Reply of 125 CRPC

 

IN THECOURT OF SH.DEEPAK JAGOTRA JUDGE: FAMILY COURTS ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Peti Pe titi tion on No. /2 /201 013 3

IN THEMATTER OF: Smt.( Sm t.(Nam Name e of of Peti Petiti tione oner) r)

….Pet ….Petiti itione oner  r 

Vs. (Name ame of Respon pondent)

…Res esp pond ondent

REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TO THE PETITION U/S.125

Cr.P.C.FOR MAINTENANCE FILED BY PETITIONER

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

Before Befor e giving giving reply reply para paragr graph aph wise wise to the the above abovemen mentio tioned ned petit petitio ion, n, the reply replying ing respond resp ondent ent wants wants to submit submit some prelimin preliminary ary objectio objections ns which which are jurisdic jurisdiction tional al in nature go to the root of matter and may be decided first before dealing with the alleged petition.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS: 1. That the petitio petitioner ner is living separa separately tely from her her husband husband with her own will will and wish due to non-coordination between wife and husband only. In other words, the petitioner is residing separately from her husband with her own and wish without anyhusband. sufficient Hence, reason she and despite request made by respondent, she will refused to live with her cannot claim maintenance in view of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. 2. That the petitio petitioner ner has suppresse suppressed d the material material facts and has not approache approached d this Hon’ble Hon’ble Court with clean hands, hence the present application is liable to be dismissed. 3. That the petitioner petitioner is not not entitled entitled for any maintenance maintenance because because she is an an educated educated and well well bodied lady and is able to maintain herself very well. It is submitted that petitioner is/was doing the Job of Teacher in “XXX Public School”, at (location name) and is earning more than Rs. 30,000/- to 40,000/- per month from the said Job and the petitioner intentionally and deliber deliberatel ately y conceale concealed d the said facts facts from this Hon’ble Hon’ble Court and the respond respondent ent reserves his right to initiate proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C against the petitioner for giving false affidavit before this Hon’ble Court.

 

4. That on 22.03.201 22.03.2013, 3, the petitioner petitioner in a pre-planner pre-planner manner manner collected collected all her jewellery jewellery as well well as jewellery of her mother-in-law, cash and other valuable items and thereafter, she called her brother and left her matrimonial house without informing any one in her matrimonial house, along with all jewellery, cash and valuable times and since, then she is residing at her parental home. Thereafter, she had filed a complaint before the CAW Cell. Prior to filing of the complaint before CAW Cell, respondent himself went to the parental home of the petitioner several times to take her back, but the petitioner refused. 5. That the present present petition petition is not maintain maintainable able becaus because e the petitioner petitioner has filed the presen presentt petition on false grounds and leveled false allegations against replying respondent. It is submitted that petitioner has approached this Hon’ble court with a pre-planned, concocted, false, fabricated, vexatious, misconceived, misconceived, motivated, contents, contents, contentions, contentions, allegations allegations and assertions, hence the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. 6. That That it is subm submit itte ted d that that pres presen entt pe peti titi tion on is fa fals lse, e, fr friv ivol olou ous, s, vexa vexati tiou ous, s, mi misc schi hiev evou ous, s, motivated, malicious, absurd, abuse and misuse of the process of the court. 7. That the the petitione petitionerr in any of the para did not disclo disclose se that on what what grounds, grounds, she is seeking seeking the relie relief/s f/s unde underr Secti Section on 125 125 Cr. Cr.P. P.C C and and in ab abse sence nce of an any y sp speci ecific fic gr grou ound nd,, all all the contentions made by the petitioner are vague. The present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. 8. That the present petition petition has has been filed filed without without any basis basis and has has been filed filed on false ground and therefore, same is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost. Without prejudice to what is stated above in the preliminary objection objections s and in additional additional to the same parawise reply to the petition has been given below:

REPLY ON MERIT : 1. Th That at the co conte ntents nts of Para Para 1 of the presen presentt ap appl plica icatio tion/p n/pet etiti ition on ne need eds s no reply reply be bein ing g matter of record. 2. Th That at the co conte ntents nts of Para Para 2 of the presen presentt ap appl plica icatio tion/p n/pet etiti ition on ne need eds s no reply reply be bein ing g matter of record. 3. That the contents contents of of para 3 of of the present present petition are wrong, baseless, baseless, hence hence denied denied as alleged. It is wrong and denied that the father of the petitioner belong to joint Hindu Family or he spent money out of their capacity and resource for want of knowledge. It is further furt her wrong and denied that on 17.09.2 17.09.2012 012,, on the occasion occasion of Ring Ceremony, Ceremony, paren parental tal fa famil mily y membe members rs of the the petit petitio ione nerr has has sp spen entt an any y alleg alleged ed amoun amountt or on 10.12.2012, at the time of Lagan Ceremony, the parental family member of the petitioner 

 

gave any alleged sum to the respondent or his family members on any account as alleged.. The petitioner alleged petitioner be put to strict proof thereof. It is submitted that marriage as well as other functions were solemnized in a very simple manner without any pomp and show and no cash/presents as alleged were given by the petitioner’s parents. 4. 4. That the contents of para 4 of of the present present petition petition are wrong, wrong, baseless, baseless, hence denied denied except the facts, which are matter on record. It is wrong and denied that any alleged best venue was ever arranged or Rs. 6 lacs were ever spent in the said marriage. The petit petition ioner er be put put to strict strict proof proof thereo thereof. f. It is su submi bmitte tted d that that all all th the e functi function ons s were were organized simply and from the side of respondent, only some persons were attended the said marriage and no such alleged amount was ever spent. 5. That the contents contents of of para 5 of of the present present petition are wrong, baseless, baseless, hence hence denied denied as alleged. It is wrong and denied that behavior of the in-law ever became different towards the petitioner or they ever taunted upon the petitioner and her family member on any alleged account of cash, dowry or looking of the petitioner as alleged. It is further wrong and denied that respondent ever passed comments upon the petitioner regarding her  teeth tee th or ever ever co compe mpelle lled d her her to bear bear the the medic medical al expen expenses ses he herse rself lf by ge getti tting ng the treatment at Private clinic as alleged. It is specifically wrong and denied that parental family members of the petitioner had ever given Rs. 5 lacs for car or respondent and his family members ever raised any demand of money to purchase a big car as alleged. It is further wrong and denied that respondent and his family members ever harassed the petit petition ioner er on any any alleg alleged ed accou account nt,, as alleg alleged ed.. It is fur furth ther er wrong wrong an and d de denie nied d that that petitioner was ever insulted or humiliated as alleged. It is further wrong and denied that any money or gift was ever given by the petitioner or her family members or same was kept by the respondent as alleged. It is submitted that after the marriage, the petitioner  was warmly welcomed in her matrimonial house and no such alleged incident had ever  taken place. It is further submitted that prior to the marriage, the petitioner was being treated at Dr. XXXX Dentist (MDS) Meerut and this fact was came into the knowledge of  the mother of the respondent respondent and on coming to know all this, mother-in-law of petitioner  herself took the petitioner to the said Dental Clinic and got her treated there and at that time, all the expenses expenses were born by the mother of the respondent. respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not treated at Army Hospital as she was earlier being treated at the Dr. XXXX XXXX Denti Dentist st (MDS) (MDS) Meerut Meerut,, wh who o is a top dentis dentistt of Meeru Meerut. t. It is furthe further  r  submitted that in Kalimpong, the facility of the treatment, which the petitioner petitioner was being undergoing, was not available. It is further submitted that as per the procedure of Army Hospitals, after the marriage, the couple is required to get their registration done at the  Army Hospital and for this purpose, marriage certificate issued by the concerned SDM Office/Court is required and for this, ID proof as well as other documents such as address proof etc. are required, but the petitioner did not produce the said documents despite repeated requests of the respondent. It is further submitted that immediately on coming to know about the dental problem of the petitioner, her mother-in-law got her  treated trea ted in the month of February February 2013. 2013. It is further further submitted submitted that respond respondent ent has purchased purchase d I-20 Diesel bearing no. XX-XX-XX-0000 XX-XX-XX-0000 in August 2011 i.e. since a long time prior to the said marriage. It is further submitted that respondent did not make any demand for big car and he has/had no need of alleged big car. It is submitted that after  the marriage, the petitioner was warmly welcomed in her matrimonial home and every comfort and facility was given to her. But after few times of the marriage, the petitioner  treated the replying respondent as well as his parents with utmost cruelty for the reasons

 

best known to her. It is further submitted that petitioner is a quarrelsome lady with high temperament and after the marriage, she did not try to understand her responsibilities towards the replying respondent and his parents. It is further submitted that petitioner  used to quarrel with the replying respondent and other family member on one pretext and other and threatened them to implicate in false criminal cases. 6. That That the contents contents of para 6 of the present present petit petition ion are wrong, wrong, baseless baseless,, hence den denied ied except the facts, which are matter of record. It is wrong and denied that respondent ever  compelled the petitioner to give the company of drinks (liquor) as alleged. It is further  wrong wro ng and and denie denied d that that aft after er the party party,, the the respo respond nden entt ev ever er misbe misbeha haved ved with with the petitioner or used any filthy or abusive languages against her or her family members as alleged alle ged.. It is further further wrong and denied that that respond respondent ent ever ever harassed harassed,, humiliat humiliated, ed, assaulted or tortured the petitioner as alleged. It is submitted that entire story made out in the para under reply is false, concocted and baseless one. It is submitted that on 06.01.2013, 06.01.20 13, there was a party in Officer’s Mess at Kalimpon Kalimpong. g. It is further submitted that before going to the party, the respondent made the petitioner understand that in the said party, she need not to drink liquor, but despite that, the petitioner consumed liquor and at the end of the party, when the petitioner could not walk property, this fact came into the knowledge of the respondent, but respondent did not say anything to the petitioner and they slept in their room and in the morning, when respondent respondent made her understand, she felt sorry and she gave in writing “Sorry” on a paper napkin, copy of which is annexed herewith. It is further submitted that aforesaid facts clearly shows that the petitioner is telling lie on each and every aspect and as such, the petition under reply is liable to be dismissed. 7. 7. That the contents of para 7 of of the present present petition petition are wrong, wrong, baseless, baseless, hence denied denied except the facts, which are matter of record. It is wrong and denied that in-law of the petitioner ever humiliated her on account of any alleged demand or the respondent and his family members made the life of the petitioner worse or hell or that there was any mental or physical torture as alleged. It is further wrong and denied that responde respondent nt and his fa famil mily y are influe influenti ntial al perso persons ns or have have an any y alleg alleged ed influ influen ence ce as alleg alleged ed.. It is specifically wrong and denied that petitioner has any apprehension apprehension of her life and liberty as alleged. It is further wrong and denied that on 23.03.2013, the petitioner called her  family members or asked them to take the petitioner from there or since then, she is residing at the above mentioned address as alleged. It is further wrong and denied that respondent are avoiding their appearance before CAW Cell as alleged. It is reiterated thatt petit tha petitio ione nerr herse herself lf is a quarr quarrels elsome ome lady lady with with high high te temp mpera eramen mentt an and d af after ter th the e marria mar riage ge,, she did not not try to unde underst rstan and d he herr res respo pons nsibi ibilit litie ies s toward towards s th the e replyi replying ng respondent and his parents and she used to quarrel with the replying respondent and other family member on one pretext and other and threatened them to implicate in false criminal cases. It is further submitted that family members of the petitioner are of criminal nature and chacha of the petitioner is involved in a case of riots and attempt to murder  and petitioner under the influence of her chacha are pressurizing the respondent and his family fam ily member member to get get transf transfer er their their hous house e situa situated ted at Meeru Meerutt in the name of the petitioner. It is further submitted that respondent and his family members are govt. servants and they never indulged in such type of activities. It is submitted that except the CAW cell complaint, the petitioner has not filed any complaint about any alleged threat of  her life, which itself shows that she is leveling false allegations against the respondent and his family members. It is further reiterated that on 22.03.2013, the petitioner in a

 

preplanner manner collected all her jewellery as well as jewellery of her mother-in-law, cash cas h and and othe otherr va valua luable ble ite items ms and and therea thereafte fter, r, she ca calle lled d he herr brothe brotherr an and d left left he her  r  matrimonial house without informing any one in her matrimonial house, along with all  jewellery, cash cash and valuable valuable times times and since, since, then she is residing residing at her her parental parental home. 8. That That the contents contents of para 8 of the present present petit petition ion are wrong, wrong, baseless baseless,, hence den denied ied except the facts which are matter of record. It is wrong and denied that respondent ever  harassed or humiliated the petitioner or ever neglected or avoided her as alleged. It is wrong and denied that petitioner is liable for any maintenance. It is submitted that petition peti tioner er was never harassed harassed or humilia humiliated ted at her matrimonia matrimoniall home. home. It is further  further  submitted that the petitioner is leveling vague and false allegations against the replying respondent responde nt and she has failed to give any specific date, time or instance, when she was subje sub jecte cted d to such such cruel crueltie ties, s, which which its itsel elff sh show ows s that that th there ere is no truth truth in th the e said said allegations. It is reiterated that petitioner is not entitled for any maintenance because she is an educated and well bodied lady and is able to maintain herself very well. It is submitted that petitioner is/was doing the Job of Teacher in “XXX Public School”, at (City name) and is earning more than Rs. 30,000/- to 40,000/- per month from the said Job. 9. That That the contents contents of para 9 of the present present petit petition ion are wrong, wrong, baseless baseless,, hence den denied ied except the facts which are matter of record. It is wrong and denied that petitioner is doing her M.A or is a student or is dependent upon her parents as alleged. It is further  wrong and denied that respondent is a person of means and is getting salary of Rs. 1,00,000/- as alleged. It is further wrong and denied that respondent has other source of  income as alleged. It is further wrong and denied that father of the respondent has any rental income or agricultural income as alleged. The petitioner be put to give strict proof  thereof. It is further wrong and denied that respondent has no liability or he is leading a luxurious life as alleged. It is further wrong and denied that respondent is bound to maintain the petitioner or to provide any accommoda accommodation tion or maintenance as alleged. It is submit sub mitted ted that at the the tim time e of marria marriage ge,, it was was repres represen ented ted by th the e pe petit titio ione nerr in he her  r  curriculum vitae that she has already completed her post graduation. It is submitted that petit petition ioner er is contra contradi dicti cting ng herse herself lf as in para para 7 of he herr pe petit tition ion,, sh she e is statin stating g that that re resp spon onde dent nt and and his his fami family ly memb member ers s are are infl influe uent ntia iall pe pers rson ons s an and d she she ha has s gr grea eatt apprehension of her life and in the para under reply, she is stating that respondent is a Manager in Private firm and his father is a Officer. It is reiterated that petitioner is not entitled for any maintenance because she is an educated and well bodied lady and is able to maintain herself very well. It is submitted that petitioner is/was doing the Job of  Teacher in “XXX Public School”, at (City Name) and is earning more than Rs. 30,000/- to 40,000/- per month from the said Job. 10. That the contents of para 10 of the present petition are wrong wrong,, baseless, hence denied denied as alleged. It is wrong and denied that petitioner require any sum of Rs. 50,000/- per  month for her maintenance as alleged. It is reiterated that petitioner is a qualified and well bodied lady and is/was doing the Job of Teacher in “XXX Public School”, at (City Name) and is earning more than Rs. 30,000/- to 40,000/- per month from the said Job and as such she can easily maintain herself. 11. That the contents of para 11 of the present petition are wrong wrong,, baseless, hence denied denied except the jurisdiction this23.03.2013 Hon’ble Court. It is wrong deniedthat thaton petitioner has been residing at Delhi of since as alleged. It is and reiterated 22.03.2013,

 

the petitioner in a preplanner manner collected all her jewellery as well as jewellery of  her mother-in-law, cash and other valuable items and thereafter, she called her brother  and left her matrimonial house without informing any one in her matrimonial house, along with all jewellery, cash and valuable times and since, then she is residing at her  parental home at Shamli. Contents of Prayer clause are wrong, baseless and denied and do not require any consideration from this Hon’ble Court . It is submitted that in the above said facts and circumsta circu mstance nces, s, the petition petitioner er is not entitle entitled d for any relief relief as prayed by her in the present petition and she is also not entitled for any maintenance amount as alleged. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner and dismiss the present petition with heavy cost. Pass any other relief(s) which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the respondents.

Delhi

Respondent Thro Th roug ugh: h:

Dated:

Coun Counse sell