER
VERSUS
Respondent's name: RESPONDENT
D.O.H.: Date of filing (D.O.H.)
REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE REPLY FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITION.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1.That the present rejoinder is being filed on behalf of the Petitioner in response to the Reply filed by the answering Respondent. It is stated that the Respondent has made libellous and slanderous allegations against the Petitioner in the Reply, and the Petitioner reserves the right to initiate such legal action against the Respondent as is warranted under law.
2.Without prejudice to the foregoing, and without in any manner admitting any of the submissions, contentions or allegations made in the Reply by the answering Respondent, save and except those expressly admitted herein, the Petitioner tenders this rejoinder to the Reply as under:-
REPLY TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:-
1.That the contents of paragraph 1 of the preliminary objections are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the present petition is merely yet another tool to harass the Respondent and to commit cruelty upon her. It is further denied that the Petitioner and his family, and in particular the mother of the Petitioner, have throughout the course of the marriage harassed and abused the Respondent, whether mentally, emotionally or physically.
2.That the contents of paragraph 2 of the preliminary objections are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the entire petition filed herein is false, frivolous and completely concocted in order to defame and humiliate the Respondent. It is further denied that the petition does not contain a single instance of cruelty attributable to the Respondent, and that it merely sets out certain vague and misleading allegations without furnishing any details or substantiating the same.
3.That the contents of paragraph 3 of the preliminary objections are wrong and are denied. It is denied that at several places in the petition the Petitioner has referred to true copies of certain documents, such as receipts and medical records, which have remained unattached and have not been annexed to the petition. It is further denied that the averments of the Petitioner claiming to have annexed the said documents ought to be treated as perjurious and as an attempt to mislead this Hon'ble Court, and that the petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.
4.That the contents of paragraph 4 of the preliminary objections are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the petition contains a series of contradictions wherein, on the one hand, the Petitioner claims that his alleged love and affection was reciprocated by the Respondent, and, on the other hand, claims cruelty. It is further denied that the petition contains a glaring contradiction in that the Petitioner has first claimed that the parties cohabited with each other and has subsequently claimed that the parties did not cohabit, while simultaneously alleging cruelty against the Respondent which could not have been possible without cohabitation. It is further denied that the contradictory stands taken by the Petitioner expose the falsity of his claims and cast doubt upon the veracity of the allegations levelled against the Respondent.
5.That the contents of paragraph 5 of the preliminary objections are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the Petitioner has concealed vital information from this Hon'ble Court regarding the events that transpired between the parties during their marriage and cohabitation, and that he has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands.
6.That the contents of paragraph 6 of the preliminary objections are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the Petitioner has concealed from this Hon'ble Court the fact that the Petitioner is an accused in a criminal case bearing FIR No. FIR number dated Date of FIR, registered at Police Station Police station of FIR, that his anticipatory bail was rejected by the Hon'ble High Court where anticipatory bail was rejected, and that relief was granted to him only finally by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7.That the contents of paragraph 7 of the preliminary objections are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the mother of the Petitioner filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) against the Respondent more than three years after the Respondent left the matrimonial home, as proxy litigation on behalf of the Petitioner, in order to further harass the Respondent. It is further denied that the petition and the complaint under the DV Act are nearly identical to each other, with the parties merely interchanged between the Petitioner and his mother. It is further denied that the said complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is further denied that the entire proceedings were merely an attempt to harass the Respondent, as is evident from the fact that the complainant never appeared before the Hon'ble Court either to pursue her reliefs or to subject herself to cross-examination, despite making baseless allegations of every kind.
8.That the contents of paragraph 8 of the preliminary objections are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that no act of cruelty has been committed by the Respondent against the Petitioner and that no timeline, chronology, documents, telephonic records, messages or other material has been annexed by the Petitioner to substantiate the allegations made therein.
REPLY TO PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:-
1.That the contents of paragraph 1 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the Petitioner and the Respondent met in Month and year when petitioner and respondent first met through their mutual friend, namely Mr. Name of mutual friend, who was a close friend of the Petitioner and a colleague of the Respondent in the company named Company where mutual friend and respondent worked at the relevant time. It is further denied that the Respondent and the Petitioner subsequently became friends, and that the Petitioner eventually began courting the Respondent, leading to a relationship between the two.
2.That the contents of paragraph 2 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that, from the very inception of the relationship, the mother of the Petitioner harboured an antagonistic attitude towards the Respondent, whom she at that time assumed to be merely a friend of the Petitioner, and that she was excessively preoccupied with the whereabouts of her son, the Petitioner, inasmuch as she would constantly call the Petitioner whenever the parties met and disturb the time spent together by them.
3.That the contents of paragraph 3 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that, owing to the strict nature of the parents of the Petitioner, the Petitioner would plainly lie to his mother on the pretext that he was preoccupied with work and would therefore be late. It is further denied that the Petitioner had confided in the Respondent that he had never shared a healthy, loving, truthful or transparent relationship with his mother or his father.
4.That the contents of paragraph 4 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that, during the courtship period of the parties, the Respondent, owing to the random and erratic behaviour of the Petitioner, suspected that the Petitioner was consuming drugs and psychotropic substances. It is further denied that the Petitioner would brush aside these suspicions by stating that the medicines in question had been prescribed for one ailment or another. It is further denied that it was only much later, after the marriage of the parties and to the utter disappointment of the Respondent, that the fact of the Petitioner's abuse of drugs was found to be true.
5.That the contents of paragraph 5 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the parties would try to meet each other as frequently as possible; rather, owing to the disapproving attitude of the mother of the Petitioner, the parties were often constrained to meet only briefly, at night at around 10–11 pm, and that too without the knowledge of the parents of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the parties engaged in pre-marital sexual relations with each other or "enjoyed the company of one another" as alleged. It is further denied that, in order to escape the gaze and constant interruptions of the mother of the Petitioner, the parties went on multiple trips together during their courtship period; and it is specifically denied that on any such trip to Place of the trip during courtship in Month and year of the trip during courtship, the Petitioner proposed marriage to the Respondent, which was accepted by her.
6.That the contents of paragraph 6 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that, despite the Petitioner having informed neither his parents of the relationship nor them of the said proposal, the Petitioner began pressurising the Respondent for marriage. It is further denied that the Respondent explicitly informed the Petitioner that, since the sister of the Respondent, namely Ms. Name of respondent's sister, had recently been married, the family of the Respondent needed time to recoup its finances, and only thereafter would the Respondent consider marriage. It is further denied that the Respondent insisted that the Petitioner disclose their year-long relationship to his parents.
7.That the contents of paragraph 7 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the conversations the Respondent had with the Petitioner were all in vain, or that the Petitioner was unwilling to reason with the Respondent; and it is denied that the Petitioner began emotionally blackmailing and tormenting the Respondent by presenting distressing scenarios before her. It is further denied that the Petitioner made repeated statements regarding the advanced age of his parents and their various ailments, or that he expressed uncertainty as to how long the mother of the Petitioner would survive, or that the parents of the Petitioner ought to see their son happily married before they passed away. It is further denied that, on account of such alleged emotional blackmail, the Respondent agreed to discuss her marriage with her parents, who were to visit in Month and year when the Respondent's parents were to visit.
8.That the contents of paragraph 8 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is admitted that when the Petitioner informed his mother and father of his relationship with the Respondent, it was met with disapproval; however, it is denied that, as per the information allegedly relayed by the Petitioner to the Respondent, the mother of the Petitioner was unwilling to permit the marriage and relented only at the insistence of the Petitioner. The contents of this paragraph, as framed, are denied.
9.That the contents of paragraph 9 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the father of the Petitioner, possibly at the instance of the mother of the Petitioner, acted with malice towards the Respondent after the parties had expressed their intention to marry. It is further denied that the father of the Petitioner summoned the Respondent to his office at Address of petitioner's father's office with a ready questionnaire comprising various intrusive questions. It is further denied that during that meeting the father of the Petitioner revealed that everyone in the family of the Petitioner, including the Petitioner and his mother, had severe anger issues. It is further denied that this casual remark left the Respondent confused, tense and apprehensive for her safety. It is further denied that the father of the Petitioner insisted that the Respondent resign from her employment at Name of the Respondent's employer, where she was then working, as a condition of her marriage to the Petitioner. It is further denied that, on account of her love for the Petitioner, the Respondent subsequently left her employment and continued with her plan to marry the Petitioner.
10.That the contents of paragraph 10 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that, pursuant to the Respondent's aforementioned visit to the office of the father of the Petitioner, the parents of the Petitioner would frequently call the Respondent and enquire into every aspect of her life — her lifestyle, eating habits, choice of clothing, family, and every other matter capable of being enquired into — thereby causing her great discomfort. It is further denied that the parents of the Petitioner crossed all limits by coercing and emotionally blackmailing the Respondent into meeting their religious leader, namely one Mr. Name of the pandit, whom they all referred to as "pandit ji". It is further denied that in Month and year of the visit to the Pandit, the mother and father of the Petitioner, along with the Petitioner, took the Respondent to meet the Pandit Ji in order to seek his opinion and judgment regarding the proposed match. It is further denied that neither the mother nor the father of the Petitioner had informed the Respondent beforehand about the Pandit Ji, or that the parents of the Petitioner or the Petitioner himself gave the Respondent any indication of what to do or what to expect at the meeting. It is further denied that the Petitioner instructed the Respondent that, if questioned by the Pandit Ji regarding the sexual relationship of the parties, she was to state falsely that the parties had not been sexually involved; and that nothing else was communicated to the Respondent in this regard.
11.That the contents of paragraph 11 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the Pandit Ji asked the Respondent numerous questions, including about her sleeping routine, details of her family, and the finances of each member of her family, including herself. It is further denied that the Pandit Ji caused the Respondent great discomfort and embarrassment by enquiring not only into the sexual relations of the parties but also whether the Respondent was a virgin. It is further denied that, at the conclusion of the lengthy question-and-answer session, the Pandit Ji fixed a date for the engagement of the parties and directed the Petitioner and his family to hold the engagement on that date. It is further denied that the engagement date so fixed was only one week from the date on which the Petitioner and his family, along with the Respondent, visited the Pandit Ji. It is further denied that the Respondent was taken by surprise and was hesitant to have the engagement fixed within a week for several reasons, including that the family of the Respondent was not present, was not consulted, and that the decision was taken solely by the Pandit Ji. It is further denied that the mother of the Petitioner insisted that the Respondent and her family abide by the directions of the Pandit Ji, leaving the Respondent and her family as mute spectators in the matter.
12.That the contents of paragraph 12 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that, prior to the engagement ceremony of the parties, the mother of the Petitioner handed to the Respondent a list of her relatives to whom the Respondent and her family were to give cash envelopes on the date of the engagement ceremony. It is further denied that, despite the Respondent and her family having given such cash envelopes to the relatives of the Petitioner and his family, the mother of the Petitioner made the unreasonable demand that the family of the Respondent hand over 5 (five) additional cash envelopes, including for the grandparents of the Petitioner, all of whom had passed away prior to the engagement ceremony. It is further denied that, in order to save face and avoid any argument on the occasion, the family of the Respondent agreed to the demands of the mother of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the Respondent was left dismayed upon realising that an occasion so auspicious for her and her family was, for the Petitioner and his family, nothing more than an opportunity to pressure her family to recoup the expenses incurred on the engagement ceremony, despite the fact that the father of the Respondent had himself spent over Rs. Amount spent by the Respondent's father on the engagement ceremony/- in organising the said ceremony.
13.That the contents of paragraph 13 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are hereby denied. It is denied that the money-minded nature of the Petitioner and his parents became apparent during the engagement ceremony, when the Pandit Ji enquired as to the budget of the wedding and the question was hurriedly answered by the parents of the Respondent as Engagement ceremony wedding budget amount, whereupon the mother of the Petitioner gave a judgmental look and asked "Pacchis lakh budget poori shadi ka hai?", thereby indicating that the mother of the Petitioner expected a lavish wedding, the costs whereof were to be borne by the parents of the Respondent.
14.That the contents of paragraph 14 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are hereby denied. It is denied that pursuant to the engagement, the mother of the Petitioner handed yet another list to the mother of the Respondent containing the names of approximately 18–20 relatives of the Petitioner, and demanded that during the wedding functions the parents of the Respondent would be required to gift clothing articles to all of the said persons. It is further denied that the mother of the Respondent reluctantly agreed and suggested sets of suit-salwaar for the ladies and sets of pant-shirts for the men. It is further denied that the mother of the Petitioner once again gave judgmental looks to the mother of the Respondent and bluntly directed the mother of the Respondent to raise the budget and gift Sarees to the ladies and suit-length cloth material to the men. It is further denied that the parents of the Respondent were thereby coerced into purchasing expensive sarees, and were also made to pay for purchases made by the father of the Petitioner, who purchased clothes worth Amount of clothes purchased by father of the Petitioner and simply handed over the bill to the parents of the Respondent. It is further denied that for the wedding, the mother of the Petitioner demanded that the Petitioner wear clothes only from Name of the clothing store demanded by the mother of the Petitioner, and that in this regard the Respondent was coerced to pay nearly Amount paid for the Petitioner's wedding clothes for the same from her own funds.
15.That the contents of paragraph 15 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are hereby denied. It is denied that soon after the aforesaid engagement, the parents of the Petitioner approached the Pandit Ji without any prior notice to the Respondent or her family, and fixed the date of the marriage of the parties as Month and year fixed for the wedding, despite being aware that the marriage ceremony of the sister of the Respondent had taken place only a few months prior, and that the parents of the Respondent, who were expected to bear the costs of the wedding, would require some time to arrange the necessary funds. It is further denied that the wedding date was fixed by the Petitioner, his parents and the Pandit Ji without any show of consideration, and without paying any respect to the wishes and opinions of either the Respondent or her family. It is further denied that the request of the family of the Respondent to postpone the wedding fell on deaf ears. It is further denied that the parents of the Petitioner bluntly refused to accommodate the convenience of the Respondent and her family, and told the Respondent that they would act as per the directions given to them by their Pandit Ji. It is further denied that the same excuse was used by the mother of the Petitioner to refute any and all opinions and changes suggested by the family of the Respondent. It is further denied that the pleas made by the Respondent to the Petitioner to convince his parents otherwise fell on deaf ears, as the Petitioner was far too afraid to confront his parents and stand up for his to-be wife, despite making far-reaching claims of undying love for the Respondent.
16.That the contents of paragraph 16 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are hereby denied. It is denied that the Petitioner and his family expected the family of the Respondent to bear the cost of the wedding, that the same was financially difficult for the father of the Respondent, and that the same was expressed to the family of the Petitioner. It is further denied that, in addition to bearing a part of the cost of the wedding, the parents of the Petitioner also demanded gifts for the mother of the Petitioner and her relatives, which the father of the Respondent could barely afford but was compelled to accede to in order to ensure the happily married life of the Respondent. It is further denied that the Respondent was coerced to avail a loan of Loan amount availed by the Respondent and transferred Amount transferred to the account of the father of the Petitioner to the account of the father of the Petitioner, and paid the balance in cash. It is further denied that certain bank transactions of the Respondent, including the receipt of the loan availed by the Respondent and the transfer of monies to the father of the Petitioner (Amount transferred to the account of the father of the Petitioner) and to the Pandit Ji with respect to the matrimonial ceremonies of the parties, evidence the said fact.
17.That the contents of paragraph 17 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are hereby denied. It is denied that even on the date of the wedding, the mother of the Petitioner expressed her disappointment with the gifts given by the family of the Respondent and demanded further gifts, in particular jewellery, from the parents of the Respondent for the family of the Petitioner, despite the fact that the family of the Respondent had given multiple gifts, including but not limited to clothes, sweets, Shagun and several items of jewellery, including gold necklaces, gold kangan, a nose ring, chains and earrings.
18.That the contents of paragraph 18 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are hereby denied. It is denied that the Respondent and her family were coerced into providing various gifts and dowry articles to the Petitioner and his family in respect of the wedding ceremonies, in addition to the aforesaid loan amount of Loan amount availed by the Respondent, including: money given for Pooja to Guruji amounting to nearly Amount given for Pooja to Guruji; purchase of an engagement ring amounting to Cost of the engagement ring; money given during the engagement (11 envelopes of Rs. 1,100/- each and Rs. 5,000/- given to the Petitioner) amounting to Amount given during the engagement; money given during the wedding to the relatives of the Petitioner (21 envelopes of Rs. 2,500/- each) amounting to Amount given during the wedding to the Petitioner's relatives; money given to the Petitioner as Shagun amounting to Amount given to the Petitioner as Shagun; clothes given to the relatives of the Petitioner (sarees and pant suits) amounting to approximately Approximate amount of clothes gifted to the Petitioner's relatives; 51 sweet boxes from Name of the sweet shop amounting to Amount for the sweet boxes; 51 fruit baskets amounting to Amount for the fruit baskets; and miscellaneous expenses of Miscellaneous expenses incurred by the Respondent and her family incurred by the Respondent and her family.
19.That the contents of paragraph 19 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are hereby denied. It is denied that the family of the Respondent insisted that the Respondent leave her job and spend her time performing household chores. It is denied that, in abidance therewith, the Respondent was left solely dependent upon the Petitioner and his family for all financial means and decisions, without any financial protection of her own.
20.That the contents of paragraph 20 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are hereby denied. It is denied that within the first two days of the marriage, the Respondent noticed that the Petitioner was using the washroom excessively, and that the Respondent eventually found the Petitioner hiding a pouch beneath their bed; that, upon being confronted and enquired about the same, the Respondent discovered that the pouch in question was filled with pharmaceutical psychotropic drugs and painkillers, which the Petitioner was carrying to the washroom and consuming so as to get intoxicated. It is further denied that the Petitioner turned defensive upon being confronted and yelled mercilessly at the Respondent. It is further denied that the Respondent, not knowing what to do or how to calm the Petitioner down, called the parents of the Petitioner into the room and informed them of the conduct which had led the Petitioner to behave in such a senseless manner, pursuant to which the mother of the Petitioner scolded the Petitioner without expressing any shock or surprise, and stepped out of the room. It is further denied that the Respondent was astonished at how lightly the aforesaid incident was treated by the parents of the Petitioner. It is denied that the Respondent was unaware that the Petitioner had been an addict for years, that the parents of the Petitioner had been aware of the same for years, and that the Petitioner, along with his parents, had concealed the aforesaid facts regarding the drug addiction and drug abuse of the Petitioner from the Respondent and her family.
21.That the contents of paragraph 21 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is specifically denied that the Respondent became aware of the drug addiction of the Petitioner only after the marriage. It is further denied that the parents of the Petitioner, along with the Petitioner, cheated the Respondent and betrayed her trust by concealing such a crucial fact about the Petitioner prior to the marriage of the parties.
22.That the contents of paragraph 22 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the Petitioner did not stop consuming drugs and made no effort whatsoever to control himself. It is further denied that the Respondent caught the Petitioner consuming unprescribed and illegally obtained medications on numerous occasions. It is further denied that, when confronted, the Petitioner would cry, apologise and promise the Respondent that he would not consume such medications any more, and yet, after a few days, would relapse into his old habits and abuse drugs. It is further denied that eventually the mother of the Petitioner began taunting and scolding the Respondent and blaming her for the drug addiction of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the mother of the Petitioner, despite being fully aware of the long-standing drug abuse problem of the Petitioner, nonetheless blamed the Respondent for the said drug addiction of the Petitioner, thereby causing grave mental trauma to the Respondent, who was, in fact, genuinely attempting to help the Petitioner overcome his dependence on drugs.
23.That the contents of paragraph 23 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that, sometime after the marriage of the parties, the Petitioner suffered from an inexplicable medical condition, on account of which he vomited blood and suffered seizures, and was admitted to Name of hospital where petitioner was admitted, wherein the Respondent was informed that the Petitioner suffered from ulcerative colitis, and it was recommended that the Petitioner be shifted to Name of hospital for treatment, where he was already undergoing treatment. It is further denied that this revelation came as an utter shock to the Respondent, as she was neither aware of this debilitating condition of the Petitioner nor informed of the same prior to the marriage. It is further denied that when the Petitioner was admitted at Name of hospital where petitioner was admitted, the Respondent was shocked to observe that many of the doctors there were already acquainted with the Petitioner and were well conversant with his condition. It is further denied that the doctors even enquired of the Petitioner as to why he had consumed drugs when he had been strictly advised not to do so, the Petitioner having previously been made aware of the consequences he would face if he continued to consume drugs, as such consumption would aggravate his condition. It is further denied that it was only then that the Respondent gained clarity and realised that the treatment of the Petitioner for drug addiction had been continuing for years, that even the doctors were aware that the Petitioner was an addict, and that his most recent medical episode was the result of the consumption of drugs and other painkillers. It is further denied that the copies of the medical documents pertaining to the Petitioner, which highlighted his drug abuse, his pre-existing condition of depression and anxiety, and his ulcerative colitis owing to such drug abuse, were concealed from the Respondent prior to the marriage.
24.That the contents of paragraph 24 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that, when the festival of Holi was approaching, the Respondent decided to visit her parents at her home town in Respondent's home town and, having sought permission from the Petitioner and his parents for the same, the said permission was duly granted. It is further denied that the father of the Petitioner, on the instructions of the mother of the Petitioner, arrived at the parental home of the Respondent the very next day and demanded that the Respondent pack her bags and return with him to City of matrimonial home, to the matrimonial home of the parties. It is further denied that, with great difficulty, the Respondent convinced her father-in-law of the need for her to spend time with her parents, whereupon the father of the Petitioner reluctantly left. It is further denied that, upon the return of the Respondent to her matrimonial home, to her utter dismay and shock, she was received into the matrimonial house with taunts by the parents of the Petitioner and the Petitioner himself, wherein the mother of the Petitioner even remarked, "ye hammein pasand nahi karti, issi liye tyohar ke samay apne ghar chali gayi." It is further denied that the Petitioner and his parents were exceedingly furious because the Respondent had refused to return to the matrimonial house with the father of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the Petitioner and his parents had completely forgotten that the parties herself had consented to the visit, and only upon such consent did the Respondent proceed to her parental house. It is further denied that when this point was conveyed to the Petitioner and his parents, the Petitioner and the mother of the Petitioner began to yell at the Respondent, whereby the first festival subsequent to the marriage was tainted in the mind of the Respondent.
25.That the contents of paragraph 25 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the mother of the Petitioner never permitted the Respondent any semblance of privacy and ensured that, no matter where the Respondent went, either the Petitioner or his mother would accompany her. It is further denied that the Respondent was not permitted to step outside the house after sunset, either alone or even in the company of the Petitioner. It is further denied that, when the Respondent confronted the mother of the Petitioner in this regard, she was informed that Pandit Ji had told the mother of the Petitioner that the life of the Petitioner would be at risk if he stepped out of the residence after sunset. It is further denied that the Respondent felt trapped inside her matrimonial house owing to the superstitions to which she was subjected; further, the claustrophobic environment was exacerbated by the mother of the Petitioner never allowing the Respondent to be on her own, and by the parents of the Petitioner constantly taunting and blaming the Respondent for the problems and addictions of the Petitioner and for the alleged insufficient dowry brought by her.
26.That the contents of paragraph 26 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the antagonistic attitude of the Petitioner and his parents was confined not only to the Respondent but extended also to their own relatives, as they would frequently quarrel with the chacha and chachi of the Petitioner. It is further denied that this became even more evident subsequent to the marriage of the parties, when the chachi of the Petitioner visited the home of the parties and enquired about the well-being of the Respondent, knowing that the Petitioner and his mother would have subjected the Respondent to some form of abuse, and wished to speak with the Respondent separately, but was prevented from doing so by the mother of the Petitioner.
27.That the contents of paragraph 27 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the mother of the Petitioner discontinued the services of the maid at the matrimonial home a few months after the wedding, without any rhyme or reason. It is further denied that this placed an immense burden upon the Respondent, who was compelled to perform all household chores, including cleaning, laundry and cooking, entirely by herself for the entire family and without any assistance, thereby causing great difficulty and stress to the Respondent. It is further denied that, even though the Respondent performed all these duties to the best of her ability, the Petitioner and his parents would constantly criticise and taunt her, and would go so far as to yell at her over trivial matters such as excess salt in the food or clothes not folded properly. It is further denied that this attitude of the Petitioner and his family towards the Respondent, in addition to her being made solely responsible for all household chores, caused the Respondent to become severely depressed, as she was being treated like a maid in her own matrimonial home.
28.That the contents of paragraph 28 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the constant performance of household chores left the Respondent tired and weak. It is further denied that the mother of the Petitioner forced the Respondent to wear Chuda (wedding bangles) for months, even though the same caused an infection and resulted in profuse bleeding and pus. It is further denied that the mother of the Petitioner, in her abject cruelty, forbade the Respondent from removing the bangles on the ground that such instruction had been given by the aforementioned pandit ji. It is further denied that the visitors who called upon the Respondent were shocked at the condition of her hands, and that on such occasions the mother of the Petitioner would lie to the guests and claim that it was the Respondent herself who had insisted upon wearing the bangles. It is further denied that these mental manipulations by the mother of the Petitioner and the blatant lies spread about the Respondent caused the Respondent to feel lonely and rejected in her own matrimonial home, as she received no support from her husband, namely the Petitioner, who either remained silent in the face of the cruelties committed upon the Respondent or supported and participated in the same. It is further denied that, with respect to the infection caused by the Respondent's bangles, the Petitioner shouted at the Respondent when she expressed a desire to remove them, and demanded that the Respondent abide by all instructions of the mother of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the apathy of the Petitioner towards the pain of the Respondent left the Respondent utterly disappointed and dismayed.
29.That the contents of paragraph 29 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that even during the periods when the Respondent was unwell, the mother of the Petitioner, with the tacit approval of the Petitioner, demanded that the Respondent wake up at 6 a.m. every morning and perform all household chores, even though the Respondent was engaged in full-time employment and was managing her job alongside the care of the matrimonial home. It is further denied that the Respondent was constantly taunted and mentally tortured by the Petitioner and his parents for allegedly not performing the household chores properly, in addition to being taunted for the alleged insufficiency of dowry given to the family of the Petitioner. It is further denied that on one such occasion, the mother of the Petitioner stated that she had discontinued the services of the house-help because the Respondent had not brought sufficient dowry to afford the luxury of a house-help, and that consequently the Respondent would thereafter have to perform all household chores herself and compensate for the alleged insufficient dowry.
30.That the contents of paragraph 30 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the mother of the Petitioner constantly taunted the Respondent for not conceiving. It is further denied that the mother and father of the Petitioner frequently made the Respondent uncomfortable by asking questions regarding her sexual relations with the Petitioner and by repeatedly asking her why she was not conceiving. It is further denied that the parents of the Petitioner often became angry and asked the Respondent to move out of the house if she was not going to give them a grandchild. It is further denied that the aforementioned incidents occurred repeatedly, and that owing to the constant harassment, the Respondent requested that she and the Petitioner move out of the matrimonial home.
31.That the contents of paragraph 31 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the Petitioner was a drug addict and that the Petitioner did not let go of any opportunity to abuse drugs; it is further denied that it was only after the marriage of the parties that the Respondent came to know of the Petitioner's drug abuse and became aware of his drug addiction. It is further denied that the drug addiction of the Petitioner worsened after the parties moved to a new accommodation, as the Petitioner allegedly began to abuse drugs heavily, being no longer under the supervision of his parents. It is further denied that the Petitioner would oscillate between being in a constant daze and being irrationally irritable and angry, and that he was thereby unable to perform his duties as a husband.
32.That the contents of paragraph 32 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the cruelty of the parents of the Petitioner continued even after the parties shifted to a new home; it is denied that on one such occasion, when the Petitioner suddenly became unreachable by telephone late at night after his working hours, the Respondent, in a state of panic, telephoned the parents of the Petitioner. It is further denied that, to the utter shock and dismay of the Respondent, the mother of the Petitioner began to blame the Respondent for the absence of the Petitioner. It is further denied that it was only at around 1 a.m. that the Petitioner returned, inexplicably and clearly intoxicated on drugs. It is further denied that on various occasions the parents of the Petitioner threatened the Respondent over the telephone, stating that if anything happened to the Petitioner — implying that if the Petitioner suffered a drug overdose — the parents of the Petitioner would not let the Respondent remain alive, and would ensure that, if she were kept alive, she would remain behind bars. It is further denied that the father of the Petitioner went so far as to state that he would shoot the Respondent with a gun, which engendered in the Respondent great fear for her life and limb, she being aware that although she could not control the irresponsible actions of the Petitioner, she would be blamed, and possibly even killed, for the said actions.
33.That the contents of paragraph 33 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the hardships of the Respondent owing to the drug addiction of the Petitioner increased after the parties moved into the rented accommodation at Locality of the rented accommodation. It is denied that during this period the Petitioner went on a work trip to City of the Petitioner's work trip for a duration of Duration of the work trip, and that upon his return the Petitioner was on a drug high, completely out of his senses and behaving erratically. It is further denied that the Petitioner, in a fit of intoxication caused by excessive drug abuse, attempted to jump out of the balcony of the rented accommodation, and that the said act was witnessed by the entire neighbourhood, including the landlord of the building. It is further denied that the Respondent somehow managed to calm the Petitioner down and to bring him inside the room of the rented accommodation.
34.That the contents of paragraph 34 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the erratic, drug-addled behaviour of the Petitioner had become unbearable for the Respondent, and that all attempts of the Respondent to help the Petitioner had failed owing to the complete refusal of the Petitioner to resolve his addiction and to desist from abusing addictive substances.
35.That the contents of paragraph 35 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that, during the period when the parties resided in the rented accommodation, the Petitioner was once again admitted to Name of hospital of second admission owing to the aggravation of his condition caused by his drug abuse. It is further denied that the Respondent thereupon telephoned the parents of the Petitioner and informed them of the condition and whereabouts of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the Respondent, being a dutiful wife, remained alongside the Petitioner, and that upon the discharge of the Petitioner the parties decided to move in and reside with the parents of the Petitioner at their residence at City where the Petitioner's parents were residing, where they were then staying, because the Respondent was deeply apprehensive for the health of the Petitioner and believed that such an arrangement would be in his best interest. It is further denied that the Respondent chose to return to the home of the parents of the Petitioner despite fearing for her own life and despite the cruelty that she would be subjected to at the hands of the Petitioner and his parents.
36.That the contents of paragraph 36 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is specifically denied that, as predicted therein, the cruelty and mental torture at the hands of the parents of the Petitioner, and of the Petitioner himself, now emboldened in his parental home being the new matrimonial home, resumed with full effect, and that the Respondent would once again be subjected to cruel and insensitive taunts.
37.That the contents of paragraph 37 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Respondent had been nothing but a supportive, loving, affectionate and dutiful wife towards the Petitioner. It is further denied that the Petitioner, along with his parents, right from the very beginning of the marital life of the parties, tormented the Respondent and destroyed her mental peace by making dowry demands and thereafter taunting and verbally abusing the Respondent upon realising that their unlawful demands would not be sufficiently fulfilled.
38.That the contents of paragraph 38 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Respondent had hoped that, since it was the Diwali festival season, the families could reconcile and move forward, and that all such hopes of the Respondent were destroyed when, within a few days of her shifting back to the home of the parents of the Petitioner, they began blaming the Respondent for the health and condition of the Petitioner, even though the Respondent was genuinely concerned for the Petitioner and was taking care of his health and well-being. It is further denied that one day, sometime around the middle of November, 2019, while the Respondent was in her room, she heard loud noises and realised that the Petitioner and his parents were engaged in a heated argument; that the Respondent stepped out of her room and rushed towards them with the intention of stopping the argument and pacifying the Petitioner and his parents. It is further denied that the Respondent was astonished and taken aback when the mother of the Petitioner, instead of listening to any logic or reason advanced by the Respondent, slapped the Respondent and said "sir/ten wajah se Quoted words said to respondent aisa ho gaya hai aur ham dono se ladla hai." It is further denied that the Respondent did not utter even a single word and returned to her room. It is further denied that the Petitioner did not even bother to enquire whether the Respondent was hurt, how she was feeling, or whether she was alright. It is further denied that this act of the mother of the Petitioner came as a profound shock to the Respondent, who had never had a hand raised against her in her entire life, and insulted the very dignity of the Respondent. Further, the complete apathy displayed by the Petitioner left the Respondent feeling utterly alone in her matrimonial home, with no support even from her own husband.
39.That the contents of paragraph 39 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that in December 2019, the Respondent took the Petitioner for his regular check-up at the Name of hospital/clinic for check-up, where the Petitioner informed the Respondent that he was going to use the washroom; that when the Petitioner did not return for a considerable time and the Respondent was unable to locate or contact him, the Respondent telephoned the father of the Petitioner and apprised him of the uncalled-for disappearance of the Petitioner. It is further denied that, as usual, the father of the Petitioner twisted the entire episode and, instead of being concerned about the whereabouts of the Petitioner, focused solely on blaming the Respondent, alleging that she was irresponsible and careless and could not take care of the Petitioner even for a couple of hours. It is further denied that the Respondent decided to return home and await the Petitioner there; that on the way back home, the Respondent found the Petitioner carrying a bag full of medicines, and upon being confronted, the Petitioner informed her that he had left the hospital on the pretext of using the washroom and had instead gone to a medical store to purchase some medicines and painkillers, merely so that he could have some kind of drugs in his system. It is further denied that it was then that the Respondent lost all hope of a happy future in her matrimonial home and was constrained to leave the company of the Petitioner and his parents on 20.12.2019 without carrying a single one of her belongings.
40.That the contents of paragraph 40 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the belongings of the Respondent, including her jewellery, which she left behind when she left the company of the Petitioner and his parents on 20.12.2019 — including but not limited to one thick neck piece along with maang teeka, one big nose ring, two chains, one ring, and other miscellaneous items such as wedding clothes, bags, shoes, accessories, watches and perfumes belonging to the Respondent, worth several lakhs of rupees — are still in the possession of the Petitioner and his parents.
41.That the contents of paragraph 41 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Petitioner and his parents continuously tormented the Respondent throughout the period she was in their company. It is further denied that the Petitioner, along with his parents, caused immense mental trauma to the Respondent by constantly demanding dowry, whether in cash or in kind, and that upon realising that their unlawful demands would not be fulfilled, they taunted the Respondent for coming from a less affluent background and verbally abused her day and night. It is further denied that the Petitioner and his parents manipulated and coerced the Respondent into taking a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs and transferring the same to the father of the Petitioner, and providing the remainder in cash, by making the Respondent and her family believe that the amount so transferred was a one-time contribution being made by the Respondent and her family towards the wedding functions. It is further denied that the Petitioner and his family thereafter refused to acknowledge the aforesaid transfer as the contribution of the Respondent and her family towards the wedding functions, and instead characterised it as a donation of sorts or dowry, in addition to the numerous contributions, gifts and jewellery already given by the father of the Respondent.
42.That the contents of paragraph 42 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that, owing to the various acts of cruelty, torture, physical and mental abuse, and the extremely hostile environment created by the Petitioner and his family, the Respondent was constrained to leave her matrimonial home and initiate proceedings against the Petitioner and his family by exercising her rights within the limits permitted by law.
43.That the contents of paragraph 43 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Respondent is a victim of abuse and cruelty and has been arrayed in the present petition merely as a means to further harass and traumatise her. It is further denied that the Respondent simply wishes to live her life peacefully and without any further trauma.
REJOINDER TO THE PARAWISE REPLY:-
1.That the contents of paragraph 1 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that, contradictorily, the Petitioner, in collusion with his mother, i.e., the mother-in-law of the Respondent, had also initiated a case against the Respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, being MC/619/2022, titled "Name of complainant in DV case vs. Name of respondent in DV case", in order to harass the Respondent. That the marriage between the parties hereto was duly solemnised at Place of marriage according to Hindu customs, rites and ceremonies on 25.01.2019, without any exchange of dowry, and it is pertinent to mention here that the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending before this Hon'ble Court, and the Petitioner has filed an application for withdrawal of the same, which he shall withdraw on or before 17.08.2022.
2.That the contents of paragraph 2 of the reply are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has concealed from this Hon'ble Court the fact that the Petitioner is an accused in FIR No. FIR number dated Date of FIR registered at Police Station Name of police station, District Name of district, Uttar Pradesh, and that his application seeking bail under Section 438 CrPC was rejected by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and was granted only by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further denied that the acts of physical and mental cruelty alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner upon the Respondent render the Petitioner opposed to the very idea of peace or contradict the Petitioner's claim of being a law-abiding citizen in any manner whatsoever. That the Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen of India who has always maintained peace and tranquility and has diligently discharged his social and moral obligations and liabilities in a fair manner, and no grievance against the Petitioner is pending redressal at any forum to date.
3.That the contents of paragraph 3 of the reply are a matter of record, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct.
4.That the contents of paragraph 4 of the reply are a matter of record, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct.
5.That the contents of paragraph 5 of the reply are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent made every effort to maintain cordial matrimonial relations with the Petitioner and his family and that such efforts were not reciprocated owing to great discord between the parties. It is further denied that the Petitioner and his family demanded dowry from the Respondent, coerced the Respondent to fulfil any such demand, or harassed and taunted the Respondent for the insufficiency of such dowry. That after the marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife and cohabited with each other. No child has been born out of the said wedlock. The Respondent is presently residing at her parental home and never desired to discharge her matrimonial duties. The marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent was solemnized without any exchange of dowry and in a modest manner.
6.That the contents of paragraph 6 of the reply are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent was constrained to leave the matrimonial home owing to any cruelty or harassment inflicted upon her by the Petitioner or his family. It is further denied that the Respondent, fearing for her life and well-being and in order to escape the hostile environment of the matrimonial home, left behind all her belongings at the matrimonial home, including her jewellery, valuables and stridhan. That the Petitioner and the Respondent last resided together in the matrimonial home until Year respondent left matrimonial home, when the Respondent left the Petitioner's house taking with her all her belongings and valuables, including jewellery, from the matrimonial home.
7.That the contents of paragraph 7 of the reply are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has a persistent problem of drug abuse, that he harassed and intimidated the Respondent, or that he went so far as to physically hurt the Respondent. It is further denied — without admitting the allegations — that if the Respondent's claims were true, the Petitioner would have had no reason to file a petition under Section 9 of the HMA seeking the return of the Respondent to the matrimonial home. That within a few days of the marriage, the Respondent began quarrelling with the Petitioner, throwing unnecessary tantrums and mentally torturing the Petitioner by using harsh words in almost every conversation.
8.That the contents of paragraph 8 of the reply are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent was in fact not granted any liberty, as she was allegedly under the constant watch of her mother-in-law, who would regularly taunt and abuse her. It is further denied that it was the mother-in-law who retained custody of the household belongings, including the jewellery belonging to the Respondent, while denying the Respondent access to the same. It is submitted that the Petitioner always treated the Respondent with love and affection. While the Petitioner was away, everything in the house remained under the Respondent's custody and there was no one to restrain her; taking advantage of this liberty, the Respondent went away with all the articles.
9.That the contents of paragraph 9 of the reply are reiterated, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. That the Petitioner and the Respondent met each other in the year Year petitioner met respondent, and the relationship, which began as a casual friendship, developed into love, and they ultimately decided to marry each other.
10.That the contents of paragraph 10 of the reply are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner and the Respondent merely met over a period of time, became friends after a couple of meetings and began to enjoy each other's company through a mutual friend who was a childhood friend of the Petitioner and a colleague of the Respondent. It is further denied — assuming without admitting the Respondent's claims to be true — that any so-called lecherous character of the Petitioner is thereby established, as if the Petitioner were of such a nature as to enter into a relationship with his childhood friend's former girlfriend and to take advantage of a recently heartbroken woman. That Name of childhood friend had a close relationship with the Respondent, and the two were having an affair with each other. The Petitioner met the Respondent at the birthday party of their common friend Name of common friend in Month and year of common friend's birthday party, where there was only a formal introduction between them; thereafter they met on only a couple of occasions. The family members of Name of petitioner came to know of the relationship and opposed it, as a result of which the relationship between Name of petitioner and the Respondent broke. Name of childhood friend (pronoun/subject) felt aggrieved by the breakdown of the relationship but did not have the courage to go against the wishes of his family members, and therefore requested the Petitioner to console the Respondent and give her company. The Petitioner met the Respondent on a couple of occasions after the said incident, and over a period of time, after a few meetings, the Petitioner and the Respondent became friends and began to like each other's company.
11.That the contents of paragraph 11 of the reply are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that it was the Petitioner who insisted that the relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent remain a secret, on account of the Petitioner's fear of his parents, particularly his mother, and their disapproving nature. It is further denied that the parties were often required to meet late at night, around 10–11 p.m., for only a brief period and without the knowledge of the Petitioner's mother or her husband. It is further denied that, in order to escape the observation and constant interference of the Petitioner's mother, the parties went on multiple trips together during their courtship. That the Petitioner fell in love with the Respondent over a period of time, and the Petitioner and the Respondent visited First trip destination for a day on First trip start date and checked out on First trip end date. Thereafter, the Petitioner and the Respondent went together to Name of resort to spend time with each other and stayed there from Resort stay start date to Resort stay end date. The Respondent's cousin also came to the said premises along with his friends. The Respondent met her cousin but did not introduce the Petitioner to him, stating that she had come with many other friends and that they were not alone. The Petitioner was shocked to find that the Respondent was unwilling to introduce him to her family members and was keeping their relationship a secret from her family and friends.
12.That the contents of paragraph 12 of the reply are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent had returned, in cash, the cost incurred by the Petitioner for such booking. It is further denied that the Petitioner, at Place in Goa where the proposal and New Year celebration took place, proposed to the Respondent in full public view and gave her a ring as a token of his love. It is further denied that the Respondent accepted such proposal. It is further denied that the Petitioner had merely taken the Respondent to Place in Goa where the proposal and New Year celebration took place and sought her hand in marriage without the knowledge of his own parents, while keeping the relationship between the parties a secret. That, in fact, the Petitioner and the Respondent had decided to spend the New Year together at Place in Goa where the proposal and New Year celebration took place. The Petitioner booked flight tickets and hotel accommodation, and the parties celebrated the New Year at Place in Goa where the proposal and New Year celebration took place from Start date of New Year trip to End date of New Year trip. At Place in Goa where the proposal and New Year celebration took place, the Petitioner proposed to the Respondent in full public view and gave her a ring as a token of his love, and the Respondent accepted his proposal.
13.That the contents of paragraph 13 of the reply are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner began to pressurise the Respondent for marriage because the Petitioner had not informed his parents of the relationship, much less of the proposal, and that an immediate date of marriage would make it easier for the Petitioner to admit the same to his parents. It is further denied that the Respondent expressly informed the Petitioner that, since the sister of the Respondent, namely Name of respondent's sister, had recently been married, the family of the Respondent needed to recoup their finances, and only thereafter would the Respondent be willing to consider marriage. It is further denied that the Respondent also insisted that the Petitioner disclose their year-long relationship to his parents. That, in fact, the Petitioner asked the Respondent whether she would be able to inform her family members about their relationship, to which she replied that there was no urgency in informing her parents about the relationship and that she did not wish to marry any time soon. The Petitioner, on the other hand, wished to marry the Respondent, as the mother of the Petitioner was medically unfit and had been suffering from numerous medical ailments. The father of the Petitioner, who was suffering from uncontrolled diabetes, pulmonary edema (a condition caused by excess fluid in the lungs making breathing difficult), coronary artery disease (narrowing or blockage of the coronary arteries) and various other ailments, and was mostly confined to bed, desired that the Petitioner, being the elder son, get married, given the uncertain future of the family owing to such medical complications.
14.That the contents of paragraph 14 of the reply are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent had accepted the proposal of the Petitioner, indicating her willingness to marry him, but had merely sought some time for her parents to arrange funds for the wedding. It is further denied that the paragraph under reply discloses the mentality of the Petitioner, as the Petitioner himself allegedly admits that the said commitment would be a "baggage" and that marriage would result in the Respondent being "answerable" to someone, presumably the parents of the Petitioner. That, in fact, the Petitioner wished the Respondent to marry him so that their relationship could be taken to the next stage. The Respondent, on the other hand, wanted complete freedom and did not wish to commit to a relationship; she was content to have a relationship without the baggage of commitment or family pressure and without being answerable to anyone. The Respondent was residing at City where respondent stayed in a paying guest accommodation, stating that she was pursuing some post-graduation course, whereas in fact she was not pursuing any post-graduation and was working a night-shift job. On the pretext of pursuing post-graduation, the Respondent was content to stay away from her family and from the clutches of the relationship.
15.That the contents of paragraph 15 of the reply are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that, although the Petitioner claims that there are allegedly certain receipts and emails of such transfer, the Petitioner has failed to annex any such documents with his petition. It is further denied that the Respondent was coerced by the Petitioner and his family to take a loan of Loan amount taken by respondent and to transfer Amount transferred to petitioner's father's account to the account of the father of the Petitioner and to hand over the remainder in cash. That, in fact, the Respondent used to regularly ask the Petitioner for money, which was either transferred by the Petitioner himself, or the Petitioner requested his brother to transfer the funds to the account of the Respondent, which is evident from the receipts / emails for the amounts transferred into the bank account of the Respondent by the brother of the Petitioner.
16.That the contents of paragraph 16 of the reply are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that, after keeping the relationship and the proposal secret from his parents for so long, the Petitioner finally revealed the fact of the relationship to his parents only as a means to pressurise and harass the Respondent into marriage. It is further denied that, despite the Respondent having told the Petitioner of her circumstances, the Petitioner unilaterally decided to inform his parents of the relationship and to coerce the Respondent into speaking to her family about the marriage. That, in fact, the family members of the Petitioner came to know of his relationship with the Respondent, and the Petitioner was questioned about it. The Petitioner clearly told his parents that he would marry the Respondent and no one else. The mother of the Petitioner agreed and stated that, if he loved her so much, there was no harm in their marrying. The parents of the Petitioner agreed to the marriage of the Petitioner and the Respondent despite the parties belonging to different castes, as the family of the Petitioner is Caste of petitioner's family by caste and the Respondent is Caste of respondent's family by caste.
17.That the contents of paragraph 17 of the reply are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that, in order to pressurise the Respondent into marriage, the Petitioner coerced the Respondent into speaking to her family about arranging the wedding, on the ground that the mother of the Petitioner did not approve of a long-term engagement. It is further denied that the Respondent and her mother visited the office of the father of the Petitioner and that her mother clearly stated that they did not have much money and therefore could not spend much on the marriage, and that the mother of the Respondent further stated that they had no relations at City where respondent stayed who could make arrangements at City where respondent stayed. It is further denied that the Respondent and her family members contributed significantly to the wedding despite their financial difficulties. That, in fact, the Petitioner discussed the issue with the Respondent, who was unwilling to marry him but, at the insistence of the Petitioner, agreed to discuss the matter with her parents. Thereafter, the Respondent and her mother visited the office of the father of the Petitioner, and her mother clearly stated that they did not have much money and therefore could not spend much on the marriage. The mother of the Respondent further stated that they had no relations at City where respondent stayed who could make arrangements there, and that therefore the entire arrangements would have to be made by the parents of the Petitioner.
18.That the contents of paragraph 18 of the reply are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that, prior to the engagement ceremony of the parties, the mother of the Petitioner handed to the Respondent a list containing the names of the persons related to the mother of the Petitioner and her family whom the mother of the Petitioner wished the Respondent and her family to give cash to at the engagement ceremony. It is further denied that, despite such cash envelopes being given to the persons related to the Petitioner and his mother, the Petitioner and his mother made an unreasonable demand, asking the family of the Respondent to hand over five (5) extra cash envelopes, including those named after the grandparents of the Petitioner, all of whom had passed away prior to the engagement ceremony. It is further denied that, in order to save face and to avoid any discussions or arguments on the occasion, the family of the Respondent agreed to the demands of the Petitioner and his family, and that the Respondent was left dismayed upon realising that the occasion, which was so auspicious for the Respondent and her family, was nothing more than an opportunity for the Petitioner and his mother to pressurise the family of the Respondent to recoup the expenses incurred by the Petitioner and his family for the engagement ceremony, despite the fact that the father of the Respondent had also invested over Amount invested by respondent's father in engagement in organising the engagement ceremony. That, in fact, the engagement between the Petitioner and the Respondent took place on Date of engagement ceremony at Place of engagement ceremony, and the entire arrangements for the engagement ceremony were made by the parents and family members of the Petitioner; there was never any contribution from the Respondent or her family members.
19.That the contents of paragraph 19 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the family of the Petitioner showed no enthusiasm towards the ceremonies except on the occasions when they received cash envelopes. It is further denied that the money-minded nature of the Petitioner and his family became apparent during the engagement ceremony, when the priest enquired as to the budget of the wedding and the question was hurriedly answered by the parents of the Respondent as Wedding budget stated by the Respondent's parents at the engagement, to which the mother of the Petitioner gave a judgmental look and remarked "Remark made by the Petitioner's mother regarding the wedding budget", thereby indicating that the mother of the Petitioner expected a lavish wedding, the costs of which were to be borne by the parents of the Respondent. That the Petitioner and his family members were happy and expressed their love and care towards the Respondent and her family members, whereas, on the other hand, the Respondent and her family members showed no enthusiasm or emotion and remained seated together without much cheer or expression on their faces.
20.That the contents of paragraph 20 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that subsequent to the engagement of the parties, the cruel nature of the Petitioner began to manifest itself, and that the Petitioner and his family began to harass the Respondent on a regular basis. It is further denied that the Petitioner constantly reiterated that his family expected gifts and cash envelopes at the time of the wedding, and that he did not heed the pleas of the Respondent, who attempted to make the Petitioner understand that the same may not be possible. That after the engagement, the behaviour of the Respondent changed completely towards the Petitioner, and she did not allow the Petitioner to spend much time with her. However, the Petitioner was not alerted by this change of attitude, and only subsequently realised that there had been a change in her attitude immediately after the marriage.
21.That the contents of paragraph 21 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that, after the engagement, the mother of the Petitioner handed yet another list to the mother of the Respondent, containing the names of about Approximate number of relatives in the list given by the Petitioner's mother relatives of the parents of the Petitioner, and demanded that during the wedding functions the parents of the Respondent would have to gift clothing articles to all the said persons. It is further denied that the mother of the Respondent reluctantly agreed and suggested sets of suit-salwar for the ladies and sets of pant-shirts for the men, whereupon the mother of the Petitioner once again gave judgmental looks to the mother of the Respondent and bluntly asked her to raise the budget and gift sarees to the ladies and suit material to the men. It is further denied that the parents of the Respondent were thereby coerced to purchase expensive sarees and also to pay for purchases made by the father of the Petitioner, who had purchased clothes worth Amount of clothes purchased by father of the Petitioner and simply handed the bill to the parents of the Respondent. It is further denied that, for the wedding, the parents of the Petitioner demanded that the Petitioner wear clothes only from Brand of clothes demanded for the Petitioner's wedding attire, and that in this regard the Respondent was coerced to pay nearly Amount allegedly paid by the Respondent for the Petitioner's clothes from her own funds. That the Petitioner and his parents were greatly excited about the marriage being the first in their family; they took the Respondent for shopping, purchased her lehenga and bridal makeup, booked the marriage venue, arranged accommodation for the Respondent and her family members, and made arrangements for their guests.
22.That the contents of paragraph 22 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that, despite being aware of the financial condition of the parents of the Respondent, the mother of the Petitioner and her husband expected the family of the Respondent to bear the cost of the wedding; it is denied that, in addition to bearing part of the cost of the wedding, the mother of the Petitioner demanded gifts for herself and her relatives, which the father of the Respondent could barely afford but was forced to accede to in order to ensure the happy married life of the Respondent. It is denied that in this regard the Respondent was coerced to take a loan of Amount of loan allegedly taken by the Respondent and transferred Amount allegedly transferred to the Respondent's father's account to the account of the father of the Respondent and gave the remainder in cash. It is further denied that the Petitioner has taken contrary stands in his petition, at first claiming that the entire expenditure of the wedding was borne by the Petitioner and his family, and later claiming that "some" contribution was made by the family of the Respondent. It is further denied that the contradictory stands taken by the Petitioner shed light on the baseless and false averments made by the Petitioner in order to mislead this Hon'ble Court. That the Petitioner and his family members bore the entire expenditure towards the marriage, and the Respondent and her family members made very little contribution towards the marriage expenses. As the family of the Respondent had informed the Petitioner that they would not be in a position to manage anything at City where the marriage expenses were to be arranged, it was the Petitioner and his family members who had to arrange everything.
23.That the contents of paragraph 23 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent had taken a personal loan for the marriage. It is further denied that, although the Petitioner claims to have attached certain receipts, no such receipts have been attached with the present petition, and the said averment has been made with the sole purpose of misleading this Hon'ble Court; accordingly, strict action ought to be taken against the Petitioner for the act of perjury. That the family of the Respondent transferred some amount towards sharing of the expenditure; however, when they came to City where the marriage expenses were to be arranged, they took cash from the Petitioner and his family members, there being no or very little contribution from the side of the Respondent or her family members towards the marriage. That the Respondent had taken a personal loan for the marriage, and the Petitioner paid the principal and interest towards the repayment of the said loan.
24.That the contents of paragraph 24 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has acted with mala fide intention in filing the present Petition before this Hon'ble Court by claiming that a true copy of the bank statement is annexed therewith, whereas no such copy forms part of the Petition, thereby indicating that the Petitioner has made a false statement on oath. It is further denied that the alleged expense claimed by the Petitioner is suspiciously similar to the amount received by the family of the Petitioner by way of bank transfer from the Respondent, as explained above, which lends further veracity to the contentions of the Respondent. That the marriage of the Petitioner with the Respondent was solemnised as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on Date of solemnisation of the marriage at Venue of the marriage, without any exchange of dowry. That the expenses of the marriage were borne by the Petitioner.
25.That the contents of paragraph 25 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the father of the Petitioner did not make any further expenditure towards the marriage, and that the Petitioner has failed to provide any receipts or information with respect to the alleged expenses incurred. It is further denied that the leave sought by the Petitioner is patently a tactic to delay and mislead this Hon'ble Court, as no such receipt has been furnished before this Hon'ble Court till date. It is further denied that it was the father of the Respondent who incurred greater expenses, as explained in the preliminary submissions of the present Reply, which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. It is further denied that the Petitioner, yet again, has failed to substantiate his claims, and yet has not desisted from proceeding with baseless, bogus and unsubstantiated claims. That it is submitted that the father of the Petitioner paid some amount in cash towards the balance payment of the marriage expenses; the receipts thereof are being searched for by the father of the Petitioner, who undertakes to file the same as soon as they are found.
26.That the contents of paragraph 26 of the reply are wrong and are hereby denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner herein was a habitual drug user and that the same affected his ability to consummate the marriage and fulfil his duties as a husband, often resulting in the parties being unable to share each other's company. It is further denied that the parties were often unable to share each other's company due to the constant intervention of the mother of the Petitioner, who allegedly did not allow the parties any semblance of privacy. That after the marriage, the Respondent was completely reluctant to establish any physical relationship with the Petitioner; although the parties had earlier enjoyed each other's company, the Respondent thereafter did not permit the Petitioner to come close to her. That the Petitioner was not permitted even once to have any physical relationship with the Respondent after the marriage.
27.That the contents of paragraph 27 of the reply are wrong and are hereby denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that, since the inception of the marriage, the parents of the Petitioner harboured an antagonistic attitude towards the Respondent and taunted and humiliated the Respondent for alleged insufficient dowry at every opportunity. It is further denied that the mother of the Petitioner, along with her husband and the Petitioner, frequently taunted and verbally abused the Respondent for not bringing adequate dowry. It is further denied, as alleged by the Petitioner, that the Respondent disrespected the family of the Petitioner on several occasions and was unwilling to speak to them. In this regard, it is submitted that no person, in a sound state of mind, would behave in a completely normal manner towards, or wish to engage with and entertain, their oppressors. It is further denied that the Respondent, having been tormented by the mother and father of the Petitioner for not bringing enough dowry, refused to speak to them; rather, she chose to remain silent and preserve her mental peace. That the Respondent further disrespected the parents of the Petitioner on several occasions and was never willing to talk to them. That the Respondent would sit in her room for long hours without making any attempt to speak to them, although the parents of the Petitioner treated her like their own daughter and purchased items that might please her, including clothes, jewellery and food; however, the Respondent remained least responsive.
28.That the contents of paragraph 28 of the reply are wrong and are hereby denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that "the petitioner also showered all his love and affections, but the same was reciprocated." It is further denied that the Petitioner is correct in stating that any love showered upon the Respondent was reciprocated. It is further denied that this averment of the Petitioner, by itself, obliterates the allegations of cruelty made by the Petitioner, thereby rendering the present proceedings devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. That the Petitioner did shower all his love and affection upon the Respondent, but the same was not reciprocated.
29.That the contents of paragraph 29 of the reply are wrong and are hereby denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner herein is mala fide attempting to assassinate the character of the Respondent; further, it is denied that the Petitioner has not provided any specific instance of cruelty committed by the Respondent and has instead levelled vague and baseless allegations. That within a few days of the marriage, the Respondent regularly picked up fights with the Petitioner on each and every issue. That the Respondent was constantly seeking an opportunity to quarrel with the Petitioner; she would raise issues on the smallest of matters and never made any effort to adjust to family life. That the Respondent would remain glued to her mobile phone and would stay awake late into the night chatting on the phone.
30.That the contents of paragraph 30 of the reply are wrong and are hereby denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has failed to substantiate his claims and has resorted to stating that the alleged fights took place in the middle of the night without providing any specific dates or further details of the nature of such alleged fights. It is further denied that, while it is natural for every relationship to face certain difficulties and for the parties in a relationship to face occasional hiccups, the relationship of the parties was particularly marred by the drug addiction of the Petitioner, a fact allegedly concealed from the Respondent by the Petitioner himself and his parents and discovered by the Respondent only subsequent to the marriage. It is further denied that the Respondent was living under constant duress owing to repeated ill demands for dowry, questions relating to her potential pregnancy, and constant taunts made by the mother of the Petitioner along with her husband and the Petitioner himself, owing to which the Respondent requested to live separately from the parents of the Petitioner. That in the middle of the night, the Respondent would start fighting with the Petitioner on meagre issues and disturb the peace of the entire family. That the mother of the Petitioner was always on medication, and any such disturbance would wake her up, leaving her unable to sleep any further. That the Petitioner made every effort to persuade the Respondent; however, on the other hand, she told the Petitioner that she did not wish to reside with the parents of the Petitioner and demanded a separate house for herself. That the Petitioner told the Respondent that he could not leave his parents, as both were suffering from various ailments — in particular, the mother of the Petitioner, who was suffering from uncontrolled sugar, pulmonary edema and coronary artery disease — and required constant care; however, the Respondent remained adamant in her demand.
31.That the contents of paragraph 31 of the reply are wrong and are hereby denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent had requested to live separately from the parents of the Petitioner solely due to the cruelty allegedly meted out to the Respondent by the Petitioner's parents, and that it was hoped by the Respondent that, if the parties lived away from the negative gaze and attitude of the parents of the Petitioner, the matrimonial life of the parties might have had a chance of succeeding. That the Petitioner, having been left with no other option and for the sake of his matrimonial life, agreed to the demand of the Respondent, and thereafter he, along with the Respondent, arranged rented accommodation at Locality of the rented accommodation. That the rent agreement was prepared in the names of both the Petitioner and the Respondent, at a monthly rent of Monthly rent payable under the rent agreement per month.
32.That the contents of paragraph 32 of the reply are wrong and are hereby denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner was also in agreement with the request of the Respondent to live separately from the parents of the Petitioner because the Petitioner wished to continue his habit of drug abuse without any intervention from his parents, and in a more open and unrestrained manner. That the Petitioner and the Respondent shifted to the rented accommodation and began living separately from the father and mother of the Petitioner in accordance with the demand of the Respondent.
33.That the contents of paragraph 33 of the reply are wrong and are hereby denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the separate residence was the result of a request by the Respondent owing to constant ill demands for dowry, uncomfortable questions relating to her potential pregnancy, constant taunts made by the mother of the Petitioner herein along with her husband, and the treatment of the Respondent like a maid in the matrimonial home. That even after the parties shifted to separate accommodation, the attitude of the Respondent did not change, and she continued to fight with the Petitioner; she was not even once loving, caring or affectionate towards the Petitioner.
34.That the contents of paragraph 34 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that, as per the averments of the present petition itself, the Respondent reciprocated all the love that was shown to her. It is further denied that the Petitioner is now taking contrary stands with respect to the behaviour of the Petitioner, on the ground that there is no merit in the claims of the Petitioner, and in an attempt to further harass and humiliate the Respondent. That the constant quarrels and fighting over petty issues started taking a toll upon the Petitioner, and the Petitioner started suffering from depression.
35.That the contents of paragraph 35 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has so far not been able to provide, explain or elucidate upon a single instance of the alleged quarrels and fights. It is further denied that the Petitioner is a drug addict and that the Petitioner did not let go of any opportunity to abuse drugs, and that it was only after the marriage of the parties that the Respondent caught the Petitioner abusing drugs and became aware of the drug addiction of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the drug addiction of the Petitioner reached new heights once the parties moved to a new accommodation, as the Petitioner began to abuse drugs massively, he being no longer under the supervision of his parents. It is further denied that the Petitioner would oscillate between being in a constant daze and being irrationally irritable and angry, and would be unable to perform even his most basic duties as a husband. It is further denied that the alleged "depression" claimed by the Petitioner herein was a direct result of the drugs so frequently consumed by the Petitioner. That the constant quarrels and fighting over petty issues started taking a toll upon the Petitioner, and the Petitioner started suffering from depression.
36.That the contents of paragraph 36 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that, despite being heartbroken about the drug-addicted nature of the Petitioner, the Respondent did her best to fulfil all her duties as a dutiful wife. It is further denied that, during the period when the parties lived in the rented accommodation, the Petitioner was admitted to Name of the hospital where the petitioner was admitted owing to an aggravated condition caused by the drug addiction of the Petitioner. It is further denied that it was then and there that the Respondent called the mother of the Petitioner and her husband and informed them about the condition and the whereabouts of the Petitioner, and stayed with him as a dutiful wife. That the aforesaid mental condition of the Petitioner was easily understandable by the Respondent, but she did not care for the Petitioner at all.
37.That the contents of paragraph 37 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the drugs abused by the Petitioner had resulted in the erratic sleeping patterns of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the claims of the Petitioner to have loved the Respondent ring hollow, as the only love the Petitioner expressed was for his drugs, and the addiction of the Petitioner had become unbearable. That the Petitioner suffered from lack of sleep and used to remain awake throughout the night, being disturbed by the entire situation. His love for the Respondent was abundant; however, he was not receiving the same response from the Respondent, and that hurt him deeply.
38.That the contents of paragraph 38 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. That one day, the father of the Petitioner received a call from the landlord of the Petitioner, who informed him about the mental condition of the Petitioner.
39.That the contents of paragraph 39 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has concealed significant information in order to mislead this Hon'ble Court, including the fact that the Respondent and the Petitioner had once again moved into the residence of the parents of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the reason for such concealment is only due to the fact that such inconvenient facts would be detrimental to the case of the Petitioner and would show the Respondent in the rightfully positive light.
It is further denied that, when the Petitioner was once again admitted to Name of the hospital where the petitioner was admitted owing to an aggravated condition caused by the drug addiction of the Petitioner, the Respondent immediately called the parents of the Petitioner, and that once the Petitioner was discharged, the parties decided to move in and reside with the parents of the Petitioner at their residence at City where the Petitioner's parents were residing, where they were staying at the time, because the Respondent herein was greatly afraid for the health of the Petitioner and thought that it would be best for the Petitioner. It is further denied that the Respondent decided to return to the home of the parents of the Petitioner despite fearing for her own life and the cruelty that she would be subjected to at the hands of the mother of the Petitioner and her husband. It is further denied that, in Month and year of the hospital check-up incident, when the Respondent took the Petitioner for his regular check-up at Name of the hospital where the petitioner was admitted, the Petitioner informed the Respondent that he was going to use the washroom; however, when the Petitioner did not return for quite some time and the Respondent was unable to find or contact the Petitioner, the Respondent called the father of the Petitioner and intimated him regarding the uncalled-for disappearance of the Petitioner herein. It is further denied that, as usual, the father of the Petitioner turned the entire episode upside down and, rather than being worried about the whereabouts of the Petitioner, focused on blaming the Respondent herein, saying that the Respondent was very irresponsible and careless and could not even take care of the Petitioner for even a couple of hours. It is further denied that the Respondent decided to return home and wait for the Petitioner at home. Pursuant to the aforesaid, on the way back home, the Respondent found the Petitioner with a bag full of medicines in his hands, and on being confronted, the Petitioner informed the Respondent that he had left the Hospital on the excuse of using the washroom and had instead gone to a medical store to purchase some medicines and painkillers, just so that the Petitioner could have some kind of drugs in his system. It is further denied that it was then that the Respondent felt that she had no further hope of a happy future in her matrimonial home and was constrained to leave the company of the Petitioner, along with the company of the parents of the Petitioner, on Date on which the respondent left the matrimonial home, without carrying a single one of her belongings. That the father of the Petitioner rushed to the house of the Petitioner and found him in an acute state of depression. The Petitioner was in a very bad condition, and the father of the Petitioner took him to the hospital for treatment. On the other hand, the Respondent showed no emotion or respect towards the Petitioner, and in the month of Month and year in which the respondent left the house, she left the house.
40.That the contents of paragraph 40 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the loving nature of the Respondent has been admitted by the Petitioner in the petition itself, and it is further evidenced by the fact that the Respondent would take the Petitioner to the hospital at times when the Petitioner would have a serious reaction to his drug abuse. It is further denied that the intention of a loving and respectful wife was also displayed by the Respondent when she agreed to move back in with the abusive parents of the Petitioner, knowing that she would be subjected to cruelty at their hands, yet decided to endure the same for the sake of the Petitioner. That the Respondent, while leaving the house, took all the belongings and valuables along with her. The Respondent, being the wife of the Petitioner, ought to have taken care of the Petitioner, but the Respondent never showed any love or respect, and when the Petitioner needed the Respondent by his side, she was nowhere to be found.
41.That the contents of paragraph 41 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has failed to substantiate his claims. It is further denied that, had the Petitioner cared to resume his matrimonial relationship with the Respondent, he would not have filed the instant case and would instead have attempted reconciliation. That the Petitioner wrote numerous messages to the Respondent and sought some response from her, but the Respondent showed no reciprocation whatsoever. The Petitioner shared photographs of the good times they had spent together, and shared voice messages while crying and begging her to remain by his side, to return and to be with him, but the Respondent failed to do so.
42.That the contents of paragraph 42 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has not clarified who the said "informant" is to whom the said mail was sent. It is further denied that the contents of the alleged email, as reproduced by the Petitioner, indicate an addictive dependence of the Petitioner on psychotropic substances, inasmuch as the Petitioner freely admits that he suffered "withdrawal symptoms" and had become a "baggage". It is further denied that the erratic nature of the Petitioner is evident from the alleged mail reproduced by the Petitioner, inasmuch as the Petitioner claims to love and care for the Respondent, then immediately accuses her of being selfish, and thereafter once again seeks reasons for the Respondent having left his company. It is further denied that the Petitioner is not in control of his feelings, and that the continued company of the Respondent with the Petitioner would have resulted in danger to the life and limb of the Respondent. That the Petitioner sent an email to the said informant, pouring his heart out and requesting the Respondent to return, but the Respondent again failed to respond. That on Date on which the email was sent to the respondent, the Petitioner sent an email to the Respondent, which is reproduced hereinbelow, and which clearly shows the love of the Petitioner for the Respondent and his mental condition owing to the Respondent having left his company without any reason:-
"Turn mujse pyar nhi Karti thi tbi chali Gayi. Tumhe pta nhi tha ki mai kitna karta hu. Tumne avoid kia muje no reply nothing kisne brain wash kia tumhara. Life mein Problems Kitne Aati hai, main aane Wala tha par nhi tumhare jiju ne batmizi se bt ki mere dad se Meri ::;om se Up down chalte hain par ye nhi chhod do. Main baggage ban gya tha ki yr kya hogya hai or tumhe pta side effects or withdrawal symptoms hai par nhi tumhe life enjoy Kami thi right. Socho shaadi ke 6-7 saal health issue hote tumhe toh main chodh deta bolo. Tumhari mom ne tumharc dad ko chhod diya tha nhi na. Meri mom ko 30 ki age mein heart problem or diabetes hogyi chhodh diya tha mere dad ne. Tumhe freedom chahiye thi toh bol deti ki liven rahenge no shaaadi . Men galti hai mene pyr kia . Selfish ho turn or tumhara ex Surname of the respondent's ex-partner referred to in the email sab selfish. Delhi mein reh ke b kahi or reh rhi ho PG mein. Reason dena please.
43.That the contents of paragraph 43 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that, were the Petitioner still in love with the Respondent, the Petitioner would not have filed the present petition, nor would the Petitioner have filed a case under the DV Act against the Respondent using his mother as a proxy. It is further denied that the Petitioner clearly has an intention to harass and demoralise the Respondent, who has been nothing but a loving and dutiful wife. It is further denied that the reasons for the Respondent having been constrained to leave the company of the Petitioner have been elucidated upon and are not repeated for the sake of brevity. That the Petitioner is still deeply in love with the Respondent and wants her to be by his side. That the Respondent left the Petitioner in Month and year in which the respondent left the petitioner without any rhyme or reason, and at a time when the Petitioner was unwell and suffering from depression.
44.That the contents of paragraph 44 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has failed to furnish any details regarding the alleged attempts at reconciliation. That all the sincere efforts of the Petitioner, his family and his friends, to bring the Respondent back to the matrimonial home so as to resume her matrimonial obligations, have borne no fruit, and the Petitioner is being made to suffer.
45.That the contents of paragraph 45 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the acts of the Respondent are due to the abusive and cruel nature of the Petitioner and his parents, and owing to the excessive drug use of the Petitioner, all of which the Respondent could no longer bear. That the Respondent has, accordingly, left the matrimonial home, withdrawn from the society of the Petitioner and deserted the Petitioner, and the aforesaid acts of the Respondent are without any just or reasonable cause, without the consent of the Petitioner and against his wishes.
46.That the contents of paragraph 46 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has concealed from this Hon'ble Court that the Petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn the said petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. That the Petitioner, thereafter, having been left with no other option, was constrained to file a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 before the Court of the Ld. Court before which the Section 9 petition was filed.
47.That the contents of paragraph 47 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has conveniently concealed the fact that the Petitioner had filed an application for anticipatory bail in this regard, and that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court was also of the opinion that the offences were grave enough to deny the Petitioner the relief of anticipatory bail. That when the Respondent came to know of the filing of the aforesaid petition, she thereafter, in order to safeguard herself, lodged a false and frivolous F.I.R. bearing Crime No. FIR number under Sections 498A/323/504 of IPC r/w Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, with Police Station Name of police station District District of the police station where the FIR was lodged, against the Petitioner and his family members. That the entire F.I.R. is based on assumptions and does not state even a single word about the commission of any offence whatsoever.
48.That the contents of paragraph 48 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that, while the Petitioner waxes eloquent about the obligations of a wife, the Petitioner has blatantly ignored the obligations to be discharged by a husband, foremost amongst them being not to subject the wife/Respondent to cruelty. That the Respondent is the legally wedded wife of the Petitioner and is thus legally and morally bound to perform her marital obligations. It is thus incumbent upon her to fulfil her matrimonial obligations, including cohabiting with the Petitioner, which obligations she has miserably failed to discharge, without any just or reasonable cause.
49.That the contents of paragraph 49 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that no details of the alleged acts of physical cruelty have been furnished by the Petitioner. It is further denied that any such allegation of cruelty by the Respondent is a figment of the imagination of the Petitioner, who seeks to harass the Respondent even further by levelling false allegations. That the Respondent has, rather, caused various acts of mental and physical cruelty against the Petitioner and his family members, and has also severely damaged his reputation and goodwill.
50.That the contents of paragraph 50 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the present contentions of the Petitioner have confused and confounded the Respondent, as the said averment is merely a collection of incoherent words making vague allegations. It is further denied that the Petitioner carries on his own private business along with his father of selling medical equipment through two firms, namely Name of the first firm selling medical equipment and Name of the second firm selling medical equipment, and it is therefore uncertain as to what alleged job prospects the Petitioner has suffered. To the contrary, it is the Respondent who has suffered, as the Petitioner and his family had insisted that the Respondent leave her job prior to the marriage, leaving the Respondent solely dependent upon the Petitioner. It is further denied that the Petitioner has failed to substantiate in any manner what misadventures the Petitioner was allegedly forced to indulge in. It is further denied that the said paragraph has simply been added as a vague and misleading allegation in order to defame the Respondent and to embolden the claims of the Petitioner, which the Petitioner has miserably failed to establish. It is submitted that the Respondent, with an intent of travelling to new destinations outside India, forced the Petitioner to indulge in numerous misadventures, which left the Petitioner financially and mentally exhausted, and the Petitioner has also suffered immensely in respect of his job prospects and options.
51.That the contents of paragraph 51 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner seeks to paint a hilarious picture, as on the one hand the Petitioner claims that the Respondent married him for his money, while in the earlier paragraphs of the petition itself the Petitioner claimed that the Respondent was unwilling and hesitant to marry him. It is further denied that the contrary stands taken by the Petitioner make it evident that no act of cruelty was committed by the Respondent against the Petitioner; further, the Petitioner is himself confused as to what he desires — a divorce or reconciliation. It is further denied, without admitting the allegations of the Petitioner, that it would have served the Respondent no purpose to have delayed the marriage if her alleged intention were to acquire money. It is further denied that in the hypothetical scenario that the Respondent did want money from the Petitioner, there would have been no reason for the Respondent to have left the matrimonial home. It is further denied that the Petitioner is simply flailing in making allegations against the Respondent in the hope that some may stick. It is further denied that the Petitioner has himself pre-emptively denied any demand of a sum of Amount of money allegedly demanded and a car from the Respondent. It is further denied that the need of the Petitioner to mention his financial capability, and further to mention that no dowry or car was demanded, is evidential of the assumptive and pre-emptive nature of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the mentioning of the said paragraph was not only unnecessary but a futile attempt on the part of the Petitioner to mislead this Hon'ble Court and to present a defence before this Hon'ble Court on the calculated assumption that the Respondent would speak her truth and present the real facts before this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that the Petitioner tried to fulfil all the demands of the Respondent with the sole hope of bringing happiness and togetherness to the family; however, the Respondent never bothered about any such issues and deserted the Petitioner without any rhyme or reason, and the Respondent was never in love with the Petitioner. The Respondent used to pretend that she was in love with the Petitioner in order to extract money from him. The Respondent married the Petitioner only because she was after his money and nothing else, and it is trite to mention here that the Petitioner and his family are financially quite capable, having their own house and a car, and as such there was no need for them to demand a sum of Amount of money allegedly demanded and a car from the Respondent and her family members.
52.That the contents of paragraph 52 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has claimed to have attached a true copy of a document when no such document has been annexed herewith, and every instance of such claim amounts to an act of perjury and an attempt to mislead this Hon'ble Court. It is further denied that the mental condition of the Petitioner is due to his drug abuse, as allegedly admitted by the Petitioner in the reproduction of the alleged email in the present petition itself, and the attempt to blame the same on the Respondent is yet another act of cruelty by the Petitioner, who is in the habit of committing such cruel acts against the Respondent. It is submitted that the Petitioner was suffering from depression on account of the torture and harassment meted out by the Respondent and was under treatment in a hospital for a long period of time. A true copy of the documents with regard to the medical treatment of the Petitioner is annexed herewith. The Petitioner and his family fully cooperated with the Respondent despite her financially difficult condition, yet she made false allegations, which shows that the Respondent wanted to exert pressure upon the Petitioner and his family and to harass them in order to meet her illegal demands.
53.That the contents of paragraph 53 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the present averment of the Petitioner is perplexing, as the Petitioner freely admits that the parties shared each other's company prior to the marriage, yet has strangely alleged that the same was not done subsequent to the marriage. It is further denied that the same is a blatant falsehood claimed by the Petitioner in the hope of alleging cruelty against the Respondent for denying conjugal relations. It is further denied that the contradictory nature of the claims of the Petitioner itself renders such an allegation self-defeating. It is submitted that the marriage of the Petitioner was never consummated, as the Respondent refused to have a relationship and to start a family. The Respondent did not allow the Petitioner to touch her, and the Respondent refused to have any relationship with him.
54.That the contents of paragraph 54 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the family members, including the cousins of the Respondent, have met with and visited the matrimonial home of the parties. It is further denied that, after the Petitioner was discharged from the hospital and the parties moved to the residence at City where the matrimonial residence was located as aforementioned, the parents of the Respondent visited the Petitioner and his family at their home in City where the matrimonial residence was located. It is submitted that no one from the Respondent's family — her parents, her brother and her sister — ever visited the Petitioner's home till date to spend time with them as part of the family. The Respondent's family was never keen to build a family-to-family bond, and there was no regular communication except for occasional greetings on birthdays, anniversaries and the like.
55.That the contents of paragraph 55 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that if the Petitioner truly believed that marriages are made in heaven, it posits the question as to why the Petitioner used his mother as a proxy to file a Complaint against the Respondent under Section 12 of the DV Act, which would strain the relationships between the families, and further filed the present case of divorce against the Respondent. It is submitted that the Petitioner adjusted with the Respondent's rudeness, reckless attitude, ill-treatment and harassment at all times, because, firstly, the Petitioner's family believes that marriages are made in heaven, and secondly, the Petitioner did not want to trouble and disturb his parents further, as they were already spending their lives in very painful circumstances for the reasons stated above. The Petitioner took up the issues relating to the Respondent's behaviour and attitude with her family, whereupon the Petitioner was threatened that he and his parents would be implicated in false cases of dowry and harassment and would be put behind bars. The Petitioner stopped visiting his in-laws' place thereafter.
56.That the contents of paragraph 56 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner, along with his family, tormented the Respondent continuously during the period when the Respondent was in the company of the Petitioner and his family. It is further denied that the Petitioner, along with his family, did so by constantly demanding dowry, whether in cash or in kind, from the Respondent, and that upon realising that their unlawful demands would not be fulfilled, the Petitioner and his family taunted the Respondent for belonging to a family of modest financial means and verbally abused the Respondent day and night. It is further denied that the Petitioner, along with his family, manipulated and coerced the Respondent into availing a loan of Loan amount taken by respondent and transferring the same to the father of the Petitioner, and providing the remainder in cash, and that this was done by making the Respondent and her family believe that the amount so transferred was a one-time contribution being made by the Respondent, along with her family, towards the wedding functions. It is further denied that the Petitioner and his family thereafter refused to acknowledge the aforesaid transfer as the contribution of the Respondent and her family towards the wedding functions, and instead described it as a donation or dowry, in addition to the numerous contributions, gifts and jewellery already given by the father of the Respondent. That during the marriage, neither the Petitioner nor any member of his family demanded anything from the Respondent or her family by way of gifts, dowry or otherwise. The Petitioner was drawing a good salary, and therefore he neither expected nor ever thought of demanding anything from the Respondent or her family; such conduct is against the culture of the Petitioner's family.
It is further denied that the Petitioner has made the present averment as a pre-emptive measure so as to avoid the genuine allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty. It is further denied that the present paragraph contains no allegations against the Respondent and instead operates as a pre-emptive defence prepared by the Petitioner, without realising that it is evident that this pre-emptive move was made in anticipation that the Respondent would speak the truth regarding the cruelties inflicted upon her by the Petitioner and his family.
57.That the contents of paragraph 57 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has not annexed any documents regarding his medical condition during the time of the marriage which would establish a direct nexus between any alleged acts of the Respondent and the health of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the health of the Petitioner deteriorated owing to his addiction to, and abuse of, drugs and psychotropic substances, which also allegedly resulted in the erratic behaviour of the Petitioner. That with the passage of time, the Respondent made such quarrels a routine affair and subjected the Petitioner to considerable mental agony and stress by creating disturbances in the household, which resulted in the Petitioner frequently falling ill and his health being damaged in every possible manner.
58.That the contents of paragraph 58 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the present averment is so unimaginable and preposterous that it does not warrant any reply. That the Petitioner, being affectionate, did all acts to make the Respondent feel comfortable and loved, but in return the Respondent quarrelled with the Petitioner and rendered him ill on account of such quarrels. That the Respondent refused to assist the Petitioner in any household work and complained constantly, and further harassed the Petitioner for not having sufficient money to fulfil her whims and fancies. The Respondent did not respond to the love showered upon her by her husband in an ordinary manner; rather, she complained about the weak economic condition of the hardworking Petitioner, and the Respondent began to derive enjoyment from this inhuman habit of fighting and mentally tormenting the Petitioner, and would derive sadistic pleasure from the pitiable condition of the Petitioner, as no mentally stable person would. That the Petitioner somehow managed to come out of this trauma inflicted upon him by the Respondent and did not disclose this habit of the Respondent to anyone, not even to his own family members, and instead requested the Respondent to desist from such behaviour so that the sanctity of the marriage could be maintained.
59.That the contents of paragraph 59 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that during these Period during which reconciliation was attempted the Petitioner tried to convince the Respondent not to end the marriage, but the Respondent always turned a deaf ear to his requests and quarrelled over petty issues. It is further denied that it was the Respondent who ought to have been shattered by the abusive nature of the Petitioner and his family and ought to have left immediately upon discovering the alleged drug-addled nature of the Petitioner, but that, owing to her upbringing, the Respondent remained a dutiful wife until the cruelty of the Petitioner and his family became more than she could bear. It is further denied that no claim of the Petitioner has been substantiated and that every allegation made by the Petitioner is vague and demonstrably false. That any sane spouse, upon learning of such dark and disturbing facts regarding the intentions of his partner, would be mentally shattered. The Petitioner underwent the same ordeal and further suffered great difficulty in thinking clearly for Period during which reconciliation was attempted. During these Period during which reconciliation was attempted, the Petitioner tried to convince the Respondent not to end the marriage, but the Respondent always turned a deaf ear to his requests and quarrelled over petty issues.
60.That the contents of paragraph 60 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that there was no demand by the Respondent for the transfer of any such property, and that such demand has not been substantiated by the Petitioner. It is further denied that the Respondent has never made any such demand, and that she left the matrimonial home only on account of the unbearable cruelty of the Petitioner and his family. That the Petitioner, having tried everything possible to make the marriage work, attempted to ascertain the whereabouts of the Respondent. The failure of the Respondent to respond to the Petitioner made him lose all hope of leading a normal married life, and for more than a year the Petitioner tried to contact the Respondent, but eventually gave up hope of reconciliation with her. That the Respondent had left the matrimonial home of her own volition, as her nefarious demands, including the transfer of property in her name, among others, had not been met.
61.That the contents of paragraph 61 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has once again made contradictory claims, first claiming to have cohabited with the Respondent in his parents' home and subsequently in a rental accommodation, and is now claiming that the parties never cohabited together. It is further denied that, assuming without admitting that the parties never cohabited together, no such allegation of cruelty as claimed by the Petitioner in the present petition can be made against the Respondent. That thereafter, as there was no possibility of reconciliation between the parties, since the Petitioner had categorically expressed his intention to separate from the Respondent, and as the Respondent and the Petitioner were Hindu by religion at the time of the solemnisation of their marriage and continue to profess the same religion till the date of filing of the present petition. That after the marriage, the parties never lived as husband and wife and did not cohabit with each other. There is no issue born out of the said wedlock. That the aforesaid series of incidents has resulted in the deterioration of the mental health of the Petitioner and has seriously impaired his self-confidence and self-esteem.
62.
62.That the contents of para 62 of the reply are wrong and denied in toto, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has not provided a single detail of cruelty or furnished even an iota of proof of the alleged cruelty in the Petition. It is further denied that the Petitioner has instead relied upon vague and misleading allegations against the Respondent in order to question the character of the Respondent and to protect himself and his family from the truth of the cruelties committed by them upon the Respondent. It is pertinent to mention that the conduct and behaviour of the Respondent and the circumstances, which were intentionally created by the Respondent against the Petitioner, are such that the Respondent has caused immense mental cruelty, torture and agony to the Petitioner without any fault on his part. The Petitioner has suffered utmost cruelty and the Respondent has wilfully deserted the Petitioner; therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as amended up to date.
63.That the contents of para 63 of the reply are wrong and denied in toto, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that no allegation of cruelty by the Respondent has been detailed or substantiated by the Petitioner herein, and that any such attempt would merely be an afterthought.
64.That the contents of para 64 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct.
65.That the contents of para 65 of the reply are wrong and denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraph of the petition are reiterated as correct.
It is denied that the prayer sought by the Petitioner is based on false, frivolous and maliciously presented facts and circumstances, and as such the relief sought against the Respondent is liable to be dismissed. It is further denied that the Respondent has not committed any acts of cruelty against the Petitioner, and that the Petitioner has been unable to provide details of any instance of cruelty or to substantiate the same in the instant Petition. It is further denied that the present petition is merely an attempt by the Petitioner to avoid his responsibilities as a husband and to further harass the Respondent.
The prayer clauses of the reply are absolutely wrong and are specifically denied. The Respondent is not entitled to the relief claimed therein.
Any allegation made in the reply which is not specifically denied herein is also absolutely wrong and is specifically denied, and such non-specific denial shall not be construed as an admission on the part of the Petitioner.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly grant the relief in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent as prayed for in the main petition, in the interest of justice, equity and in the circumstances of the case.
Pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
It is prayed accordingly.
DELHIPETITIONER
THROUGH
DATED: Date of the petition
ADVOCATE
IN THE COURT OF THE LD. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
H.M.A. CASE NO. HMA case number OF Year of the HMA case.
IN THE MATTER OF:-
----------------: PETITIONER
VERSUS
----------------: RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Mr. Name of deponent, S/o Sh. , R/o , do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1.That I am the Petitioner in the captioned case and am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case, and am therefore competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That the contents of the accompanying rejoinder to the reply have been read over and explained to me in the vernacular language, and having understood the same, I state that the facts stated therein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at Delhi on this Date of verification that the facts stated in my above Affidavit are true to my knowledge, that no part of the same is false and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT