IN THE COURT OF Judge's name, LD. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURTS, WEST DISTT.
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
H.M.A. NO. HMA case number OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Petitioner's name: PETITIONER
VERSUS
Respondent's name: RESPONDENT
N.D.O.H.: Date of next date of hearing
INDEX
| 1. | WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT | |
| 2. | REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE HMA ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT | |
DELHIRESPONDENT
THROUGH
DATED: Date of signing by counsel
ADVOCATE
Respondent's advocate's address
Mob. No.: Respondent's advocate's mobile number
Email:
IN THE COURT OF Judge's name, LD. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURTS, WEST DISTT.
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
H.M.A. NO. HMA case number
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Petitioner's name: PETITIONER
VERSUS
Respondent's name: RESPONDENT
N.D.O.H.: Date of next date of hearing
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITION UNDER SECTION 13(1)(i-a) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
That at the outset, the respondent denies each and every statement, allegation, contention, submission and averment made, alleged, asserted and set out in the petition, as enumerated serially hereinafter and hereunder, and the same are specifically denied, except to the extent of specific admissions made herein; and all allegations, contentions, submissions and averments which are not specifically admitted are denied.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS / SUBMISSIONS:-
1.That the present petition is not maintainable in its present form, inasmuch as neither the petition nor the affidavit filed by the petitioner has been filed and verified in accordance with the Delhi High Court Rules and Orders.
2. That the petitioner is guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. The petitioner has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and has twisted and suppressed the true facts merely in order to fabricate a false story against the respondent so as to obtain a decree of divorce from this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner has unnecessarily dragged the respondent into false litigation; hence the present petition is nothing but a bundle of lies.
3. That the petition contains allegations which are bogus and wholly vexatious, even to the knowledge of the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has filed a frivolous petition against the respondent by way of a sham action. The frivolous and vexatious petition is liable to be dismissed on this very score alone.
4. That the respondent, along with his parents and other relatives, made every effort to persuade the petitioner to return in order to save the matrimonial life, but all such efforts proved futile. The petitioner was requested to return by the respondent's family, but she was made to stay at her parental home with few clothes. Despite the numerous efforts and requests of the respondent, the petitioner did not return, and the respondent still wishes to reconcile the matrimonial ties with the petitioner and wants her to come back to the matrimonial home. The petitioner has filed a false and frivolous petition before this Hon'ble Court seeking a divorce, but the same is not maintainable in the eyes of law.
5. That the present petition has been filed without any cause of action. No cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. The petitioner has concealed material facts from this Hon'ble Court and has also filed certain forged, fake and fabricated documents with the oblique motive of obtaining a divorce, and has further filed a false affidavit, thereby committing the offence of perjury.
PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:-
6.That before the marriage, the parties were in love with each other since Year parties began relationship. The marriage between the parties is a love marriage and was duly solemnised at Marriage venue locality, Marriage venue name, New Delhi, according to Hindu customs, rites and ceremonies on Date of marriage, without any exchange of dowry.
7. That the respondent is a law-abiding citizen of India and has always maintained peace and tranquillity, and has discharged his social and moral obligations and liabilities in a fair manner. Up till now, no grievance or complaint has been raised against the respondent at any forum.
8. That after the marriage, the parties lived as husband and wife and cohabited with each other. No child has been born out of the said wedlock. The petitioner is currently staying at her parental home and has never shown any desire to discharge her matrimonial duties. The marriage between the respondent and the petitioner was solemnised without any exchange of dowry and in a low-profile manner.
9. That the respondent and the petitioner last lived together in the matrimonial home till Date petitioner left matrimonial home, when she left the matrimonial house with all her belongings and valuables, which also include jewellery from her matrimonial home.
10. It is submitted that the respondent always showered love and affection upon the petitioner. While the respondent was away, everything in the house remained in her custody and there was no one to stop her; taking advantage of this liberty, the petitioner went away with all the articles.
11. That the petitioner and the respondent first met each other in the year Year parties first met, and the relationship, which began as casual friendship, changed into love, and ultimately they decided to marry each other. Over a period of time, and after a couple of meetings, the petitioner and the respondent became friends with each other and started enjoying each other's company.
12. That the family members of the respondent came to know of his relationship with the petitioner, and the respondent was questioned about the same. The respondent clearly told his parents that he would marry the petitioner and no one else. The mother of the respondent agreed and stated that if he loved her so much, there was no harm in their marrying. The parents of the respondent agreed to the marriage, although the respondent and the petitioner belonged to different castes.
13. That the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnised as per Hindu rites and ceremonies, without any exchange of dowry. The expenses of the marriage were also borne by the respondent. It is submitted that the father of the respondent paid a certain amount in cash towards the balance of the marriage expenses; the relevant receipts are being traced by the father of the respondent, who undertakes to file the same as soon as they are found.
14. That after the marriage, the petitioner was completely reluctant to have any physical relationship with the respondent; although the parties had earlier enjoyed each other's company, the petitioner thereafter did not allow the respondent to come close to her. The respondent was not even once permitted to have any physical relationship with the petitioner after the marriage.
15. It is further submitted that this averment of the petitioner, by itself, completely obliterates the allegations of cruelty made by the petitioner, thereby rendering the present proceedings devoid of any merit and consequently liable to be dismissed. That the respondent also showered all his love and affection upon the petitioner, but the same was not reciprocated.
16. The respondent made every effort to persuade the petitioner; however, on the other hand, she told the respondent that she did not wish to reside with the respondent's parents and demanded a separate house for herself. That the respondent informed the petitioner that he could not leave his parents, as both of them were suffering from various ailments — in particular, the respondent's mother, who was suffering from uncontrolled diabetes, pulmonary oedema, coronary artery disease and other conditions — and required constant care; however, the petitioner remained adamant in her demand.
17.That the Respondent suffered from lack of sleep and remained awake throughout the night, being disturbed by the entire situation. His love for the Petitioner was abundant; however, he did not receive the same response from the Petitioner, and this caused him greater hurt.
18.That at the time of leaving the house, the Petitioner took all her belongings and valuables along with her. The Petitioner, being the wife of the Respondent, ought to have taken care of the Respondent, but she never showed him any love or respect, and at the time when he needed her by his side, she was nowhere to be found. The Respondent sent numerous messages to the Petitioner and desired some response from her, but the Petitioner showed no reciprocation and behaved with complete indifference. The Respondent shared their photographs of the good times spent together, and also shared voice messages while crying and imploring her to return and be with him, but the Petitioner failed to do so. That the Respondent still deeply loves the Petitioner and desires her to be by his side. The Petitioner left the Respondent in Date petitioner left matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason, and at a time when the Respondent was unwell and suffering from depression.
19.That all the sincere efforts of the Respondent, his family and his friends to bring the Petitioner back to the matrimonial home so as to resume her matrimonial obligations have borne no fruit, and the Respondent continues to be made to suffer. The Petitioner has thus left the matrimonial home, withdrawn from the society of the Respondent, and deserted the Respondent, and the aforesaid acts of the Petitioner are without any just or reasonable cause, and without the consent of and against the wishes of the Respondent. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Respondent reserves his right to file a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 to bring the Petitioner back to the matrimonial home and to live with the Respondent.
20.It is submitted that none of the members of the Petitioner's family, including her parents, brother and sister, has visited the Respondent's home till date to spend time with them as part of the family. Her family was never keen on building a family-to-family bond. There was no regular communication between the families except for occasional greetings on birthdays, anniversaries and the like. That during the marriage, neither the Respondent nor any member of his family ever demanded anything by way of gifts, dowry or otherwise from the Petitioner or her family. The Respondent was drawing a good salary, and therefore he neither expected nor ever thought of demanding anything from the Petitioner or her family, as doing so is against the culture of the Respondent's family. The Respondent went through the same ordeal and further suffered great difficulty in thinking clearly for a couple of months. During these two months, the Respondent tried to convince the Petitioner not to end the marriage, but the Petitioner always turned a deaf ear to his requests and quarrelled on petty issues.
REPLY ON MERITS :-
1.That the contents of paragraph 1 of the petition are a matter of record and hence need no reply.
2.That the contents of paragraph 2 of the petition are a matter of record and hence need no reply.
3.That the contents of paragraph 3 of the petition are a matter of record and hence need no reply.
4.That the contents of paragraph 4 of the petition are denied to the extent that, during the friendship days of the parties, the Respondent created a false impression before the Petitioner by projecting that he respects women and possesses good family values. It is further denied that the Respondent showed the Petitioner rosy pictures by representing that he was earning very well and was the Sole Proprietor of his aforesaid firm, and that he proposed marriage to the Petitioner after a few months of their close friendship. It is further denied that the father of the Petitioner spent an amount of Rs. Amount spent by petitioner's father on roka (₹) on that occasion.
5.That the contents of paragraph 5 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that immediately after the marriage, the behaviour of the Respondent and his parents began to change. It is further denied that the Respondent did not proceed for a honeymoon, even though rosy pictures of an international honeymoon trip had been shown to the Petitioner by him prior to the marriage. It is further denied that the Petitioner ignored such matters, as they were of no consequence to her.
It is further denied that from Date dowry demands allegedly began onwards, prior to the marriage, the Respondent began demanding dowry in the form of gifts and kind, and began pressurising the Petitioner by stating that this was normal and a common practice in his family. It is further denied that the parents of the Respondent supported him and never stopped him from perpetrating such cruelties upon the Petitioner. It is further denied that the demand for a bed and furniture for his bedroom according to their choice, and heavy shagun envelopes of cash on festivals, was a common demand of the Respondent and his parents prior to the marriage. It is further denied that the Respondent persistently asked the Petitioner regarding things which her parents would certainly give to the Respondent and his family before, at the time of, or after the wedding, and that, on the objection of the Petitioner, the Respondent began losing his temper on such issues in day-to-day life after the marriage of the parties. It is further denied that this behaviour of the Respondent came as a great shock to the Petitioner and her family.
It is further denied that, prior to the marriage, the aforesaid behaviour of demand and pressure on the part of the Respondent and his family members led the Petitioner to feel disappointed with the Respondent. It is further denied that, on account of the continuous demands of the Respondent, the Petitioner broke the "Roka" (fixing of the marriage with the Respondent) on Date petitioner broke the roka.
6.That the contents of paragraph 6 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that after the breaking of the "Roka" on Date petitioner broke the roka, the Respondent and his mother began emotionally blackmailing the Petitioner. It is further denied that the Respondent showed remorse to the Petitioner for his bad behaviour and sought her forgiveness, and that from Date reconciliation efforts began, the Respondent and his mother began influencing the Petitioner by telling her that every man has issues of anger and ego, and both of them promised the Petitioner that the Respondent would overcome his anger and habits. It is further denied that the Respondent and his mother began trapping the Petitioner in one way or the other, and that, on account of the promises, assurances and rosy pictures shown by the Respondent and his mother from Date petitioner agreed to remarry the respondent onwards until the marriage, the Petitioner again agreed to marry the Respondent. It is further denied that the parents of the Petitioner also agreed to the same, as it was their daughter's decision.
7.That the contents of paragraph 7 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that after the marriage, from Date post-marriage money demands allegedly began, the Respondent revealed his true colours to the Petitioner by again demanding money, stating that the Petitioner could help him as he was in need of Rs. Amount respondent allegedly sought for business (₹) for his business. It is further denied that the Respondent pressurised the Petitioner to take money from her parents for him. It is further denied that the Petitioner did not wish to pressurise her parents for any financial assistance at that time, as they were already under financial strain on account of having spent an amount of Rs. Amount spent by petitioner's parents on marriage (₹) on the marriage. It is further denied that the marriage of the parties was a lavish wedding, solemnised at the demands of the Respondent and his family, for which the Respondent and his parents exerted considerable pressure upon the Petitioner and her parents after the marriage was fixed for the second time. It is further denied that, as the Petitioner was unable to arrange Rs. Amount petitioner was allegedly unable to arrange (₹) for the Respondent after the marriage from her parents, a personal loan of Rs. Amount of personal loan taken (₹) was taken by the Respondent on Date personal loan was taken. It is further denied that the Respondent took the entire loan amount from the Petitioner, and that at that time the Respondent assured the Petitioner that he would pay the monthly instalments of the loan, as the Petitioner then had no source of income for the repayment of the loan amount. It is further denied that after some time, the Petitioner observed that the arrangement of money made by her for her husband only encouraged the Respondent to begin mentally harassing the Petitioner by making mean and derogatory remarks about her expenditure, even though such expenditure was on her basic necessities. It is further denied that the Respondent insisted upon repayment of the loan instalments by the Petitioner by arranging money from her parents or by reducing her expenditure. It is further denied that the Respondent began harassing the Petitioner by not giving her a single penny, and by making statements such as "this is not your home", "you have no right to spend money" or "take money from your parents"; such words of the Respondent greatly humiliated the Petitioner, but she remained silent for the sake of her matrimonial life. It is further denied that the Respondent and his mother constantly pressurised the Petitioner in one way or the other to arrange money from her parents by projecting themselves as being in financial distress. It is further denied that they even went to the extent of saying "Alleged statement made by petitioner's family", and that the father-in-law of the Petitioner also supported both of them, namely the Respondent and his mother. It is further denied that, to the great shock of the Petitioner, the Respondent never took her out of the matrimonial home except when there was a social obligation from his family or friends. It is further denied that, when they went out with the friends of the Respondent, the Respondent would ask the Petitioner to pay for whatever she had ordered. It is further denied that, after one month of the marriage of the parties, and under financial constraint and mental torture, the Petitioner decided that the only manner in which she could live with dignity and respect in her matrimonial home was to work. It is further denied that from Date petitioner joined employment, the Petitioner joined employment as a Human Resource Coordinator in a company named "Name of petitioner's employer". It is further denied that, after the Petitioner joined her job, the Respondent constantly scrutinised the earnings of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the Respondent constantly eyed the monthly income of the Petitioner and demanded the same immediately upon its receipt. It is further denied that the Respondent projected to the Petitioner that he was not earning well, even though he was the Sole Proprietor of his business firm, and that the Petitioner witnessed numerous cash transactions at her matrimonial home from the hands of her husband. It is further denied that the Petitioner also saw a personal locker of the Respondent at the matrimonial home, and that the Respondent never disclosed to the Petitioner his actual income, the source of the money kept in the locker at the matrimonial home, or the cash transactions carried out by the Respondent for household expenses. It is further denied that the Petitioner was always discouraged from spending any money on her personal needs or basic necessities, and that not a single penny was given by the Respondent to the Petitioner prior to her taking up employment or thereafter.
8.That the contents of Paragraph 8 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that the respondent and his mother spent extravagantly upon themselves, their relatives and their friends, while repeatedly asking the petitioner to tell her father to help them financially. It is denied that in the month of Month respondent allegedly demanded money, the respondent pressurised the petitioner to prevail upon her parents to help him with an amount of Rs. Amount allegedly demanded for gift (₹), as the respondent wished to gift a luxury watch to his friend, namely "Name of respondent's friend". It is denied that, owing to the continuous torture and harassment by the respondent, the parents/father of the petitioner gave him an amount of about Rs. Amount given by petitioner's parents (₹) through their credit card and in cash, so that the petitioner's parents could save her from the respondent's quarrels. It is further denied that an amount of Rs. Amount shown in credit card details (₹) was shown in the credit card details of the add-on credit card of the father of the petitioner on Date of credit card transaction, and that the petitioner was completely broken down by such acts of the respondent and requested him to return the said money to her parents, her parents having already spent a huge amount of Rs. Amount spent by petitioner's parents on marriage (₹) on the marriage. It is further denied that the respondent again pressurised the petitioner and that, under such pressure, the petitioner signed certain loan documents. It is further denied that the respondent took another loan from "CRED" (a financial application) in the name of the petitioner on Date CRED loan was taken, amounting to about Rs. Amount of CRED loan (₹), against her wishes, and that only thereafter the respondent returned Rs. Amount returned to petitioner's parents (₹) to his parents-in-law. It is further denied that the respondent was extracting money from the petitioner's parents by one means or another, and that, despite the petitioner's repeated requests for the return of her parents' money, the respondent kept raising loans in the petitioner's name, as aforesaid.
It is further denied that it was only by Date petitioner realised lack of financial transparency that the petitioner realised that there was no transparency in the respondent's income and that the respondent was exploiting her in connivance with his parents, particularly his mother. It is further denied that the respondent procured several credit cards in the name of the petitioner; it is denied that, after Date credit cards were taken in petitioner's name, as the petitioner was working and had a stable income, the respondent took advantage of her and arranged credit cards in her name. It is further denied that the respondent used these credit cards for his personal purposes, rotated money from one source to another, and burdened the petitioner with a debt of approximately Rs. Amount of debt via credit cards (₹) through credit cards in the year Year of credit card debt. It is further denied that, in this manner, the petitioner was/is under a debt of Rs. Total debt of petitioner (₹) by way of a personal loan, a CRED loan and credit card loans, all raised by the respondent, and that the respondent is paying only the minimum amount due on these loans on a monthly basis.
9.That the contents of Paragraph 9 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that, while residing at her matrimonial home from Start date of stay at matrimonial home to End date of stay at matrimonial home January Year of stay at matrimonial home, the petitioner was harassed in numerous ways by derogatory remarks and by abuse at the hands of the respondent and his mother, including by uttering "Alleged abusive word, Alleged abusive word", etc. It is further denied that the respondent and his mother alienated the petitioner from society and did not permit her to meet her friends and parents. It is further denied that the respondent demanded that, if the petitioner wished to visit her parents' home, she should first send a leave application by e-mail or in writing two days in advance. It is further denied that the respondent and his mother continuously levelled false allegations against the petitioner, her friends and her parents, and cast aspersions upon their character, causing the petitioner immense pain and humiliation.
10.That the contents of Paragraph 10 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that during Period toilet was in need of repair the toilet at the petitioner's matrimonial home was in need of repair, and that when the petitioner asked the respondent to repair the same, the respondent told her to pay for the repairs herself or to borrow money from her parents. It is further denied that incidents of this nature occurred on numerous occasions in respect of every household requirement, such as vegetables, milk and other domestic facilities. It is further denied that, when the petitioner's patience was exhausted, she disclosed such issues to her parents, and that her parents, upon witnessing the petitioner's mental condition, harassment, torture, humiliation and pain, met the respondent and his family members. It is further denied that they politely discussed the aforesaid problems of the petitioner with the respondent and his parents, as their conduct was, in their observation, slowly and steadily breaking the petitioner's mental health. It is further denied that the petitioner initially did not disclose the harassment by the respondent and his parents to her parents, the marriage being a love-cum-arranged marriage and the petitioner not wishing to trouble her parents. It is further denied that, during the discussions with the respondent and his mother, they assured the petitioner's parents that all loans raised in the petitioner's name would be repaid within a period of two months and that the petitioner would be looked after well. It is further denied that they also assured the petitioner and her parents that she would be treated better, the petitioner having been under constant threat of physical abuse and mental harassment by the respondent. It is further denied that the respondent's parents further assured the petitioner and her parents that abusive words and derogatory remarks would not be used against her. It is further denied that, despite the aforesaid assurances, the respondent did not mend his ways, and that the petitioner remained constantly fearful for her safety and security at her matrimonial home, having seen the respondent shouting, abusing and being physically violent; it is denied that, at one point of time, the respondent raised his hands upon his own father and attempted to choke him. It is further denied that the respondent's parents never restrained him from committing cruelties of the above-mentioned nature upon the petitioner, and that, presumably, the respondent's parents were themselves afraid of him.
11.That the contents of Paragraph 11 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that, despite the constant reassurances of the respondent and his parents to improve their behaviour towards the petitioner and to repay the loans raised in her name, nothing was changed or done by them. It is further denied that they took away all the wedding jewellery of the petitioner, given by the parents of both sides and by extended relatives, of the approximate value of Rs. Value of jewellery in locker (₹), and kept the said jewellery in another locker held by the respondent's father, Name of respondent's father, and that the Stridhan, including the entire jewellery of both sides, remains in the possession of the respondent and his parents to date. It is further denied that the respondent is not returning the same even though the petitioner and her mother have demanded it from the respondent and his mother. It is further denied that the respondent's parents were instrumental in retaining the petitioner's jewellery given to her from both sides, and that they constantly instigated the respondent to pressurise the petitioner to borrow money from her parents. It is further denied that the respondent and his parents are persons of unlawful disposition and criminal bent of mind, and that a criminal case (allegedly for cheating and theft) is pending against them. It is further denied that the petitioner saw and heard the respondent and his parents discussing an FIR against them concerning the retention of jewellery given in exchange for financial assistance to a lady (a friend of the respondent's mother) and the non-return of the same during Period jewellery was not returned. It is further denied that the complaint in that case was lodged by a very close friend of the respondent's mother, that the said case is still pending, and that, at one point of time, the petitioner participated in their discussions regarding that case and requested them to return the jewellery of the said lady. It is further denied that the petitioner was harassed and abused by the respondent and his parents upon her making that suggestion, and the respondent reserves her right to place the said FIR on record as and when it becomes available to her.
It is further denied that the respondent, in connivance with his parents, harassed and tortured the petitioner, including within her personal space; it is further denied that on a number of occasions the respondent forced the petitioner into sexual relations while ignoring her physical and mental condition, on the purported grounds that the petitioner lived under his roof, shared his bed, was married to him, and that it was therefore his right and her duty to satisfy his physical needs. It is further denied that, upon the petitioner failing to cooperate with the respondent, he branded her a "Bad wife material" and abused her in filthy language as alleged (certain abuses being too indecent to be reduced to writing).
12.That the contents of Paragraph 12 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that the respondent forcibly stopped the petitioner from eating rice during Period petitioner was stopped from eating rice, even though rice had formed part of her regular diet for the preceding Number of years rice was part of petitioner's diet years; when the petitioner enquired why she could not eat rice, the respondent allegedly stated that rice was unsuitable for him and his mother for health reasons, and that since they could not eat rice, a daughter-in-law of the family must not do so either. It is further denied that the respondent and his family forced the petitioner to skip her meals on several nights, notwithstanding that she was fond of rice and could not habitually digest chapatis, chapatis at every meal not being her practice. It is further denied that, for the aforesaid reason, when the petitioner ordered food from outside, the respondent pressured her to order something for him as well, on the ground that he was accustomed to a second meal late at night, and that the petitioner paid for the same. It is further denied that, under these compelling circumstances, the petitioner developed poor eating habits at her matrimonial home, leading to several health issues, weight gain and depression.
13.That the contents of Paragraph 13 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that, during Period petitioner was mentally and emotionally broken, when the petitioner was mentally, physically and emotionally broken down by the conduct of the respondent and his family members, the respondent pressured her to stay awake until late hours of the night to look after his mother, including massaging her feet, attending to her medicines, personal necessities, day-to-day needs and entertainment, and thereby confined the petitioner to the house for that purpose at all times; it is further denied that any delay in providing the said services to the respondent's mother was met with the respondent shouting or screaming before his family members or friends. It is further denied that, according to the respondent, it was the petitioner's duty as a daughter-in-law to serve her mother-in-law in every manner the latter required or the respondent desired. It is further denied that the respondent's mother had a medical history, whereas in fact she was working as a Occupation of the respondent's mother and travelled internationally for her work, as is evident from her passport records, until Date marital relations ended, on which date the relations between the petitioner and the respondent as husband and wife came to an end. It is further denied that the matrimonial alliance was entered into merely to secure a home caretaker for the respondent's family, or as a tool to extract money from the petitioner's parents. It is further denied that the Facebook friendship between the parties culminated in marriage solely because the petitioner is one of the legal heirs of her affluent parents. It is further denied that the petitioner's parents have no son and that the petitioner has only one sister, and that such matters were repeatedly discussed by the respondent and his parents at the matrimonial home in the petitioner's presence. It is further denied that the respondent and his parents were desirous of acquiring the assets of the petitioner's parents on the ground that the petitioner's only sister is married and settled abroad. It is further denied that the respondent's parents used the petitioner's credit card of Name of credit card bank Bank against her wishes and purchased gold worth Rs. Value of gold purchased (₹)/- for their daughter, whose marriage was fixed in Month marriage of respondent's sister was fixed, and that they thereafter transferred the said money for reasons best known to them. It is further denied that, from the date of the marriage until the date of separation, the respondent and his parents pressurised the petitioner for a male child, asserting that a girl child would only be a burden; it is further denied that whenever the petitioner objected to this attitude, the respondent and his parents called her "Dumb", "Alleged insulting word", "Alleged insulting word", "Alleged insulting word", "Alleged insulting word" and used other insulting words as alleged. It is further denied that it was on account of this pressure that the petitioner consciously abstained from having physical relations with her husband, the respondent.
14.That the contents of Paragraph 14 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that during Period car purchase was planned the respondent planned to purchase a new car and took delivery of the same on Date of delivery of car; it is further denied that he demanded money from the petitioner and instructed her to contribute towards the monthly EMIs of the car loan if she sat in or used the said car. It is further denied that the respondent specially travelled to Place where VIP number was bid for to bid for a VIP registration number for his new car and spent a substantial amount, i.e., Rs. Cost of VIP number (₹), for the said number. It is further denied that the respondent lied to and manipulated the petitioner by stating that he had no money, with a view to extracting money from her parents from the day of the marriage. It is further denied that the respondent spent a large sum of money on his new car bearing registration no. Car registration number (a Make and model of the respondent's car), asserting that the money belonged to his firm and that he was free to spend it for his own happiness; it is further denied that the fact of the VIP registration number, as mentioned above, can be verified from the Registration Certificate of the said vehicle. It is further denied that the respondent told the petitioner that, as a wife, she deserved nothing. It is further denied that the respondent treated the petitioner poorly and insulted her parents by abusing them in her presence; it is further denied that, under constant insult and mental, financial, emotional and physical pressure, the petitioner was compelled by the respondent to leave her matrimonial home on Date petitioner left matrimonial home. It is further denied that the respondent and his parents have shown no concern for the petitioner since she left her matrimonial home (Date petitioner left matrimonial home) or since the date of separation/cessation of relations as husband and wife (Date of separation between parties), and that they have never offered her any support to which she is entitled as a wife.
15.That the contents of Paragraph 15 of the petition are wrong and denied. It is denied that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down and that the parties have ceased to live as husband and wife since Date parties ceased marital relations, even though they resided under the same roof for some time between Start date of cohabitation under same roof and End date of cohabitation under same roof. It is further denied that there is no chance of reconciliation or reunion between the parties, or that the petitioner is unable to envisage her future with the respondent, and hence has filed the present petition.
16.That the contents of Paragraph 16 of the petition are a matter of record and therefore require no reply.
17.That the contents of Paragraph 17 of the petition are a matter of record and therefore require no reply.
18.That the contents of Paragraph 18 of the petition are wrong and denied.
19.That the contents of Paragraph 19 of the petition are wrong and denied.
20.That the contents of paragraph 20 of the petition are wrong and are denied.
21.That the contents of paragraph 21 of the petition are wrong and are denied. It is specifically denied that the marriage between the parties is virtually dead and that there is a total irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, with no prospect of any conciliation, patch-up or reunion between the parties, as though they have reached a point of "no return".
22.That the contents of paragraph 22 of the petition are a matter of record and therefore need no reply.
23.That the contents of paragraph 17 of the petition are a matter of record and therefore need no reply.
24.That the contents of paragraph 17 of the petition are a matter of record and therefore need no reply.
25.That the contents of paragraph 25 of the petition are wrong and are denied.
The prayer clause of the petition, together with its sub-paragraphs, is absolutely wrong and is specifically denied. The petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed therein.
P R A Y E R
In the facts and circumstances stated herein above, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly dismiss the petition of the petitioner with heavy costs, in the interest of justice.
Any other and further order(s) may also be passed as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Place of signing by respondent and counselRESPONDENT
THROUGH
DATED: Date of signing by counsel
Respondent's advocate's name, ADVOCATE
Respondent's advocate's address
Mob. No. Respondent's advocate's mobile number
Email: Respondent's advocate's email address
VERIFICATION
I, the above-named respondent, state on solemn affirmation that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 25 on the merits of the written statement are true, and that paragraphs 1 to Number of last para of preliminary objections of the preliminary objections / submissions are correct as per information received and believed by me to be true; the last paragraph is the prayer to this Hon'ble Court. Verified at Place of verification on this Date of verification day of Month of verification.
RESPONDENT
IN THE COURT OF Judge's name, LD. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURTS, WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
H.M.A. NO. HMA case number OF HMA case year
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Petitioner's name: PETITIONER
VERSUS
Respondent's name: RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Mr. Respondent's name, S/o Shri Respondent's father's name, aged about Respondent's age years, R/o Respondent's address, the above-named respondent, who solemnly affirms and declares as follows:-
1.That I am the respondent in the above-mentioned case and am well conversant with the facts of the case and competent to swear the present affidavit.
2.That the contents of the accompanying written statement to the petition have been drafted by my counsel as per my instructions; the contents thereof have been duly read over and explained to me and have been fully understood by me. I hereby state that the facts stated therein are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at Place of verification on this Date of verification day of Month of verification that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF Judge's name, LD. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURTS, WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
H.M.A. NO. HMA case number OF HMA case year
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Petitioner's name: PETITIONER
VERSUS
Respondent's name: RESPONDENT
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955
PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:-
1.That the applicant has based her application on total falsehood, by twisting and distorting material facts and by concealing the fact that the petitioner herself is drawing a gross salary of more than Rs. Petitioner's gross monthly salary (₹)/- per month and is otherwise earning more than Rs. Petitioner's additional monthly online earnings (₹)/- per month from additional online work. The petitioner has not placed her salary slips on record. The applicant has also not placed on record the details of her movable and immovable assets, including the details of her bank accounts.
2.That the averments made in the written statement to the petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act in this case be read as part and parcel of this reply. The same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
4.That the petitioner / wife was never interested in living with the respondent as his wife. The present application has been filed by the petitioner with ulterior motives, only to harass the respondent. The petitioner has inflicted the worst form of mental and physical cruelty upon the respondent. The present application has been filed with the intention of harassing the respondent and extracting money from him. The application is an abuse of the process of law and therefore deserves dismissal with costs.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:-
1.That the present application for maintenance pendente lite deserves dismissal with costs. The petitioner has sufficient income to support and maintain herself.
2.That on the one hand, the applicant / petitioner is earning gross emoluments of Rs. Petitioner's gross monthly emoluments (₹)/- per month, and by way of online private work she earns additionally at least Rs. Petitioner's additional monthly online earnings (₹)/- per month. Thus, the petitioner is earning more than Rs. Petitioner's total monthly earnings (₹)/- per month. Considering her needs, the petitioner does not require any further amount towards maintenance pendente lite.
3.Under Section 24 of the Act, this Hon'ble Court has to see whether the petitioner, who may be either the wife or the husband, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and for the necessary expenses of the proceedings, and then award the expenses of the proceedings and such monthly sum, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, as may seem to the Court to be reasonable. This section may be contrasted with Section 25 of the Act, which deals with permanent alimony and maintenance. Under Section 25, the Court may order the respondent to pay to the applicant, for her or his maintenance and support until her or his lifetime, either a lump sum amount or such monthly or periodical sum, having regard to the respondent's own income and other property, if any, and the income and other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, as the Court may deem just. It may be noticed that the heading of Section 24 of the Act is "Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings". The section, however, does not use the word "maintenance", but it appears that the words "support" and "maintenance" are synonymous. "Support" means "to provide money for a person to live on", as in "he supports a family" or "he supports his old mother". Maintenance is "an act of maintaining", that is, to support with money, as in "he is too poor to maintain his family". In deciding an application under Section 24 of the Act, the Court has to act in accordance with sound judicial principles and cannot act in an arbitrary fashion to the prejudice of either of the parties. The following principles would appear to be relevant for this purpose:
Two corollaries may be added here: (1) in arriving at the income of a party, only involuntary deductions such as income-tax, provident fund contribution, etc., are to be excluded; and (2) although under the law the opposite party may not be obliged to maintain a brother or sister, if such brother or sister, having no income, is living with the opposite party as a member of his family, and there are either no parents or the parents are unable to maintain themselves, the Court may, in a given circumstance, take into consideration the expenses to be incurred on the maintenance of such brother or sister by the opposite party. After all, the Court cannot be expected to adopt a mechanical approach while interpreting provisions of law embodying principles of social justice such as Section 24 of the Act.
4.That at present the Respondent is unemployed. The Respondent has also suffered bouts of depression on account of the mental cruelty inflicted upon him by the applicant repeatedly since the marriage. The Respondent thus does not have sufficient means even to support his aged and ailing parents and himself, whereas, on the other hand, the Petitioner has more than adequate means not only to maintain herself. The Petitioner has never cared to enquire about the Respondent's well-being, being wholly self-centred and totally indifferent to her matrimonial obligations.
5.
7.That the averment that the Respondent is earning Rs. Respondent's alleged monthly income (₹) per month is false and is denied.
REPLY ON MERITS
1.That the contents of paragraph 1 of the application, to the effect that the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage between the parties has been filed, are false, wrong and denied.
2.That the contents of paragraph 2 of the application are a matter of record and hence require no reply.
3.That the contents of paragraph 3 of the application are a matter of record and hence require no reply.
4.That the contents of paragraph 4 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Respondent/husband is a Respondent's alleged profession since Date respondent began business and is carrying on his own business of designing and manufacturing LED lights under the name and style of "Name of respondent's business firm", and that he is earning about Rs. Respondent's claimed monthly income (₹) per month. It is further denied that the parents of the Respondent are also earning and carrying on their own work; the mother of the Respondent is a Respondent's mother's occupation and provides services nationally and internationally. It is further denied that the father of the Respondent is a Director in the Respondent's business and is drawing an income therefrom, and that the only sister of the Respondent is in Location of respondent's sister for the last approximately Number of years respondent's sister has been abroad years (as known to the applicant). It is further denied that the family of the Respondent is a well-to-do family, owning various properties in their names and having various sources of income. The allegations made in the paragraph under reply are wholly vague, baseless and meaningless.
5.That the contents of paragraph 5 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the applicant/wife, since the date of separation (Date of separation from respondent) from the Respondent/husband, has been maintaining herself and that the Respondent has not offered her any financial support. It is further denied that all the Stridhan, jewellery and joint properties are in the possession of the Respondent and his family, who are refusing to return the same to the Petitioner.
6.That the contents of paragraph 6 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the applicant/wife does not wish to burden her parents for her livelihood. It is further denied that the Petitioner requires an amount of Rs. Maintenance amount claimed per month (₹)/- per month (Maintenance amount in words Maintenance amount in words (continued) only) as her maintenance, commensurate with the status of her husband, out of which she is presently earning Rs. Petitioner's present monthly earnings (₹)/- per month.
7.That the contents of paragraph 7 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Respondent/husband is a man of means and is leading a luxurious life, and that he has intentionally and deliberately neglected and deserted the applicant/wife without making any provision for her maintenance. It is further denied that the Respondent/husband has not spent a single penny towards the maintenance of the applicant till date or made any provision for her maintenance.
8.That the contents of paragraph 8 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the applicant/wife has no movable or immovable property standing in her name.
PRAYER
The application of the applicant is false, frivolous, vague, bald and without any basis; it is an abuse of the process of law as well as of the process of this Hon'ble Court and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
(i)dismiss the application of the applicant with exemplary costs;
(ii)pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
DELHIRESPONDENT
THROUGH
DATED: Date of signing by counsel
ADVOCATE
Respondent's advocate's address,
Respondent's advocate's address
Mob. No.: Respondent's advocate's mobile number
Email: Respondent's advocate's email address
IN THE COURT OF Judge's name, LD. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURTS, WEST DISTT.
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
H.M.A. NO. --- OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Petitioner's name: PETITIONER
VERSUS
Respondent's name: RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Mr. Respondent's name, S/o Shri Respondent's father's name, aged about Respondent's age years, R/o Respondent's address, the above-named Respondent, who solemnly affirms and declares as follows:-
1.That I am the Respondent in the above-mentioned case, am well conversant with the facts of the case and am competent to swear the present affidavit.
2.That the contents of the accompanying reply to the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act have been drafted by my counsel as per my instructions; the contents thereof have been duly read and understood by me, and after fully understanding the same, I hereby state that the facts stated therein are true and correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at Delhi on this Date of verification day of Month and year of verification that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT