Reply by respondent to petition under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance
Cites the IPC, CrPC or Evidence Act. For matters from 1 July 2024, use the BNS, BNSS or BSA.
0 of 51 blanks filled
IN THE COURT OF SH. Name of the presiding judge, LD. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURTS, Court district
Name of the court/complex
MT. CASE NO. Maintenance case number OF Year of the maintenance case
IN THE MATTER OF:
Petitioner's name: PETITIONER
VERSUS
Respondent's name: RESPONDENT
N.D.O.H.: Next date of hearing
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITION UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C. FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF MAINTENANCE.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS / OBJECTIONS:
1.That the present petition filed by the petitioner is an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court on the basis of false allegations of cruelty after more than two years of marriage. The present petition has been deliberately filed against the respondent in order to blackmail, harass and pressurise him, and also to take advantage of her own wrongs.
2.That no cause of action ever arose, nor does any cause of action exist, and accordingly no cause of action is disclosed in the present petition against the respondent. The petition is therefore liable to be dismissed with costs.
3.That the petitioner has set out a concocted story with mala fide intentions; on this ground alone, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
4.That the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was a love marriage, solemnised between the answering respondent and the petitioner on Date of marriage at Place of marriage, in the absence of the parents and family members of both parties and without any exchange of dowry or gifts, which was contrary to the principles of the respondent's family. The parents of the petitioner were angered by the respondent as their daughter, i.e. the petitioner, had married the respondent against their wishes. Her parents also threatened the respondent that they would take revenge and that the respondent would face the consequences thereof.
5.Needless to state, immediately after the marriage, the petitioner frequently picked up arguments over petty issues. Within a month of the marriage, signs of temperamental and behavioural disorders began to appear in the petitioner's conduct. There were instances of physical attacks. The respondent also noticed anger-management problems in her; for instance, the petitioner would become furious at one moment and return to normal within seconds, and with the passage of time the frequency of such behaviour increased. The petitioner developed the habit of discussing every detail of the matrimonial home with her parents, who directed the respondent to always give precedence to the petitioner's wishes over his concerns for his own mother. Every time the respondent visited his in-laws, both of them would lecture him on a man's responsibilities towards his wife. There were also instances of unnecessary discussions on what family means to a married individual, thereby demonstrating tremendous interference by the petitioner's family in the matrimonial life of the respondent.
6.That after the marriage of the respondent and the petitioner, the petitioner never showed proper and due respect towards the respondent or his mother. The petitioner repeatedly demanded that the respondent separate from his parents. She refused to perform the normal expected household duties and chores, such as cooking and washing, and frequently left the matrimonial home without intimation.
7.That the interference of the petitioner's parents grew so rapidly that they threatened the respondent that they would implicate the respondent's family in a false case and would seize the entire property of the respondent.
8.That the said marriage failed and turned into a nightmare for the respondent on account of the petitioner's behavioural and temperamental issues, her obstinacy, lack of sensitivity, unjustified conduct and behaviour, values, sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment, threats to his life, and conduct causing inconvenience to the respondent. The respondent therefore suffered deep anguish, disappointment and frustration on account of the acts, attitude and conduct of the petitioner.
9.That the petitioner started behaving abruptly with the respondent within a few months of their marriage. The petitioner would become extremely agitated over routine matters or events which any other normal person would not even notice.
10.That the parents of the petitioner consistently gave ill advice and incited the petitioner against the respondent and his family members, as a result of which the petitioner began insulting, misbehaving with, abusing and assaulting the respondent as well as his parents. By manipulating the petitioner in order to take revenge upon the respondent, as their daughter had married him against their wishes, they lodged false and frivolous FIRs against the respondent and his family members.
11.That from the acts and conduct of the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner had destroyed the institution of marriage, and it is not possible for the respondent to continue the marriage any further on account of the fraudulent and cruel behaviour of the petitioner.
12.That in view of all the acts and circumstances mentioned above, it is very difficult for the respondent to live with the petitioner, as the respondent not only apprehends danger to his life and liberty but the situation is also detrimental to his honour, reputation and social status. As such, the respondent is entitled to the grant of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
13.That the conduct and attitude of the petitioner narrated above clearly, evidently and without the least doubt shows that: (i) the petitioner has broken all relations with the respondent, as on some occasions she stayed with the respondent and thereafter took away the jewellery, which remains in her custody; (ii) the petitioner is determined to implicate the respondent and his parents in a false criminal case, by hook or by crook, merely to take revenge upon them for reasons best known to her; and (iii) it further proves that the petitioner/wife has an abnormal behaviour which has resulted in all these abrupt actions on her part. It is further submitted that the lives of the respondent and his family would always remain in danger and full of tension if they were to live with the petitioner in any manner in future.
14.That it is stated that the petitioner has already taken away all her movable items, including her jewellery and clothes, in the absence of the respondent.
15.That the petitioner is a working lady at Petitioner's workplace and earns more than Rs. Petitioner's monthly salary (₹)/- per month. She also provides private tuition to children, from which she earns approximately Rs. Petitioner's tuition income per month (₹)/- per month. The petitioner is also a well-educated lady and is hence capable of maintaining herself. In view of the above submissions, the petitioner/wife has sufficient source of income of her own. The petition is, as such, liable to be dismissed being without merit.
16.That the petitioner is well educated and better qualified than the respondent, and being competent, she is not entitled to any maintenance even if she chooses to sit idle at home with a view to seek maintenance, which is not permissible in view of the catena of judgments passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
17.That the law is well settled with regard to maintenance that a spouse who is working, or who otherwise has the capacity to earn, is not entitled to maintenance.
18.That the petitioner has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands, as she has purposefully and mischievously withheld her employment status, true income and correct financial position, with a view to mislead the Court and also to coerce and extort money from the respondent.
19.It is submitted that the petition is nothing but a document wherein loose phrases and adjectives have been used without any material particulars or justification. The petition is full of contradictions, which confirms and affirms that the present petition is a gross misuse of the process of law. The facts do not match the fiction created in the petition and crumble on their own head in view of the inherent contradictions therein.
REPLY ON MERITS :-
1.That the contents of paragraph 1 of the petition are a matter of record; the same are denied to the extent that the Petitioner is presently living at the mercy of her parents.
2.That the contents of paragraph 2 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is, however, not denied that the marriage of the Petitioner was solemnized with the Respondent at Place of marriage on Date of marriage.
3.That the contents of paragraph 3 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is submitted that the parents of the Petitioner already knew about the marriage of the Petitioner with the Respondent, as the said marriage was solemnized against their wishes.
4.That the contents of paragraph 4 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that the family of the Petitioner reached the house of the Respondent on Date of visit by petitioner's family and told the parents of the Respondent that they were ready to accept the marriage, and further told them that they were respectable persons in society and would arrange the other functions of the marriage according to Hindu rituals; and that the parents of the Petitioner requested the parents of the Respondent to send their daughter, the Petitioner, with them to their house on Date petitioner sent to matrimonial home for rituals for performance of the remaining functions of the marriage.
5-8.That the contents of paragraphs 5 to 8 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that on Date of marriage rituals the remaining rituals of the marriage were performed before the family members of both the Petitioner and the Respondent. It is further denied that the parents of the Petitioner spent a huge amount on the welcome and Bidai of the Respondent and his family members on the said occasion. It is further denied that the father of the Petitioner, beyond his financial capacity, gave the Petitioner all the articles and jewellery generally given in a marriage, and that on this account he took a loan of approximately Rs. Loan amount for marriage expenses (₹) from his relatives and family friends. It is submitted that the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent was a love marriage solemnized at Place of marriage, Delhi, and was performed in a low-profile manner without any exchange of dowry or gifts.
9.That the contents of paragraph 9 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that on Date petitioner reached matrimonial home, upon the Petitioner reaching her matrimonial home after the marriage, the behaviour of the Respondent and his family members towards the Petitioner was rude and unfair.
10.That the contents of paragraph 10 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Respondent is a quarrelsome person who used to create disputes over petty issues and trivial matters. It is further denied that the Respondent neither respected the Petitioner nor showed her love and affection as part of his daily conduct. It is further denied that the Respondent failed to perform his marital and social obligations as required under law and customs, suspected the loyalty of the Petitioner, harassed her on account of alleged insufficient dowry and non-fulfilment of demands, and beat the Petitioner mercilessly.
11.That the contents of paragraph 11 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that within a few weeks of the marriage the Petitioner realised that she had been brought as a household slave and was forced to perform all household work, and that all the articles she had received in the wedding from her family were confiscated by the mother and sister of the Respondent.
12.That the contents of paragraph 12 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that the jewellery articles and cash given to the Petitioner by her family members and other relatives were taken by the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law (Sister-in-law's name), who kept all the jewellery and cash in her custody.
13.That the contents of paragraph 13 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that the sister-in-law of the Petitioner, along with her two children, resides in the matrimonial home of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the sister-in-law of the Petitioner levelled false allegations against the Petitioner on account of which the Respondent and the mother-in-law of the Petitioner used to abuse or beat the Petitioner.
14.That the contents of paragraph 14 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that in the first week of the marriage the Respondent began behaving abusively towards the Petitioner and would often scratch her hands and bite her during sexual intercourse. It is further denied that the Petitioner realised there was no love and affection between them when the Respondent physically mistreated her even during such intimate moments. It is denied that, despite the clear refusal of the Petitioner, the Respondent forced her into unnatural sex without any remorse for his illegal and disgusting acts. It is further denied that during this period the Petitioner also realised that the Respondent was an alcoholic and that every night he crossed all boundaries in pursuit of his fetishes and vindication.
15.That the contents of paragraph 15 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that on the occasion of Makar Sankranti the Respondent told the Petitioner to ask her parents to send gold jewellery, Rupees 1 lakh in cash and decent clothes for all the family members of the Respondent, upon which the Petitioner told the Respondent that "MERE MUMMY PA PANE JITNA HO SAKA USSE BADHKAR SABKUCH TO DIYA HAI SHAM MAIN, AB JO KUCH USNE BANEGA WO LEKE HI AYENEGE", and that upon hearing this the Respondent and his mother began abusing the Petitioner in filthy language incapable of being expressed and also beat her.
16.That the contents of paragraph 16 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that on Date of gift-giving by petitioner's brother the brother of the Petitioner brought gifts for the family members of the Respondent. It is further denied that the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the Petitioner, upon seeing the gifts, taunted in the presence of the brother of the Petitioner that "YEH KOI SAMAN HAI, AAISA GHATIA SAMAN TO HUMRE YAHAN KOI BHI ISTEMAAL HI NAHI KRTA". It is further denied that the brother of the Petitioner, upon hearing these humiliating words of the mother-in-law, remained silent in order to save the matrimonial life of the Petitioner, and was asked to leave the matrimonial home of the Petitioner.
17.That the contents of paragraph 17 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that on Date of alleged dinner outing incident the Respondent told the Petitioner that "CHAL AAJ MAIN TUJHE TERE PAPA KE GHAR LE CHALTA HOON, AUR APNE GHAR PE PHONE KARKE KEH DE KI BADHIYA KHANE KA INTEZAAM KARLEN MERE SATH MERE KHAS DOST BHI CHALENGE UNKI ACHI KHATIR DARI KRNE KO BOLDE KAHI MERI NAK NA KATWA DEIN TERE GHAR WALE", and that the Petitioner replied "PAPA KI TABIYAT BOHOT KHARAB HAI RECENTLY HI HOSPITAL SE AA YE HAIN OR BHUT KHARCHA BHI HUA HAI WO APNI OKAAT SE JAYADA HI KRENGE CHINTA MAT KRO PER APNE DOSTON KE SATH KABHI OR CHALE JANA", upon which the Respondent started abusing and beating the Petitioner with fists and kicks.
18.That the contents of paragraph 18 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that there was a function at the house of the uncle of the Petitioner to which the Petitioner and the Respondent were invited, that the Petitioner requested the Respondent to go to the house of her uncle, that the Respondent refused, and that upon the Petitioner again requesting him saying "CHACHA JI NE ITNE PYAAR SE HUMEIN BULAYA HAI HUM NAHI GAYE TO UNHE KITNA BURA LAGEGA", the Respondent replied "MUJHE KOI FARK NHI PADTA BURA LAGE TO LAGE WESE BHI UN FAKIRON KE PASS HAI HI KYA DENE KO UN FAKIRON KE PASS MUJHE TUMHARE GHAR WALON SE KOI MATLAB NAHI HAI OR TUJHE BHI IN KI ITNI YAD AATI HAI TO UNKE HI PASS CHALI JA", upon which the Petitioner fell silent in the hope that one day everything would be fine.
19.That the contents of paragraph 19 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is specifically denied that on Date petitioner fell ill the petitioner was seriously ill and requested the respondent and her mother-in-law to take her to a doctor, and that the respondent and the mother-in-law of the petitioner told the petitioner: "PATA NAHI KONSI BIMARI HUMARE MATTHE DAAL DI TERE GHR WALON NE, MAIN KAHI BHI NAHI JAANE WALI, TUJHE KAHIN MAUT NA AARAHI TUJE, CHUPCHAP PADI RAH MARR NAHI JAEGI, AGAR JAYADA HI SHAUK HAI DOCTOR KE PASS JAANE KA TO APNE GHAR SE APNE BHAI BAAP KO BULA LE, MERE PASS TIME NAHI HAI". It is further denied that the petitioner thereupon called her mother and requested her to come and take the petitioner to the doctor as the respondent had refused to do so, and that the petitioner was mercilessly beaten.
20.That the contents of paragraph 20 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is specifically denied that on the same day, i.e. Date petitioner's brother and sister visited, the brother and sister of the petitioner came to the matrimonial home of the petitioner and, with folded hands, requested the in-laws of the petitioner to send the petitioner along with them, but that the in-laws of the petitioner, particularly the sister-in-law of the petitioner, adamantly refused to send the petitioner with her brother and sister, and that the sister-in-law of the petitioner told the petitioner and her brother and sister: "AGAR TUM LOG APNI BHEN KO YAHA SE LEJANE KI KOS1S KARI TO YAHA LASHEN BICH JAINYNGI". It is further denied that, upon hearing the aforesaid version of the in-laws of the petitioner, the sister of the petitioner was compelled to call the Police on the 100 number, but owing to the second phase of the corona pandemic the police did not reach there in time, and the petitioner left with her brother and sister. It is further denied that the petitioner thereafter stayed at her parental home for three months to pursue her treatment.
21.That the contents of paragraph 21 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is specifically denied that after about three months the respondent came to the parental home of the petitioner, apologised to the parents of the petitioner and stated that he had committed a mistake and would not repeat it in future. It is further denied that the respondent thereafter took the petitioner to her matrimonial home, and that upon reaching the matrimonial home the respondent and his other family members told the petitioner: "AB AA TO GAI HAI LEKIN ITNA SAMAJH LE AAJ SE TERE MAA BAAP BHAI BHEN SARE TERE LIYE MAR CHUKE HAIN AGAR AAGE SE UNSE KABHI BAAT BHI KAR NE KI KOSIS KARI TO TERIKHAIR NAHI". It is further denied that thereafter the petitioner did not call her parents, brother and sister for three months in the presence of the respondent and his family members in order to save her matrimonial life, believing that one day everything would be alright.
22.That the contents of paragraph 22 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is specifically denied that on the occasion of Karwa Chauth, held on Date of Karwa Chauth, the brother of the petitioner reached on the same day, i.e. Date brother delivered Shagan, with the Shagan of Karwa Chauth according to the status of the parents of the petitioner, and that upon seeing the Shagan the in-laws of the petitioner started abusing in the presence of her brother and said: "YE KOI SHAGAN HAI PEHLA SHAGAN HAI MERE BETE KA OR DEKHO KITNE GHATIA SAMAN LAYAHAI YE MATTI KE BHANDE LEKE AA GYA HUMNE TO APNI BETI KE YAHAN BHI CHANDI KE BARTAN DIYE THE".
23.That the contents of paragraph 23 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is specifically denied that on Date petitioner reported illness, when the petitioner informed the respondent that she was suffering from fever and requested him to take her to a doctor, the respondent told the petitioner that he had no time for such useless matters, and that the petitioner thereupon called her mother and narrated the entire incident to her, whereupon the mother consoled the petitioner and said that she was coming immediately. It is further denied that when the mother of the petitioner came to the matrimonial home of the petitioner and wished to take the petitioner to a doctor for her treatment, the mother-in-law of the petitioner told the petitioner in the presence of the mother of the petitioner: "DEKHO DEKHO DONO MA BETI KAISE HUMARE GHAR KI IJJAT SAMAJ ME NILAAM KRTI GHUM RAMI HAIN, ISKI TO TAANGE TODH DUNGI TERI AGAR, APNIMAA KE SATH KAHIN BHI GAYI TO YA PHIR IS GHAR KI DEHLEEJ BHI PAAR KRI TO AAGE SE IS LAYAK NAHIRAHEGI Kl KAHIN BHI JANE LAYAK NAHI RAHEGI WESE BHI TUMNE SARE SAMAJ ME HUMARI NAAK KATWANE ME KOI KASAR NAHI RAKHI HAI TUM LOGO NE". It is further denied that before the mother could say anything, the petitioner asked her mother to leave, whereupon the mother of the petitioner left the place with a heavy heart, and that at that time the sister-in-law of the petitioner snatched the mobile phone of the petitioner and locked her in a room.
24.That the contents of paragraph 24 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is specifically denied that on Date petitioner's mother was injured the toe of the mother of the petitioner was wounded and the petitioner was greatly worried on that account, and that the petitioner requested the respondent to take her to her parental home, upon which the respondent slapped the petitioner on her face. It is further denied that the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law of the petitioner said: "KOI JARURAT NAHI HAI KAHI BHI JANE KI HUMARE RISTEDARI ME EK FUNCTION HAI HUM SABHI USME JA RAHE HAIN OR TUMHE BHI WAHAN JANA HAI".
25.That the contents of paragraph 25 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is specifically denied that on Date of birthday visit by petitioner's brother, on the occasion of the birthday of the petitioner, the brother of the petitioner brought cake and gifts for the petitioner, and that the family members and the respondent became greatly enraged, started abusing the brother of the petitioner and threw the gifts and the cake outside the house. It is further denied that the petitioner thereupon requested her mother-in-law and sister-in-law: "why you both are humiliating my brother like this, please for god sake do not say these words", upon which the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law of the petitioner started beating the petitioner mercilessly in the presence of the brother of the petitioner. It is further denied that the brother of the petitioner, after pacifying the altercation, left the matrimonial home of the petitioner. It is further denied that the petitioner narrated the entire incident to the respondent, but the respondent paid no heed to the petitioner and even beat her.
26.That the contents of paragraph 26 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is specifically denied that on Date of kitchen incident, when the petitioner went to the kitchen to cook food, the sister-in-law of the petitioner also came to the kitchen, started pulling the hair of the petitioner and said: "TERI ISS KITCHEN MAIN GHUSNE KI HIMMAT KAISE HUI", and that the mother-in-law of the petitioner also came there, slapped the petitioner on her face and said: "KI YEH KOI TIME HAI UTHNE KA, DIN BHAR TO SOOTI HITO RAHTI HAI". It is further denied that the sister-in-law of the petitioner also kicked the petitioner on her stomach, on account of which the petitioner felt pain in her stomach and went to her room.
27.That the contents of paragraph 27 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is specifically denied that the petitioner then told the respondent: "YE AAP MERE SATH KYA KAR RAHE HO MAIN TO AAP KE LIYE APNE PARIVAR KE KHILAF JAKAR BHI ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ME SHADI KI KYONKI MAI AUR AAP EK DUSRE SE PAYR KARTE THE AUR AAJ AAP MERI DURDASHA PAR KUCHH NAHI KAR RAHE HO ULTA AAP IN LOGO KA HI SATH DE RAHE HO", and that the respondent replied: "all this is happening with you because no one here is happy with the articles which your parents have given to you in the marriage so, if you want to stop all these things then call your parents and tell them to give us Rs.Dowry demand amount (₹)/- cash and a car". It is further denied that the petitioner refused to accede to the said demands, stating that she would not convey any such demands of the respondent to her parents, whereupon the petitioner was subjected to merciless beatings by the respondent. It is further denied that the petitioner was greatly shocked and heartbroken, and that she called her parents and narrated the entire incident to them, and that the parents of the petitioner thereafter again called on 112 and the police came to the matrimonial home of the petitioner.
28.That the contents of paragraph 28 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that on Date petitioner felt stomach pain the petitioner again felt pain in her stomach allegedly due to beating by the respondents, and that she thereafter went to Name of hospital Hospital.
29.That the contents of paragraph 29 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that on Date of birth of child the petitioner gave birth to a male child in a private hospital and that the father of the petitioner bore all the expenses of the hospitalisation. It is further denied that since then the respondent has not taken any responsibility for his child.
30.That the contents of paragraph 30 of the petition are a matter of record. It is submitted that the parents of the petitioner always gave her ill advice and incited her against the respondent and his family members, as a result of which the petitioner started insulting, misbehaving with, abusing and assaulting the respondent as well as his parents. Having been instigated by her parents, in order to take revenge upon the respondent as their daughter had married him against their wishes, they lodged false and frivolous FIRs against the respondent and his family members.
31.That the contents of paragraph 31 of the petition are wrong and denied.
32.That the contents of paragraph 32 of the petition are wrong and denied.
33.That the contents of paragraph 33 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that the respondent is a man of status having an income of Rs. Respondent's lowest stated monthly income (₹)/- to Rs. Respondent's highest stated monthly income (₹)/- per month as a skilled hair stylist, or that he maintains a luxurious lifestyle. It is submitted that the petitioner is a working lady at Petitioner's workplace and earns more than Rs. Petitioner's monthly salary (₹)/- per month, and that she also provides private tuition to children, from which she earns approximately Rs. Petitioner's tuition income per month (₹)/- per month. The petitioner is also a well-educated lady and is therefore fully capable of maintaining herself. In view of the above submissions, the petitioner / wife has sufficient means of income of her own. The petition is therefore liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
34.That the contents of paragraph 34 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that the respondent has no other liability and that the only person dependent upon him is the petitioner as his lawfully wedded wife.
35.That the contents of paragraph 35 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that the petitioner has no independent source of income for her support at present, and that she requires a sum of Rs. Maintenance amount claimed (₹)/- per month as maintenance for herself.
36.That the contents of paragraph 36 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that the respondent is an extremely cruel and self-conceited man without an iota of humanity or sympathy, and that he has flatly refused to maintain the petitioner although he is an able-bodied person earning Rs. Respondent's monthly income from job (₹)/- per month from his job, is a skilled hair stylist and owns movable and immovable property, while the petitioner lives at the mercy of her parents without sufficient funds to maintain herself. It is submitted that the petitioner is well-educated and better qualified than the respondent, and is not entitled to any maintenance even if she deliberately sits idle at home with a view to claiming maintenance, which is not permissible in view of a catena of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Name of the Hon'ble High Court.
37.That the contents of paragraph 37 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that the respondent is legally bound to maintain the petitioner but is wilfully not doing so. It is well settled in law that a spouse who is working and is otherwise capable of earning is not entitled to maintenance.
38.That the contents of paragraph 38 of the petition are wrong and denied.
39.That the contents of paragraph 39 of the petition are legal in nature and require no reply.
The prayer clause, along with its sub-paras, is not admitted and is denied. However, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief claimed in the petition, and the petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the petition, being contrary to the provisions of law and based on false and frivolous allegations and averments, and the petitioner not being entitled to maintenance as submitted above, the same may kindly be dismissed with costs.
It is prayed accordingly.
Place of verification / place of signingRESPONDENT
THROUGH
DATED :-
Date of reply
ADVOCATES
Counsel's office address.
Mob. No. Counsel's mobile number
Email: Counsel's email address
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at Place of verification / place of signing on this Date of verification day of Month and year of verification that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 39 of the reply on merits and the facts stated in the preliminary objections / submissions are true and correct to my knowledge, while those of paragraphs First paragraph number to Last paragraph number of the reply on merits and those of the preliminary objections are true upon information received and believed to be true and correct. The last paragraph is the prayer clause before this Hon'ble Court.
RESPONDENT
IN THE COURT OF Court name and designation of the judge
Court complex.
MT. CASE NO. Maintenance case number OF Year of the maintenance case.
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Petitioner's name: PETITIONER
VERSUS
Respondent's name: RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Deponent's name, who do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: -
1.That I am the respondent in the above-noted matter and am well conversant with the facts of the case, and as such I am competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That the submissions as to facts made in the accompanying reply to the petition under Section 125 CrPC have been drafted by my counsel as per my instructions, and the same have been read over and explained to me in my vernacular language; the same may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit and are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at Place of verification / place of signing on this Date of affidavit verification day of Month and year of verification that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part thereof is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT