Anita Kandari Negi vs Sunil Singh - (Reply to Petition Filed Under s.125 Crpc)

IN THE COURT OF MS.KIRAN BANSAL:

M.M., DELHI.

M.P.-1584/03/07 IN THE MATTER OF: SMT. ANITA KANDARI NEGI & ANR.

...PETITIONER

VERSUS SH. SUNIL SINGH NEGI

...RESPONDENT

REPLY OF THE APPLICATION U/S 125 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE AS AMENDED UPTO DATE. MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: PRELIMINARY OBJETIONS: 1. That

the

present

application

is

not

maintainable

and

is

liable to be dismissed for the reason that the respondent is a

working

lady.

Admittedly,

the

respondent

is

working

in

Bureau Of Legislative Studies, Old Secretariat, Delhi and is earning a handsome salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. The bank Account No.14536 in Dena Bank is a conclusive proof for the earnings of the respondent. On the other hand the petitioner is earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- approx. per month and has many liabilities including an un-married sister and an old aged father to maintain besides pursuing his studies. The salary slip of the respondent is being placed on record for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 2. That the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected as the same has been filed after manipulating the things.

It is submitted that the applicant has also filed an

application under Section 24 of HMA claiming maintenance and litigation expenses wherein she initially accepted the fact that

she

was

an

earning

lady

but

later

on

amended

the

application U/s.24 of H.M.A. malafidely after manipulating the things in the office with the help of her father who is P.A. to Vidhan Sabha Speaker (Gazetted Officer) and is posted

in the same department/office. The relevant portion of the application

filed

by

the

petitioner

is

being

reproduced

herein for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court : “That the applicant was earlier working in Bureau of Legislative

Studies,

Old

Secretariat,

Delhi,

a

society on contract basis. But due to her pregnancy she stopped going there and consequently vide letter dated

1.2.2007

said

authority

terminated

her

services.” It

clearly

indicates that the petitioner is well

in

a

position to earn her livelihood and the job was left because of her own convenience as she was pregnant and was needed rest and therefore, the applicant is capable of joining the same service or equivalent service again as the child took birth on 11.2.2007 and is more than one year old. As per the averments made by the petitioner, she is living with her parents and therefore, even the child can be taken care of by his grand parents and other relatives. As a matter of fact the petitioner has actually started working with the same office and is manipulating the records just in order to claim maintenance and harass the respondent. 3. That the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected for the reason that the petitioner has preferred to refuse the company of the respondent and deliberately left the

matrimonial

home

without

any

rhyme

or

reason

and

therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance from the respondent as per provision of law. Even a false complaint filed by the petitioner in C.A.W. cell in order to harass the respondent and his family members, was later on withdrawn when

the

respondent

and

from

the

protection

petitioner/complainant

his

family

court

found

it

members of

were

law

difficult

to

granted

and

the

prove

the

allegations. The copy of the birth certificate is being placed on record. The copy of the application U/s.24 of H.M.A. is being placed on record for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.

4. That

the

present

application

is

not

maintainable

and

is

liable to be dismissed for the reason that the bio-data as provided by the respondent clearly discloses the fact that the respondent is a graduate from Delhi University holding diploma in Computer Applications and is having knowledge of English short-hand and is working in Bureau of Legislative Studies, Delhi Vidhan Sabha as Assistant where her father Shri

S.S.Kandari

is

a

Gazetted

officer

working

there

and

therefore, the respondent is liable for perjury that she is not earning anything. By no stretch of imagination one can come to the conclusion that the petitioner is unable to earn, which

is

the

main

ingredient

for

granting

relief

to

the

petitioner as per section 125 of Cr.P.C. The fact has been cleverly and mischievously manipulated by the respondent. On the other hand the petitioner is earning a sum of Rs.6,000/per month only out of which the petitioner has to continue with

his

studies

engineering

of

besides

Diploma

in

maintaining

Autocad

himself

in

and

Mechanical his

younger

sister and is also providing maintenance to his parents at Uttranchal. 5. That the application is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected

for

the

reason

that

the

present

application

is

nothing but gross abuse and misuse of process of law and shows the malafide of the petitioner who has preferred the present petition just in order to harass the respondent. REPLY ON MERITS: 1. Denied. It is denied that the applicants are dejected and neglected wife and son respectively of the respondent. It is submitted

that

neglected

the

matrimonial

the

petitioner

company

home

and

of when

No.1/wife

has

willfully

the

respondent

and

left

the

even

after

effort

the

various

petitioner No.1 did not return back to the matrimonial home, the aggrieved respondent filed a petition U/s.9 of H.M.A. in order to bring the petitioner No.1 back. It is submitted that the wife was pregnant and the respondent was taking proper care and was also providing the medical facility as per the

CGHS facility provided to the respondent but the petitioner No.1 did not care the emotions and effort of the respondent and deserted him without any rhyme or reason for the same. 2. Para no.2 needs no reply being matter of record. However, it submitted that even the information of child birth was not disclosed to the respondent and the respondent came to know about the birth of the petitioner No.2 only in the court when the petitioner No.1 filed an application U/s.24 of H.M.A. 3. Denied. It is denied that though the applicant no.1 married with the respondent adoring all ecstasy of marriage but her marriage ecstasy remained monetary and nipped into mud due to constant

murmuring

of

respondent’s

married

and

unmarried

sisters Mrs.Anita Bisht, Mrs.Sunita Rawat and Miss Sumitra Negi for insufficient dowry despite the fact that the parents of

applicant

submitted

no.1

that

gave

the

it

marriage

beyond of

their

the

capacity.

parties

was

a

It

is

simple

marriage and the sisters never made any demand, whatsoever. The

petitioner

No.1

had

earlier

also

made

such

frivolous

allegations and filed a complaint with C.A.W. cell but later on the complaint was withdrawn when the respondent and his family members were granted protection from the court of law and the petitioner/complainant found it difficult to prove the allegations. It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 and her

mother

always

passed

sarcastic

remarks

against

the

respondent that he was earning lesser than the petitioner no.1. 4. Denied. It is denied that the applicant no.1 remained in the company of respondent from 20.4.2006 to 14.6.2006 when she was

left

at

her

parents

house

by

the

respondent

on

the

pretext that he is preparing for departmental examination or shall take her back after examination within two three days but that day never came or till date the applicant no.1 is living at the mercy and morsel of her parents. It is further denied

that

rather

from

the

subsequent

conduct

of

the

respondent and his married and unmarried sisters it is now revealing that it was a mere excuse in order to get rid of the

applicants

with

a

pre

planned

conspiracy

for

oblique

motives. It is submitted that the petitioner no.1 left the matrimonial

home

on

10.5.2006

without

informing

the

respondent and after that the petitioner no.1 and her family members started threatening the respondent to implicate him in

false

dowry

cases

in

case

he

does

not

kick

out

his

unmarried sister. Since the same was not possible for the reason that the sister is pursuing her studies at Delhi and the parents are living in Uttaranchal, the respondent’s house is the only shelter for her. On the other hand the respondent tried his best to bring back the petitioner no.1 to her matrimonial home but every time she refused to come back and join the company of the respondent. The respondent last time visited

the

2.10.2006

parental

with

petitioner

his

no.1

but

house

of

father

in

the

family

the order of

petitioner to the

bring

no.1

on

back

the

petitioner

no.1

including her two brothers started humiliating and beating the respondent. When the respondent came back to his house, the two brothers even followed the respondent and went to the extent of beating the younger sister of the respondent and ransacked the house of the respondent for which the younger sister

made

managed

a

by

complaint

the

family

to

the

of

police

the

but

petitioner

the

same

no.1

was

being

influential persons of the locality and no action was taken by the police. 5. Denied.

It

is

denied

that

on

persistent

calling

the

respondent on 20.6.2006 all of sudden took the applicant no.1 to matrimonial home when she was returning from her work place

and

on

reaching

there

started

humiliating

her

by

throwing her ornaments and clothes on the bed saying that “YAIHEE

KURA

KABAR

DAI

RAKHA

HAI

TERE

MAA-BAAP

NAI”

or

further giving filthy abuses to the applicant and her parents or thereafter left the applicant no.1 at 7.30 p.m. at the garage of applicant no.1’s father. It is further denied that the

unmarried

sister

of

the

respondent

Miss

Sumitra

also

sided with the respondent and also accused the applicant no.1 for bringing insufficient dowry. The entire allegations is a cooked up story just in order to take sham defence for not joining the matrimonial home by the petitioner no.1.

6. Denied. It is denied that on 14.6.2006 when the respondent left the applicant no.1 at her parents house she was under family way. It is further denied that the respondent did not bother even to know how about her, what to speak of making provision for her maintenance and living. It is also denied that all the expenses of applicant no.1 of her check up and other medical expenses including delivery are borne by the parents of applicant no.1. It is submitted that on later dates i.e. on 5.8.2006, 26.12.2006 and on other dates the entire

treatment

was

provided

by

the

respondent

through

C.G.H.S. Dispensary Timarpur for which the respondent used to meet the petitioner no.1 outside and used to take her to the dispensary. The respondent had even applied for permission letter

for

Hospital.

delivery

However,

of

the

the

child

respondent’s

in

Ram

Manohar

parents

did

Lohia

not

give

their consent for the same and even the delivery of the child was

not

intimated

to

the

respondent

malafidely

and

the

respondent came to know about the birth of the child only after

two

months

when

the

petitioner

no.1

filed

an

application U/s.24 of H.M.A. 7. Denied. It is denied that even after birth of the child neither the respondent nor any of his sister visited to wish the

child

despite

information

what

to

speak

of

either

bringing them in the matrimonial home or making provisions for their sustenance. The contents of the preceding paras may also be read as reply to this para. 8. Denied. It is denied that during the course of medical check up the doctors required the Applicant no.1 to call respondent for VDRL test. It is further denied that after persistent requests

the

respondent

agreed

for

it

but

required

the

applicant no.1 to come at his CGHS dispensary. It is also denied that the applicant no.1 even for the welfare of would be child agreed for it or on 5.8.2006 went there. It is further denied that CMO, CGHS Dispensary Timarpur, Delhi also suggested the parties for the VDRL test. It is further denied that the respondent promised that he would take permission from

his

hospital,

department but

not

for

turn

said up

check

thereafter,

up

from

what

to

the

penal

speak

of

getting his VDRL test conducted and as such the parents of applicant no.1 was to get it done at their expenses.

It is

submitted that it was the doctor at C.G.H.S. Dispensary where the

respondent

was

getting

the

petitioner

no.1

treated

advised for VDRL Test and it was the petitioner no.1 who refused for the test and said that she would follow the treatment and advise of her parents instead of doctors at C.G.H.S. Hospital. 9. Denied. It is denied that the respondent instead of taking the applicant no.1 to matrimonial home in order to cause her further mental pain and agony started getting made unwanted calls

on

her

911202756260,

mobile

which

from

act

of

Mobile the

No.919873975472

respondent

compelled

and the

applicant no.1 to make a complaint with the local police on 1.8.2006. It is submitted that the respondent tried his best to bring back the petitioner no.1 to her matrimonial home and in this regard made certain calls in order to convince her for coming back and joining the matrimonial home. Certain calls

were

petitioner

also no.1

made to

by

the

the

respondent

doctors

and

the

for

taking

petitioner

the no.1

accompanied the respondent on various occasion to the doctor which

clearly

separately

shows

and

has

that

the

deserted

petitioner the

no.1

respondent

is

only

living at

the

instance of her family members who unnecessarily interfered into the matrimonial life of the parties. 10.

Denied. It is denied that when the respondent came to know

about filing of complaint, he alongwith his father came at the house of applicant no.1’s parents on 2.10.2006 or started fighting with the applicant no.1 and her parents or giving them filthy abuses. It is further wrong and denied that the respondent even started casting aspersion on the character of applicant

no.1,

which

act

of

respondent

compelled

the

applicant no.1 to lodge a complaint with the police. The contents of the preceding paras may also be treated as reply tot his para. 11.

Denied.

It

is

denied that the local police called

the

respondent. It is denied that the respondent in order to hide

his misdeeds firstly attempted to involve applicant no.1’s brothers in connivance with his sisters in false cases of causing harm to him or attempting to violate the modesty of his

sisters

himself

in

misbehaviour.

but hot

when

did

water,

not

succeeded

ultimately

in

it

and

apologized

found

for

his

It is further denied that the applicant no.1

and her parents in order to settle the matrimonial home of the parties pardoned the respondent or as such the matter was compromised or the respondent again promised to take bck the applicant no.1 to matrimonial home but to no effect or rather filed a false case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 as amended upto date for conjugal rights accusing the applicant no.1 that she is not joining his company. It is submitted that it was the family members of the petitioner no.1 who apologised for their misbehaviour managed to get the matter abate influencing the local police. 12.

Denied. It is denied that the applicants submit that the

respondent has never an intention to keep the applicants and the said petition is a false or motivated one in order to avoid

his

liability

to

maintain

the

applicants

as

he

is

openly saying that the said petition is filed only with a view to harass the applicant no.1 or her parents as well as, as

a

shield

to

the

dowry

cases,

if

any,

filed

by

the

applicant no.1. The fact that the respondent has filed a petition U/s.9 of H.M.A. clearly falsifies the allegations. 13.

Denied. It is denied that there was not even a single day

when the respondent in connivance and conspiracy with his married

and

unmarried

sisters

named

above

would

not

have

harassed the applicant no.1 for insufficient dowry and would not have made her life a complete hell.

It is further denied

that the married sisters of the respondent used to visit the respondent and stayed there for days together and poisoned his ears against the applicant no.1 besides accusing her for insufficient dowry as stated above.

It is denied that the

sisters of the respondent used to say that the applicant no.1’s father should buy a house for the parties and or otherwise gave a portion of his plot in Burari to respondent and of the cost of the house on the plea that they have

married their daughter to a Government employee and people are giving in dowry at least Rs.4-5 lakhs to said sort of match. It is further denied that they further used to say that

in

a

match,

they

have

received

for

respondent,

the

girl’s side was giving a house in Ram Park, but since there was electricity problem, so they refused for said proposal and agreed for the present one keeping in mind that the father of applicant no.1 is a gazette officer and would give sumptuous dowry.

The contents of preceding paras may also be

treated as reply tot his para. 14.

Denied. It is denied that not only this but the behaviour

of the respondent with his unmarried sister Miss Sumitra, who is about 28 years old, cast and shadow of doubt about their relationship.

It

is

denied

that

during

the

period

the

applicant no.1 remained in the matrimonial home, she found many times her sitting in the lap of respondent and watching late

night

television

together

and

not

allowing

the

petitioner to enter said room or when the applicant no.1 objected for it, the respondent left the applicant no.1 at her parents house on 14.6.2006 on the pretext that he is preparing

for

departmental

examination

and

take

her

after examination as submitted in the preceding paras.

back It is

denied that the respondent and his unmarried sister usually claimed that they are “EK BADAN DO JAAN”. The allegations are mischievous and a concocted story just in order to make false and bald allegations on the sacred relations between brother and

sister.

No

prudent

person

would

believe

such

an

allegation which is not only false but mischeivous in nature. 15.

Denied. It is denied that when the applicant no.1 found

that the respondent has no intention to take her back and has no remorse for his illegal and unlawful acts as well as his petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is only an eye wash, the applicant no.1 was coerced to file a complaint in the Crime Against Women Cell on 15.3.2007 narrating the misdeeds of the respondent and his sisters and demanding her dowry

articles

as

well

as

action

against

them,

which

complaint is pending adjudication before the authority. The allegations are not only false but mischievous and amounts to

defamation

and

the

respondent

reserves

his

right

to

file

proper case against the petitioner no.1 for the said offence. This is further proved that there was no substance in the allegation by the conduct of the petitioner no.1 who not only stopped pursuing the complaint filed with the C.A.W. Cell but also withdrew it. 16.

Denied.

It

is

denied that the unmarried sister of

the

respondent is so cruel that she even did not spare her step mother

and

tried

to

involve

her

in

false

criminal

case

because of which the father of respondent, who was working in Delhi Vidyut Board was compelled to take VRS and settled himself in Uttranchal at Kotdwar. The allegations are devoid of truth and deserves rejection. It is further submitted that the

petitioner

no.1

be

subjected

to

strict

proof

of

the

allegations made under the present petition and take stern action against petitioner no.1 for making such a nefarious and bad allegations which is false and frivolous in nature. 17.

Denied. It is denied that since the date of respondent

came

to

know

about

lodging

of

complaint

with

the

Crime

Against Women Cell, the respondent and his unmarried sister are threatening the applicant no.1 for dire consequences and in these circumstances it is difficult for the applicant no.1 to live in the company of respondent till Miss Sumitra is married and respondent makes such an atmosphere for living together

by

winning

the

faith

of

applicant

no.1.

It

is

submitted that it was the respondent who regularly attended the proceedings before C.A.W. Cell and the petitioner no.1 always

abstained

ultimately

from

withdrew

the

attending

the

proceedings

complaint

which

was

filed

and with

ulterior motives and malafide intention. 18.

Denied.

maintain

It

is

the

deliberately

denied that the respondent has means

applicants neglecting

to

but

he

is

intentionally

and

them.

It

is

denied

the

that

respondent is working in Laser Science & Technology Centre, DRDO, Metcalf House, Ministry of Defence, Delhi as Technician B

and

his

parent

salary

is

in

between

Rs.13,500/-

to

Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioner no.1 be subjected to

strict proof of the facts enumerated in the corresponding para of the petition. The contents of the preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also. 19.

Denied. It is denied that the respondent has no liability

except

the

applicants.

It

is

denied

that

the

father

of

respondent along with his second wife and children from said marriage

are

liability

living

towards

respondent

has

in

Kotdwar

them.

taken

It

VRS

is

from

and

denied Delhi

respondent that

the

Vidyut

has

no

father

of

Board

and

is

getting pension from there. It is further denied that even otherwise the respondent is not maintaining cordial relations with his father because of respondent’s unmarried sister. The contents of the preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also. 20.

Denied. It is denied that the respondent of his own and

because of his aforesaid relations with his unmarried sister, is not only avoiding the marriage of his unmarried sister but is keeping with himself for oblique motives. It is denied that the father of the respondent is ready and willing to keep her with himself and not only to maintain her but also to get her married but the respondent is avoiding it for oblique motives. It is further denied that even otherwise said sister of the respondent is not a liability of the respondent but is of his father. It is denied that this plea is taken in the alternative. The contents of the preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also. 21.

Denied. It is denied that even otherwise the unmarried

sister of the respondent is not at all dependent upon the respondent and is doing tuition and stitching job and earning handsomely.

The

contents

of

the

preceding

paras

may

be

treated as reply to this para also. 22.

Denied. It is denied that the applicant no.1 was earlier

working in Bureau of Legislative Studies, Old Secretariat, Delhi, a society on contract basis. It is further denied that due

to

her

consequently

pregnancy vide

she

letter

stopped

dated

going

1.2.2007,

to said

there

or

authority

terminated her services. The contents of the preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also. 23.

Denied. It is denied that now the applicant no.1 is not

working anywhere or has no means to maintain herself as well as the minor child. It is further denied that the applicants are totally dependent for their livelihood and shelter upon the mercy and morsel of applicant no.1’s parents, who have their other liabilities. The contents of the preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also. 24.

Denied. It is denied that the respondent is legally and

morally bound to maintain the applicants but is intentionally and

deliberately

neglecting

them

at

the

instance

of

his

sisters and particularly his unmarried sister. The petitioner no.1 is an earning lady and is capable of maintaining herself and petitioner no.2. 25.

Denied.

It

is

denied that the applicant no.1 at least

requires a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month for her maintenance and shelter, as she cannot live for an indefinite period in the

house

of

her

parents

i.e.

Rs.5,000/-

per

month

for

maintenance including clothes, medicines, dieting etc. etc. or

Rs.2,500/-

applicant

per

no.2

month

for

Rs.2,000/-

rental

per

accommodation

month

for

including

clothes,

medicines,

dieting

petitioner

no.1

an

lady

is

earning

and

his

or

the

maintenance

etc.

etc.

is

capable

The of

maintaining herself and petitioner no.2. The contents of the preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also. 26.

Denied.

It

is

denied

that

the

respondent

can

easily

affords to pay the aforesaid total amount of Rs.10,500/- per month to the applicants for their maintenance and shelter. The petitioner no.1 is an earning lady and is capable of maintaining herself and petitioner no.2. The contents of the preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also. The salary slip is being placed on record. 27.

Denied. It is denied that the respondent is further liable

to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as medical expenses incurred by

the parents of the applicant no.1 during the pregnancy period of applicant no.1 including delivery expenses. The petitioner no.1 is an earning lady and is capable of maintaining herself and petitioner no.2. The contents of the preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also. 28.

Denied. It is denied that the respondent is further liable

to

pay

a

sum

of

Rs.11,000/-

as

expenses

for

present

proceedings, which are thrusted upon the applicants due to his

neglect

petitioner

and no.1

conduct is

an

as

mentioned

earning

lady

herein and

is

above. capable

The of

maintaining herself and petitioner no.2. The contents of the preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also.

Last para is prayer clause which is totally wrong and denied. It is denied that any maintenance in favour of the applicants and against the respondent may be passed much less for a sum of Rs.10,500/- per month for their maintenance and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses of the applicant no.1 and a sum of Rs.11,000/- as cost of present proceedings. P R A Y E R: It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C.

as filed by the applicants be

dismissed with heavy exemplary costs, in the interest and furtherance of justice.

RESPONDENT DELHI. DATED: 29.4.2008.

THROUGH (_____________) ADVOCATE

IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL : M.M. DELHI. IN THE MATTER OF: MRS.ANITA KANDARI NEGI

...APPLICANTS

VERSUS MR.SUNIL SINGH NEGI

...RESPONDENT A F F I D A V I T

I, Sunil Singh, S/o. Sh. Soban Singh, R/o. Qtr. No. 36, Sector-IV, Multi Storey, Timarpur, Delhi – 110054, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under : 1. That I am the respondent in the above-mentioned case and am fully conversant with the facts of the case and as such am competent to swear this affidavit. 2. That

the

contents

application

U/s

125

of

the

Cr.P.C.

accompanying are

true

and

reply

to

correct

the

to

my

knowledge and belief and the same has been drafted by my counsel under my instruction as such the same are not being reproduced for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT VERIFICATION: Verified on solemn affirmation at Delhi on this 29th day of April, 2008 that the contents of paras No.1 to 2 of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT