Reply to Application Us 125 Cr.P.C for Maintenance (Aprajita vs. Anujeet)

IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK JAGOTRA : JUDGE : FAMILY COURTS ROHINI COURTS : DELHI Petition No.

/2013

IN THE MATTER OF: Smt. Aprajita

…. Petitioner Vs.

Sh. Anujeet

…Respondent

REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITION U/S. 125 Cr.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE FILED BY PETITIONER

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: Before petition,

the

giving reply parawise to

the

replying respondent wants

abovementioned to

submit

some

preliminary objections which are jurisdictional in nature go to the root of matter and may be decided first before dealing with the alleged petition.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS: 1.

That the petitioner

is living separately from her

husband with her own 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 will and wish without any sufficient

reason

respondent,

and

despite

request

made

by

she refused to live with her husband.

Hence, she cannot claim maintenance in view of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. 2.

That the petitioner has suppressed the material facts and has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands, hence the present application is liable to be dismissed.

3.

That

the 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 “Lancer’s Public School”, Sikka-Shamli and

is earning more

than Rs. 30,000/- to 40,000/- per month from the said Job

and the petitioner intentionally and deliberately

concealed the said facts from this Hon’ble Court and the respondent 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 22.03.2013, the petitioner in a pre-planner 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.

Thereafter, she had filed a complaint

before the CAW Cell. before CAW Cell,

Prior to filing of the complaint

respondent

himself went to the

parental home of the petitioner several times to take her back, but the petitioner refused. 5.

That the present petition is not maintainable because the petitioner

has filed the present 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, motivated, assertions,

contents, hence

contentions, the

present

allegations petition

is

and not

maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. 6.

That it is submitted that present petition

is false,

frivolous, vexatious, mischievous, motivated, malicious, absurd, abuse and misuse of the process of the court.

7.

That the petitioner in any of the para did not disclose that on what grounds, she is seeking the relief/s under Section 125 Cr.P.C a and in absence of any specific ground, 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

has been filed without any

basis and has been 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 objections and in additional to the same parawise reply to the petition has been given below:

REPLY ON MERIT : 1. That

the

contents

of

Para

1

of

the

present

application/petition needs no reply being matter of record. 2. That

the

contents

of

Para

2

of

the

present

application/petition needs no reply being matter of record. 3. That the contents of para 3 of the present petition wrong, baseless, hence denied as alleged.

are

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 wrong and

denied that on 17.09.2012, on the occasion of Ring Ceremony, parental family members of the petitioner has spent any alleged amount 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 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. That the contents of para 4 of the present petition

are

wrong, baseless, hence 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 petitioner be put to strict proof thereof.

It is submitted that all the functions were

organized simply and from the side of respondent, some persons were attended the said marriage and such alleged amount was ever spent.

only no

5. That the contents of para 5 of the present petition wrong, baseless, hence denied as alleged.

are

It is wrong and

denied that behaviour 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 or ever compelled her to bear the medical expenses herself by getting the treatment at Private clinic as alleged. specifically

wrong

and

denied

that

parental

It is 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 petitioner on any alleged account, as alleged. It is further wrong and denied 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. Neelima Dentist (MDS) Meerut and this fact was came into the knowledge of the mother of the 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 were born by the mother of the respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not treated at Army Hospital as she was earlier being treated at the Dr. Neelima Dentist (MDS) Meerut, who is a top dentist of Meerut.

It is further

submitted that in Kalimpong, the facility of the treatment, which the 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

respondent.

despite

repeated

requests

of

the

It is further submitted that immediately on

coming to know about the dental problem of the petitioner,

her mother-in-law got her treated in the month of February 2013. It

is

further

submitted

that

respondent

has

purchased I-20 Diesel bearing no. UK-07-AL-4287 in Auguest 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 understand

and after the marriage, she did not try to 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 the contents of para 6 of the present petition

are

wrong, baseless, hence denied 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 and denied that after the party, the respondent ever misbehaved with the petitioner or used any filthy or abusive languages against her or her family members as alleged.

It is further wrong

and denied that respondent ever harassed, humiliated, 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, there was a party in Officer’s Mess at Kalimpong. 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 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. That the contents of para 7 of the present petition

are

wrong, baseless, hence 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 respondent and his family are influential persons or have any alleged influence as alleged.

It is

specifically wrong and denied that petitioner has any 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 that petitioner herself 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 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 member to get transfer their house situated at Meerut 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 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.

8. That the contents of para 8 of the present petition

are

wrong, baseless, hence denied 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 petitioner was never harassed or humiliated at her matrimonial home. It is further submitted that the petitioner is leveling vague and false allegations against the replying respondent and she has failed to give any specific date, time or instance, when she was subjected to such cruelties, which itself shows that there is no truth in the 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 “Lancer’s Public School”, Sikka-Shamli and is earning more than Rs. 30,000/- to 40,000/- per month from the said Job. 9. That the contents of para 9 of the present petition

are

wrong, baseless, hence denied 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 accommodation or maintenance as alleged. It is submitted that at the time of marriage, it was represented by the petitioner in her curriculum vitae that she has already completed her post graduation. It is submitted that petitioner is contradicting herself as in para 7 of her petition, she is stating that respondent and his family members are influential persons and she has great apprehension of her life and in the para under reply, she is stating that respondent is a Major in Army and his father is a Gazetted 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 “Lancer’s Public School”, Sikka-Shamli 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, baseless, hence 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 “Lancer’s Public School”, Sikka-Shamli 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, baseless, hence denied except the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. It is wrong and denied that petitioner has been residing at Delhi since 23.03.2013 as alleged. It is 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 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 circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any 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 Dated: Respondent Through: Counsel

IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK JAGOTRA : JUDGE : FAMILY COURTS ROHINI COURTS : DELHI Petition No.

/2013

IN THE MATTER OF: Smt. Aprajita

…. Petitioner Vs.

Sh. Anujeet

…Respondent

REPLY ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF INTERIM MAINTENANCE

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1.

Contents of Para 1 of the present application needs no reply being matter of record. However, it is submitted that the respondent has filed the reply to petition u/s. 125

Cr.P.C

in

detail

and

the

contents

of

the

accompanying reply to said petition be read as part and parcel of the reply to the present application, which are not being reproduced here for sake of brevity.

The

respondent craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to read, refer to and rely upon the contents and averments made in the reply as part and parcel of the reply given to petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. 2.

Contents of Para 2 of the present application are wrong, baseless and denied.

It is wrong and denied that

applicant/petitioner has no source of income or has no movable or immovable property in her name as alleged.

It is reiterated that the petitioner is living separately from her husband with her own will and wish due to non co-ordination between wife and husband only. In other words, the petitioner is residing separately from her husband with her own will and wish without any sufficient

reason

respondent,

and

despite

request

made

by

she refused to live with her husband.

Hence, she cannot claim maintenance in view of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the petitioner

is an educated and well bodied lady and

is/was working as teacher in “Lancer’s Public School”, Sikka-Shamli and is earning more than Rs. 30,000/- to 40,000/- per month from the said Job and as such she is able to maintain herself very well 3.

That the contents of para 3 of the present application are wrong, baseless, hence denied as alleged.

It is

specifically wrong and denied that petitioner is doing her M.A. Final or is a student 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

accommodation

or

maintenance as alleged. It is submitted that at the time of marriage, it was represented by the petitioner in her curriculum vitae that she has already completed her post graduation. It is further submitted that petitioner is contradicting herself as in para 7 of her petition, she is stating that respondent and his family members are influential persons and she has great apprehension of her life and in the para under reply, she is stating that respondent is a Major in Army and his father is a Gazetted 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 “Lancer’s Public School”, Sikka-Shamli and is earning more than Rs. 30,000/- to 40,000/- per month from the said Job.

4.

That the contents of para 4 of the present application are wrong, baseless, hence denied as alleged.

It is

wrong and denied that petitioner cannot maintain herself nor can afford the litigation expenses as alleged. It is submitted that in view of the facts mentioned above, the petitioner is not entitled for any maintenance or interim maintenance. Contents of the prayer clause are wrong, baseless and denied. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly dismiss the present application of the petitioner with cost. Delhi Dated:

RESPONDENT Through COUNSEL

IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK JAGOTRA : JUDGE : FAMILY COURTS ROHINI COURTS : DELHI Petition No.

/2013

IN THE MATTER OF: Smt. Aprajita

…. Petitioner Vs.

Sh. Anujeet

…Respondent AFFIDAVIT

I, Anujeet s/o Sh. Jitender Kumar, aged about ___ years r/o R82, Phase-2, Paliavpuram, Meerut, U.P, presently at Delhi, hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

do

1. That I am respondent in the above noted case and am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and as such am competent to swear the present affidavit. 2. That the accompanying reply to the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C,

has been drafted by my counsel under my

instructions and the contents of the same have been read over and explained to me in vernacular, which are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. The contents of the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit as the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity. DEPONENT VERIFICATION: Verified at Delhi on this _____ day of July 2014 that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing has been concealed there from. DEPONENT IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK JAGOTRA : JUDGE : FAMILY COURTS ROHINI COURTS : DELHI Petition No.

/2013

IN THE MATTER OF: Smt. Aprajita

…. Petitioner Vs.

Sh. Anujeet

…Respondent

AFFIDAVIT I, Anujeet s/o Sh. Jitender Kumar, aged about ___ years r/o R82, Phase-2, Paliavpuram, Meerut, U.P, presently at Delhi,

do

hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That I am respondent in the above noted case and am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and as such am competent to swear the present affidavit. 2. That the accompanying reply to application for interim maintenance, has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the contents of the same have been read over and explained to me in vernacular, which are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. The contents of the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit as the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity. DEPONENT VERIFICATION: Verified at Delhi on this _____ day of July 2014 that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing has been concealed there from. DEPONENT