Hari Iyer

 

IN THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE ,FAMILY COURT. LUCKNOW

R.S NO –   U/S- 13(1) of H.M.A  H.M.A  P.SDistt. - Lucknow

Hariharan Nagmani Iyer, Aged Iyer, Aged about 47 years, S/O Laxmi Nagmani, Permanently Residing at House No-J-164, Sector  J, Asiyana Lucknow-22 Lucknow-226012 6012   ……..……Petitioner  VERSUS Kajal Hariharan Iyer, Iyer, Aged about 45 years, W/O Hariharan Nagmani Iyer, R/O B-602, Building No 47, P.O Pantnagar, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai 400086 …………Opposite Party/Respondent 

PETITION U/S 13(1) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 (AS AMENDED UPTO DATE) FOR DECREE OF DIVORCE / DISSOLUTION OF THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

 THE HUMBLE PETITIONER NAMED ABOVE MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS HEREIN UNDER:-

1. 

 That at all material times and at present, the parties to the proceeding were and are Hindu by their religion, so ruled by Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

 

2. 

 That the petitioner declares that he has not filed any other petition for the same cause of action involved in the present petition before before any court of law.

3. 

 That it is not disputed that the marriag marriage e of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 22.06.2000 in accordance to Hindu customs and rituals as well as without dowry in front of all the relatives of both the parties at. The said marriage was consummated thereafter and the parties co-habited as husband and wife at their matrimonial home. As such respondent is legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The XEROX COPY MARRIAGE CARD/MARRIAGE PHOTOGRAPH AVERMENTS

CONFIRMING IS

BEING

THE

FILED

WITH

SAID THIS

PETITION AS ANNEXURE NO 1. 4. 

 That the marriage marriage of the parties was solemnized in a traditional and simple way without the dowry, nothing was given by the respondent’s parents in cash or kind to the petitioner or his family except some household items or gifts by the family members and relatives and some other things in accordance to customs/rituals during the whole ceremony of marriage.

5. 

 That it is very substantial substantial to mention here that the respondent and her family member camouflaged the basic things which are requisite in every matrimonial relationship, despite of that the petitioner and his family member condoned this term hoping for a better matrimonial relationship.

6. 

 That it is further stated that the respond respondent ent had idiosyncrasy of visiting her parental home off & on and used to stay back for about 2-3 months for no rhyme or reason and upon great insistence and persuasion of the petitioner and his family members, she would only return to matrimonial home.

 

7. 

 That it is pertinent to mention here that the parties to the marriage were blessed with their first child named 17.11.2001 and Kartik on dated 17.11.2001  and at present the child is living with the respondent.

8. 

 That it is very imperativ imperative e to mention here that the respondent has already taken away her entire STRIDHAN, given to the Respondent by both, the Petitioner’s side and/ or the Respondent’s side,

including jewellery, of gold and/ or silver, as also the artificial ones, dresses, sarees. She has kept her entire stridhan items at her present resident address which is afore-stated. It may however be added and clarified herein

that

neither

petitioner’s  

side

nor

the

respondent’s side had given much of gold or silver

 jewellery. The jewellery was meagre/ small items like. All

the

Jewellery

and

valuables

are

with

the

Respondent as on the date of filing of this petition.

9. 

 That it is further stated by the petition petitioner er that respondent is a lady of very high ambitions and always tried to live a lavish life without compromising even in the bad days.

10.   That the marital relations between the parties have

not been very pleasant and compatible since the day of marriage till the date filing of this Petition. The reasons for disharmony and non-compatibility are squarely attributable to the Respondent. 11.   That the the petitioner tried to give all the amenit amenities ies to her

wife but she was never satisfied with the petitioner and she always indulges herself without even thinking about

the

future

consequences

along

with

the

reputation of petitioner’s family. 12.   That it is pertinent to to mention here that the behaviour behaviour

of the respondent towards her in laws was always

 

rude and abnormal. Right from the day-one of the marriage the behaviour/ attitude of the respondent towards the petitioner, his mother, father, other family members and relatives has been very insulting/ disrespectful,

quarrelsome,

non-co-operative,

suspicious, rude, insulting, adamant, dominating, high tempered, aggressive, violent and suicidal. The respondent has given the petitioner lots and lot of mental tension almost every day, by her acts of commission and omission, refusing to perform any of her matrimonial obligations. She has treated the petitioner with cruelty, by every possible way 13.   That it is also importa important nt to mention here that the

respondent

had

a

habit

of

discussing

the

complainant’s personal discussions with the other

family members also the respondent penchants to pass on secret information about one person to another. 14.   That the Respondent was very whimsical. She used to

break house hold items at the drop of hat and without any provocation. 15.   That the Respondent Respondent used to dominat dominate e the Petitioner

in every house hold affair, be it small or big, thereby not at all giving him any space, clearly leaving him with no other choice but to suffer and sustain mental torture in silence. 16.   That the respondent was also found to be of blaming

attitude unnecessarily by saying that if the petitioner or any of the family member even think of putting any restriction in the absolute freedom and life style of the respondent, she would implicate the petitioner and his other family members in false cases of harassment. 17.   That after some time of the marriage the behaviour of

respondent has been totally changed towards the

 

petitioner.

She

did

not

fulfil

any

matrimonial

obligations instead of that she always tried to conquer and dominate the petitioner making his life worse and sometimes petitioner tried to step outside his shoes but

it

resulted

in

threats

of

registering

false

cases/applications by the respondent. 18.   That

the

Responden Respondentt

was

thorough thoroughly ly

non-co-

operative. She refused to perform her matrimonial obligations making every trivial household thing an issue.

However,

supportive

and

the

Petitioner

co-operative,

continued

discharging

to all

be his

matrimonial obligations, thinking that good sense will prevail upon the Respondent sooner than later. 19.   That the respondent has not been performing any of

her matrimonial obligation much prior to since the parties formally separated. That before the separation the respondent has been consistently refusing to have physical relationship with the petitioner. She has also been refusing to do any house hold chorus. She has not been preparing meals, breakfast, lunch, dinner, for the petitioner.  20.   That just as if what is averred hereinab hereinabove ove was not

enough, the Respondent also used to torture, harass and humiliate the Petitioner privately and publicly by alleging that he had numerous affairs with other women. The Respondent used to level this allegation despite the fact that she knew it very well that the Petitioner had no such relation, the Petitioner being person of principles and morals .  21.   That the petitioner never quelled the respondent

financially and tried to fulfil every legitimate demands of the respond respondent. ent.

 

22.   That the opposite party used to make fun of the

petitioner in front of her relatives therefore petitioner felt a lack in emotional support which is very much required in a healthy matrimonial life.

23.   That the cause of action to file the present petition

accrued to the petitioner many times when the respondent abuses the petitioner and his parents in filthy language mercilessly and many more atrocities which were done by the respondent described above.  The cause of action also accrued in the year 20072008 when the respondent left the petitioner for no reason and from that time a permanent stain emerged in the matrimonial relation between parties to this present petition. The main cause of action arose in the month of July 2017 when the respondent turned out/left the petit petitioner ioner and cl clearly early refus refused ed to live with the petitioner and also on each and every date when the internal mediations were convened but were denied by the respondent for reason. reason. 

24.   That even though the petitioner realised

that the respondent being under the heavy influence of her parents has not been much interested in a happy domesticity and may flout the sacrosanct ties of the marriage, the petitioner always hoped that perhaps there may be a new day bringing some light in the life of this petitioner and the respondent, for the petitioner is such a man who devoutly and fervently believes that every day is a new life to a wise man as well as a woman

. 

25.   That the Respondent Respondent has committ committed ed the above said

acts

of

cruelty

on

the

Petitioner

knowingly,

 

intentionally,, wilfully and deliberately. intentionally 26.   That the respondent is doing the cruelty of trying to

pry petitioner away from his “pious obligation” to live with his aged mother and provide shelter to her and when it is objected by the petitioner, she threatens him by saying that she will lodge the false F.I.R along with other cases.

27.   That the marital relation of the parties has been

damaged beyond repair. There is no chance of any patch up between them. Consequently, the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken. 28.   That in view of the facts and circumstan circumstances, ces, as

narrated here-in above, the Petitioner has been left with no other alternative but to seek the remedy through the Court of law. Hence this Petition. 29.   That this petition is not being present presented ed in collision

with the Respondent. 30.   That

the

petition petitioner er

is

presently

living

in

the

aforementioned address therefore this Hon’ble Court does have the jurisdiction in the matter to adjudicate upon and decide the same. 31.   That the Petitioner, seeks from this Hon’ble Court the

dissolution of his marriage with the Respondent on the following grounds amongst others: (a) BECAUSE the Respondent has since solemnization of the marriage of the parties treated Petitioner with cruelty. (b) BECAUSE there is a complete breakdown of the marriage between the parties. There is no chance of any patch up between them.

 

 

P R A Y E R

WHEREFORE, on the facts and grounds stated above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be

graciously pleased (i) 

 To pass a decree of divorce, ordering / directing dissolution of the marriage between the parties

(ii) 

Any other relief or reliefs which the court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case be also passed in favour of the petitioner.

Lucknow

(VIKAS VERMA )

Dated:   Dated:

Advocate  Advocate  (Counsels for the petitioner)

V E R I F I C A T I O N I, the above named petitioner, do hereby verify that the contents of Paras 1 to 31 of this petition are true to my personal Knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed. Signed and verified this on on family court compound.

Lucknow. Dated:

, 2019

Petitioner

 

IN THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE ,FAMILY COURT. LUCKNOW

R.S NO –   U/S- 13(1) of H.M.A  H.M.A  P.SDistt. - Lucknow

Hariharan Nagmani Iyer, Aged Iyer, Aged about 47 years, S/O Laxmi Nagmani, Permanently Residing at House No-J-164, Sector  J, Asiyana Lucknow-22 Lucknow-226012 6012   ……..……Petitioner  VERSUS Kajal Hariharan Iyer, Iyer, Aged about 45 years, W/O Hariharan Nagmani Iyer, R/O B-602, Building No 47, P.O Pantnagar, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai 400086 …………Opposite Party/Respondent 

AFFIDAVIT I Hariharan Nagmani Iyer,  Iyer,  Aged about 47 years, S/O Laxmi Nagmani, Permanently Residing at House No-J-164, Sector J, Asiyana Lucknow-226012  Lucknow-226012 the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under: -  -  1. 

 That the petitioner is himself the deponent in the present petition and would himself be doing pairivi in this petition.

2. 

 That the contents of paras 1 to 31 of o f the complaint are true to my personal knowledge and are believed to be true on the basis of information gathered from records and those of and are based on legal advice.

 

3. 

 That the Annexure filed along with the complaint are true/Photostat of its respective original, which has been compared by the deponent to be true.

Lucknow.   Lucknow. Dated:

Deponent

, 2019

V E R I F I C A T I O N I, the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of paras 1 to 3 of this affidavit are true to my personal Knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed. So, help me God.

Lucknow. Dated:

, 2019 Deponent

I, identify the above named deponent on the basis of records, who has signed before me.

Lucknow Dated:   Dated:

[ VIKAS VERMA] VERMA]   Advocate Advocate  

,2019

(Counsel for the Complainant)

Solemnly affirmed before me on

at

A.M./P.M by

the deponent who is identified by Shri VIKAS VERMA, Advocate, Lucknow. Lucknow.   I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent, that he understands the contents of this affidavit, which have been read over and explained to him by me.

 

IN THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE ,FAMILY COURT. LUCKNOW

R.S NO –   U/S- 13 of H.M.A  H.M.A 

REGISTERED ADDRESS OF THE PARTY

Hariharan Nagmani Iyer, Aged Iyer, Aged about 47 years, S/O Laxmi Nagmani, Permanently Residing at House No-J-164, Sector  J, Asiyana Lucknow-22 Lucknow-226012 6012  

Lucknow Dated:   Dated:

[ VIKAS VERMA] VERMA]   2019

Advocate Advocate   (Counsel for the Complainant)

 

IN THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE ,FAMILY COURT. LUCKNOW

R.S NO –   U/S- 13(1) of H.M.A  H.M.A  P.SDistt. - Lucknow

Hariharan Nagmani Iyer, Aged Iyer, Aged about 47 years, S/O Laxmi Nagmani, Permanently Residing at House No-J-164, Sector  J, Asiyana Lucknow-22 Lucknow-226012 6012   ……..……Petitioner  VERSUS Kajal Hariharan Iyer, Iyer, Aged about 45 years, W/O Hariharan Nagmani Iyer, R/O B-602, Building No 47, P.O Pantnagar, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai 400086 …………Opposite Party/Respondent 

APPLICATION FOR TAKING VAKALTNAMA ON RECORD  The humble humble applican applicantt most respect respectfully fully begs to stat state e as under 1.  That That the applicant is petitioner in the above mentioned petition and is fully conversant with the facts herein above. 2.  That  That the applica applicant nt wants to appoint Vikas Verma Advocate Enras his legal Counsel for the rest of his case.  Therefore it is request requested ed to take vakalatnama /power on record

Lucknow Dated

(Applicant)