Shailja New WS

 

IN THE COURT OF LD. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI

H.M.A. PETITION NO. 673 OF 2018 IN THE MATTER OF:-

Sh. ATUL RANA

…Petitioner   …Petitioner

 VERSUS

Smt. SHAILJA & ANR.

…Respondent(s)   …Respondent(s)

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 1 FOR PETIION FOR DECLARING OF MARRIAGE AS NULL AND VOID UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,1955

Most Respectfully Showeth: 

1.  The Petitioner has filed the above noted petition for passing a decree for annulment of marriage and seeking for declaration of marriage as null and void under Section 11 of the Hindi Marriage Act, Act, 1955. The Petiti Petition on is pending before this Hon’ble Court and is listed on 07.11.2016 for filing

of

Written

Statement,

if

any

on

behalf

of

Respondent No 1.

2.  The Respondent No. 1 i.e. i.e.,, Ms. Shailja, herein is a wife of Petitioner having residence at H.No. 505, Adarsh Nagar, Ghaziabad,U.P.-201001.

 

  3. 

That marriage between the parties was solemnized on 09.12.2012 at Hotel Clarks Inn, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, according to Hindu Rites & Custom. After solemnization of the marriage, the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 lived and cohabited and consummated the marriage and the parties resided together in Delhi. After marriage, Petitioner along with the Respondent No.1 resided at Petitioner’s home at H.No. 9355, Multani Dhanda, Gali No.8, Paharganj, Swami Ram Tirth Nagar, Delhi-110055.

4.  The Petitioner has filed this petition on the basis that the Respondent No.1 was already married at the time of solemnization of marriage. That it is admitted that the Respondent

No.1

was

married

to

Respondent

No.2

but

Respondent No.1 told the Petitioner about the first marriage herself and with utmost honesty before starting a new relationship. It was the petitioner who condone the act of the Respondent No.1 and whenever Respondent No.1 ask the Petitioner for making the first marriage annulled Petitioner never payed the heed towards this matter.

5. 

That according Domestic Violence Act,2005:-  Act,2005:-  i. 

Section 2(a) Defines “ Aggrieved Person”,

it

sates:-  “ Aggrived Person can be any women who is  , or has been in a domestic relationshi relationship p with the Respondent

and

who

alleges

to

have

been

subjected to any act of domestic violence by the

 

Respondent ””.  .  ii. 

Section 2(f) defines “Domestic Relationship”, it states:- Domestic Relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a share household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a  joint family”  

6.  That according Indian Evidence Act,1872; Section 114- Court may presume existence of certain facts:facts:- “The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.”   Therefore,

where

a

man

and

a

lady

live

respectively for a long spell of time as a couple then there would be an assumption of marriage.

7.  That it is very much awkward to say by the Petitioner that marriage is void despite lived and cohabited and consummated the marriage  marriage  with the Respondent No.1 for almost 3 years and having a legitimate child with the Respondent No.1. It is pertinent to mention here that Petitioner is filing this petition for seeking this said

 

marriage to be declared as null and void. Therefore the Petitioner was in live-in Relationship with the Respondent No.1 over 3 year. 8.  Before adverting to a paragraph-wise response to the present Petition, the Respondent No.1 craves the leave of this

Hon’ble

Court

to

further

certain

preliminary

submissions and objections qua the present Petition. for the kind consideration of this Hon’ble Court. I. 

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION:

1.  That marriage between the parties was solemnized on 09.12.2012 at Hotel Clarks Inn, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, according to Hindu Rites & Custom. After solemnization of the marriage, the Petitioner

and

Respondent

No.1

lived

and

cohabited

and

consummated the marriage and the parties resided together in Delhi.

  2. That after marriage, Petitioner along with the Respondent No.1 resided at Petitioner’s home at H.No. 9355, Multani Dhanda, Gali No.8, Paharganj, Swami Ram Tirth Nagar, Delhi-110055.

3.  The Petitioner started to harass the Respondent No.1 on one pretext or the other. The Petitioner started compelling the Respondent No.1 that the Respondent No.1 should leave the job of the primary school teacher and should involve herself in looking after the household chores as the Petitioner’s family feels humiliated among amon g the friends and relatives when the Petitioner tells them that his wife is working

 

as an ordinary school teacher. The Petitioner comes from a very conservative mind despite being educated and beliefs that the daughter-in-laws are mend to do household course and bear babies. Due to continuous pressure from the Petitioner as well as from Petitioner’s family members, the Respondent No. 1 assured the Petitioner that Respondent No. 1 would do only those things that may please the Petitioners family; even then there was no change in the attitude of the Petitioner.

4.  That it is pertinent to mention here that the Petitioner is a heavy drunkard and use to drink daily and come home late at night around 2 or 3’o clock and ask Respondent No.1 to have sex and get the private moments captured in his mobile phone. The petitioner forced the Respondent No.1 for sodomy and used to ask her to perform three-some along with his other friends. But when Respondent No.1 refused to do so, Respondent No.1 was beaten black & blue.

5.  That the Petitioner was of suspicious in nature and from more than a year, has kept the mobile phone of the Respondent No.1 in his possession. The Petitioner also text or send messages on whatsapp from Respondent’s No.1 phone to her friends without informing the Respondent No.1.

6.  That it is pertinent to mention here that the Petitioner installed a camera in their bedroom without prior knowledge of the Respondent No.1 so as to know the whereabouts which is in total contravention of Article 21 of Indian Constitution i.e. Right to Privacy.

 

  7.  That the Respondent was hospitalized in last week of January, 2015 at Shri Ganga ram Hospital, Karol Bagh, New Delhi for the delivery of the child but nobody took care of the Respondent No.1 except the family members of the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 gave birth to the baby girl on 26.01.2015. During the time of hospitalization of the Respondent No.1 the Petitioner and his family members humiliated Respondent No.1 very much for giving birth to a girl child. During the tenure of the Respondent’s No.1 stay in the hospital, whenever Petitioner came to the hospital, he was busy chatting with females and when the Respondent No.1 asked to whom the Petitioner was chatting, then there were arguments from the Petitioner’s side with laden with abuses which cannot be explained here and it is also not practically possible to narrate all the incidences here, also after the heated arguments between Petitioner and Respondent No.1, the family members of the Petitioner also supported the Petitioner and aske asked d the Respondent No.1 to adjust instead. In the meantime, Petitioner along with his father took a franchise of “Dilli Durbar”, a Restaurant chain in the Durgapuri area bearing address as C-448, Main 100 Futa Road, Chhajjupur, Opposite Bajaj Showroom, Durgapuri, Shahdara, New Delhi. The restaurant was inaugurated on 02.02.2015. The Respondent No.1 was constantly forced to ask for money from her parents so as to put in the Restaurant business. Further in the month of May, 2015 after the birth of the girl

 

Child and opening up of the new restaurant, the Petitioner’s family decided to shift their residential location to a much bigger and nearer place from their shop. They rented a bigger accommodation which was a three-floored building having ground floor till third floor bearing the address C-7/214, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. The new rented accommodation was quite near to the shop of the Petitioner, thus making it easy for them to access the shop on the daily basis.

8.  The Petitioner’s attitude towards the Respondent No.1 become worse and Petitioner always picked up some or other issue to quarrel with the Respondent No.1. Not only this, the Petitioner started insulting the Respondent No.1 in the presence of his relatives and friends that Respondent No. 1 is good for nothing and cannot perform the daily chores, as well as constantly abused that Respondent No. 1 is not a good mother. Since the baby was newborn, Respondent No. 1 had to remain awake throughout the night as the baby didn’t sleep much. Also, Respondent No.1 used to feel weak bodily due to post-partum symptoms and despite that no one supported her. The Respondent No.1 discharged all her obligations as a dutiful wife. Due to the continuous torture from the Petitioner and his family members, Respondent No.1 always felt dizzy, depressed and had continuous headache and trouble in sleeping, due to which Respondent No.1 had to take sleeping pills sometimes.

9.  That there was a constant pressure of dowry throughout her stay at in laws place. It is pertinent to mention here that when the

 

Respondent

No.1

got

pregnant

again,

and

was

constantly

pressurized to bear son for the family. The Petitioner was also given pills by her mother-in-law to eat and when Respondent No.1 enquired as to what exactly is it, they replied that it is a medicine to have a boy. The Respondent No.1 always refuses to take it but was constantly forced to intake it. After few days, there was an abnormal pain and bleeding started which caused miscarriage.  After this incident, the Respondent No.1 went into depression and started to stay alone. The Petitioner’s family got scared about the fact that what if Respondent No.1 will make the complaint to Police, and hence told the Petitioner to shift separately with the Respondent No.1 in the nearby area.

10. 

Further, in the month of May,2017 the Petitioner along with

the Respondent No.1 and minor girl child shifted to a separate rented accommodation in the adjacent lane bearing address C6/462, Ground Floor, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-11005 Delhi-110053. 3.

11. 

 After shifting to a new rented accommodation, Respondent

No.1 came to know certain new things about the Petitioner that Petitioner has problem of severe anxiety and also had mood swing issues and he used to get sudden anger fits without any justifiable cause.

  12.

That after shifting into separate location in the nearby area,

the In-laws asked the Respondent No.1 to send the minor girl child to the Petitioner parent’s house for sometime sometime in the morning. The

 

girl child was being tutored by the Petitioner’s parents against the Respondent No.1.

13. 

It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner was also involved in

some illegal activities as it can be inferred from this that he always kept an unlicensed Revolver. The reason for the same can be best explained by the Petitioner himself.

14. 

It is further pertinent to note that the Petitioner along with his

few friends was also involved in a serious case; bearing Case No. 33 of 2009 before Senior Civil Judge, Bulandhahr, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner and one of his close friend Sh. Vinit S/o Mahesh Gurjar R/o Gavdi, P.S- Bhajanpura, Delhi were charged under Section 323/34, 342,337,427 IPC, 1860. The case was registered in Kakod Police Station, Bulandhahr, Uttar Pradesh. It is further pertinent to mention here that the Petitioner was in judicial Custody for almost a month in Dasna Jail, Ghaziabad in the case. The charges were dropped only when the accused had compromised and settled with the complainant lady.

15. 

That it is pertinent to note that the Petitioner has hatched a

conspiracy against the Respondent No.1 to throw her away from the matrimonial home and from her minor daughter. That on 20.07.2018 after the gap of more than one year of shifting into a separate rented accommodation, the Petitioner asked the Respondent No.1 to pack Petitioner’s clothes as Petitioner would be travelling to LehLeh Ladakh along with his friends. As per the instructions, the

 

Respondent No.1 packed the entire stuff as asked by the Petitioner. In the meanwhile, Petitioner had also asked the Respondent No.1 to handover her entire jewellery (both which Respondent No.1 had received from her paternal as well as Petitioner’s side) so that the Petitioner may keep them in safe custody custo dy with Petitioner’s mother. The excuse the petitioner gave was that as Petitioner would not be available in the house, it is advisable to keep the entire jewellery at his parent’s place.

16.  That it is mentioned here that hatching of conspiracy can easily be inferred as the Petitioner after packing his bag, took away all the  jewellery and went to his parent’s house which was in adjacent lane to the Petitioner’s house. This came into the knowledge of the Respondent No.1 only when the Petitioner told the Respondent No.1 after few days.

17. That it is further mentioned here that on 27.07.2018, as per the daily routine, the minor girl was taken by a servant to Petitioner’s parents house in the morning but in the evening when the girl child did not return, the Respondent No.1 called the Petitioner and his parents but nobody cared about the same. Being aggrieved by this, Respondent No.1 went to the nearby Police Station and filed a missing report for the minor girl child. When this came into the knowledge of the Petitioner, then the Petitioner called up the Respondent No.1 and told her that the girl child has been travelling to Dehradun along with Petitioner’s mother and would return soon.  soon. 

 

18. Further, On 31.07.2018, the Respondent No.1 came to know when an envelope was received by the registry which states that the Petitioner had already filed a Petition in the month of July,2018 under Section 13(1)(i-a)of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 as amended up to date for seeking dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce which was filed before the court of Sh. Vinay Kumar Khanna, Judge Family Court, North east, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and later the same was withdrawn by the Petitioner himself.

On 02.09.2018, the Respondent No.1 tried to contact the Petitioner to enquire about the girl child but the Petitioner didn’t attend her phone. But when the Respondent No.1 tried by some other number, the call was attendant by the Petitioner but the Petitioner blackmailed the Re Respondent spondent No.1 that Respondent No.1 would get her daughter back only when Respondent No.1 gives him divorce by mutual consent. 19. That the Respondent No.1 being the biological mother of minor girl child who is just below the age of 5 years is mentally fit and healthy and capable to take care of the minor child and the Petitioner is not mentally fit and healthy and presently baby Rudrakshi Rana residing with the Petitioner. Petitioner has also drinking problem and also not having means/capable to look after and maintain her said children and he is unable to look after and maintain the said minor girl child who have been neglected by him and his parents in every way.

 

II. 

PARAWISE-REPLY:

1.  That the contents of Para No.1 of the petition are admitted to the extent that the marriage was solemnized according to Hindu Rites & Ceremonies on 09.12.2012 at Hotel Clarks inn, Kaushambi District, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. It is pertinent to mention here that a lavish wedding function took place and exchange of articles including jewellery and huge cash was also involved which can be called “dowry”.  “dowry”. 

2.  That the contents of Para No.2 of the petition are matter of record and hence needs no comments.

3.  That the contents of Para No.3 of the petition are a matter of record hence needs no comments.

4.  That the contents of Para No.4 of the petition are denied as the allegation leveled against the Respondent No.1 is false, baseless and frivolous. There is no evidentiary proof from the same. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent No.1 never fought with the Petitioner to take another home and to stay separately from the In-laws, In fact ever since the marriage; the Respondent No.1 has been staying cordially with the family and cherishes the values

of

joint

family

system.

That

the

Petitioner’s

and

Respondent’s No.1 family on multiple occasions have gone out for family dinners and lunches and thus shared a good bond with them since inception. The allegation against the Respondent No.1 that

 

Respondent No.1 enacted drama of consuming thinner is completely fabricated and concocted lie without any proof.

5.  That the contents of Para No 5 of the petition are denied and on the ground of being false and misrepresented. It is pertinent to mention here that it was a family decision to move to a bigger house as there were many family members and it was getting uncomfortable to accommodate so many members in that old house. It is further to mention here that such a shifting was also done keeping in mind vicinity of their new shop ‘Dili Durbar’ which is a chain of restaurants. The allegation leveled against the Respondent No.1 that Respondent No.1 did not showed any interest towards the household chores is a complete lie. In fact, as a daughter-in-law Respondent No.1 fulfilled all her marital obligations including cleaning, cooking or taking responsibility of the minor baby child. On the other way around, it was the Petitioner who had never performed his duty as a son, husband and a father and had always been involved in making money and expanding his business. The Petitioner use to return to home at wee hours, drunk and in deeply inebriated state and created ruckus at home.

6.  That the contents of Para No.6 of the petition are denied on the ground of being false and misrepresented. It is pertinent to mention here that the relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 strained after 2015. That the Petitioner used to beat the Respondent No.1 black and blue after getting home drunk

 

and used to be b e involved in casual flings and relationship. Whenever the Respondent No.1 questioned regarding the whereabouts of the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 was kicked back and abused. When the same was communicated by the Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner’s family, instead of supporting Respondent No.1 they stood by the Petitioner and used to watch the show like an entertainment show. The mother of the Petitioner was a quarrelsome woman who used to find out ways to pick up fights. Due to such a trauma the Respondent No.1 along with her small baby left for parent’s home and it was only after several requests and assurances given by the family members of the Petitioner than Respondent No.1 returned back. For a few days, things were fine but later they became worsened. Thus at the behest of the Respondent No.1 that such a daily fighting is not conductive for overall growth of the child, they decided to take separate rented house bearing no. C-6/462, C -6/462, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.

7.  That the contents of Para No.7 of the Petition are denied on the ground of being false and misrepresented. That the marital bliss could continue till a couple of months as the marriage with the Petitioner ran into rough weather due to the behavior of the Petitioner. The Petitioner started to harass the Respondent No.1 on one pretext or the other. The Petitioner started compelling the Respondent No.1 to leave the job of the primary school teacher and that Respondent No.1 would involve herself in looking after household activities activities as the Petitioner’s family feels humiliated among his friends and relatives when the Petitioner tells them that

 

his wife is working as an ordinary school teacher. The Petitioner comes from a very conservative mindset despite being educated and believes that the daughter-in-laws are meant to do household chores and bear babies. The Respondent No.1 was forced to give up her job at Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Inderlok, New Delhi and was continuous of the Petitioner to have babies. Due to continuous pressure of the Petitioner and his family members, the Respondent No.1 assured the Petitioner that Respondent No.1 would do only those things that may please the Petitioner’s family. Even then, there was no change in the attitude of the Petitioner. It is further pertinent to mention here that the allegations leveled against the Respondent No.1 that Respondent No.1 used to return home late at night is completely false and is nothing apart from character assassination.

8.  That the contents of Para No.8 of the petition are denied on the ground of being false and fabricated so as to cook up a story. The sleeping pills mentioned in the Petition were taken by the Respondent No.1 because of post- partum symptoms after delivery of child; Respondent No.1 used to have headache and trouble in sleeping and that’s why Respondent No.1 used to take medicine  medicine   that too in prescribed quantity. Also, no evidence as to allegation against mental torture, abuse, humiliation has been provided which clearly narrates fabricated story in the Petition.

9.  That the contents of Para No.9 of the Petition are completely denied on the ground of false to an extent. That nothing sort of

 

such an incident ever took place on the date provided i.e. 15.0.2017. In fact, all the mentioned relatives of the Petitioner use to stay around the Petitioner’s home and use to visit frequently.  frequently.  10.  That the contents of para No.10 of the Petition are denied on the ground of being false and misrepresented to an extent that in fact it was the mother of the Petitioner who picked up the quarrel and was beating the Respondent No.1 and in out of self defense Respondent No.1 had no other other option but to push h her er away. No use of stick or any head injury took place, neither any medical evidence (MLC) has been provided for the same. Thus entire allegations leveled are false and fabricated.

11.  That the contents of Para No.11 of the Petition are denied on the ground of false and misrepresented and needs no comments regarding the same.

12.  That the contents of Para No. 12 of the petition are partially p artially denied and partially accepted as the true facts have been concealed and that the facts have been presented in a twisted and concocted manner by the Petitioner as per his own convenience. That it is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent No.1 did get married to Respondent No.2 Mr. Kapil Chauhan R/o Khora Colony, Ghaziabad, U.P on 24.05.2010 before the Hon’ble SDM, Geeta Colony, New Delhi. That it is further to bring in notice that during Respondent’s No.1 graduation days, Respondent No.1 fell in love with Respondent No.2 and at his behest, both of them got married and decided to tell their families once they start working. The

 

marriage was duly consummated but still both of them were staying separately at their respective homes. That the family of the Respondent No.1 started pressurizing her to get married after her graduation and when the same was told to Respondent No.2 the Respondent No.2 stated that” My family will not agree at all and there can be a threat to you and your family as well, thus I would suggest you to forget me and look forward to life ”. ”. That to the utter shock Respondent No. 2 literally stopped all the conversation with the Respondent No. 1 and out of name shame and fear Respondent No.1 could not tell the same to her own family. That the Respondent No.1 also thought that if her husband is not accepting her at this point of time it is better to move on in life. Meanwhile, the family of the Respondent No.1 arranged a suitable groom who was the Petitioner and decided to get them engaged in the year 2011. That it is pertinent to mention here that before the engagement the Respondent No.1 started talking to the Petitioner and explicitly told him the truth that Respondent No.1 already had been married to Respondent No.2 and that the marriage is still not be annulled. The Petitioner after hearing this; claimed to have developed respect for the Respondent No. 1 and told her not to worry. In fact, the Petitioner has also contacted Respondent No.2 and forced him to meet in person. The three of them met before engagement and decided that no such relation will continue in future, now that the Petitioner and Respondents No.1 are going to get married. Despite several requests and reminders by the Respondent No.1 that to dissolve the marriage and wanted to take divorce by mutual consent on papers to the Petitioner, no heed

 

was paid. The Petitioner told consistently that as no one knows about this, there is no point to proceed with it. Thus the accusation made by the Petitioner in the Petition that information regarding the first marriage of the Respondents No.1 was obtained by him through “reliable source” is a complete fabrication of facts and instead it was the Respondents No.1 herself told with utmost honesty before starting a new relationship about previous marriage. Such a suppression of material facts before the court of law shows mala-fide on the part of the Petitioner. Also accusation by the Petitioner that the Respondents No.1 forced her to purchase a flat in her name is a sheer lie and no evidence regarding the same has been presented. That the statement regarding the Respondent No.1 was already married to Respondent No.2 is admitted but it is pertinent to mention here that it was already in the knowledge of the Petitioner and the First Divorce Petition filed by the Petitioner was only the trick of the Petitioner to bring this case at such a point. Such a hatching of conspiracy can easily be inferred the mala-fide intention on the part of the Petitioner. That it is totally admitted that Respondent No.1 was married to Respondent No.2 at the time of second marriage. It is also admitted that the second marriage is not recognized before the eye of law even though it has been performed according to Hindu Marriage Act. But then the question arises whether this marriage or the said relationship is nothing before eye of law. That the Respondent No.1 and Petitioner had lived in a domestic do mestic relationship and shared household for almost a period of seven years. Though

 

this relationship cannot be counted as marriage; but it is a relationship in the nature of marriage which is recognized by The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 under Section 2(f). That the second marriage between Respondent No.1 and Petitioner is not not recognized marriage marriage but it is a live-in relationship. relationship.

han n The Apex Court of India; in the case of  Mada  Madan M oha  Singh  Si ngh v. Rajni Kant (2010) 9 SCC 209  209 

held that:-

the live-in

“

relationship if continued for long time, cannot be termed as a “walk -in -in and walk-out” walk-out” relationship and that there is a presumption of marriage between the parties.

 

”

13.  That the contents of para No.13 of the petition are denied on the ground of being false and misrepresented to mislead the t he Hon’ble Court. The Respondents No.1 never made any type of remarks on Petitioner’s family.  family.  14.  That the contents of para No.14 of the petition are denied on the ground of being false and misrepresented and needs no comments regarding the same.

15.  That the contents of para No.15 of the petition are denied on the ground of being false and misrepresented. The allegations leveled against the Respondent No.1 having schizophrenic are serious and derogatory in nature. The Respondent No.1 has never shown any medical history of the same neither any medical evidence has been produced for the same hence these allegations are baseless and holds no merit.

 

  16.  That the contents of para No.16 of the petition are denied on the ground of being false and sheer lie. The Respondent No.1 has always been a dutiful wife and has never denied any physical relationship with the husband. However the unnatural demands by husband to satisfy his lust by demanding anal sex and to film private moments were vehemently denied by the Respondent No.1. No.1 .

17.  That the contents of Para No. 17 of the petition are denied on the ground of being false and misrepresented and are fully twisted by the Petitioner. That it is to bring into the notice of this Hon’ble Court that the allegat allegation ion leveled a against gainst the R Respondent espondent No.1 that the Respondent No.1 developed an illicit relationship with one Mr. Himanshu is complete lie and a fabricated goof up to cover the own wrongs of Petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that Mr. Himanshu, his wife Smt. Shelly, the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 were family friends and had known each other since the year 2016. That Mr. Himasnhu was involved in “bitcoin” business for which some initial money to increase the business was required. At the behest of Mr. Himanshu to become the business partners The Petitioner decided to invest Rs. 1,00,000/- so as to make profit from the same. An amount of Rs. 1 lakh was given to Mr. Himanshu both through Atm transaction along with cash wherein he promised to return 1,50,000 Rs within the period of 2 months. Money was given to Mr. Himanshu in October 2017 and even after lapsing of 4 months when the money was not provided back to the Petitioner, a quarrel took place between the Petitioner and Mr.

 

Himanshu. In fact, the petitioner kept forcing the Respondent No.1 to talk sweetly to Mr. Himanshu so as to take their money back. The Petitioner even went to the extent of using Respondent No.1 whatsapp, facebook to honey trap Mr. Himanshu and many of the whatsapp and phone calls were mostly done till the third week of March 2018. When all the hopes failed Petitioner and Respondent No.1 had a terrible fight with Mr. Himanshu and then the Petitioner hatched a plan to call upon this person at metro station so as to meet and settle scores. The Petitioner kept the phone of Respondent No.1 ever since the month of March 2018 and used to chat by misrepresenting himself as Respondent No.1. The Petitioner tried to woo Mr. Himanshu and called him to meet the Respondent No.1 (which he was himself) at metro station around 11:30 PM on 17.03.2018 on the pretext that Respondent No.1 is alone and wants to meet him at night as Respondent No.1 is all alone. The Respondent No.1 was clearly unaware as to any such happenings or that her phone was used for this purpose. On the said date at night the Petitioner called upon his two friends namely Mr. Ravi and one Mr. Sunny Tomar, who knew of such a plan and reached at their home. Then the Petitioner told the Respondent No.1 wife to come along with her for a walk along with their friends and as per plan reached the said place where Mr. Himanshu was beaten black and blue to the extent that he got paralyzed and in such a state he was left bleeding mid-night at the road. The Respondent No.1 got scared to her death and tried stopping the Petitioner along with his friends to stop such a ruckus at Road and midway and also received some bruises. After that so as to avoid

 

getting caught, the Petitioner started enacting a drama and told to Respondent No.1 to save him from going behind the bars. The Petitioner took the Respondent No.1 to “Ambey hospital” located at Sahibabad, Uttar Pradesh and got MLC done so as to show for any future mishap that in case the police catches them, they may show and misguide the Police that Mr. Himanshu was beating Respondent No.1 and all th this is happen tto o save Res Respondent pondent No.1. It is pertinent to mention here that the wife of Mr. Himanshu and the Respondent No.1 were very good friends and they use to visit each other’s home since past few months. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent’s No.1 mobile was in possession of the Petitioner before the described incident and still the mobile is in possession of the Petitioner. Later the Petitioner deliberately threatened the Respondent No.1 to sign a false affidavit dated 05.04.2018 by saying that if Respondent No.1 will not sign on the false affidavit both of them (Petitioner & Respondent No.1) would end up behind the bars. Respondent No.1 to save her matrimonial life and for the sake of her child signed the affidavit before Notary Officer. Little did the Respondent wife know that all of this will be used against her to incriminate her so as to cut all the chords from her in future. Thus the accusation made by the Petitioner in the Petition that Respondent No.1 had other relationship outside the marriage and the said ‘affidavit’ is a complete fabrication of facts and instead it was forged and coerced by the Petitioner himself. It is pertinent to mention here that the Petitioner has been a notorious person with a criminal background and has served in

 

Dasna Jail, Uttar Pradesh for a month way back in the year 2010 which was also concealed by Petitioner’s family before getting married.  Also the allegati allegation on that the Respondent No.1 denied any sort of physical relationship with the Petitioner is a sheer lie. They have made multiple tours outside Delhi to Goa, Rajasthan last one being in August 2018 and has been continuously in physical relationship with each other.

18.  That the contents of Para No.18 of the petition are admitted to the some extent. It is noteworthy to mention here that the Respondent No.1 informed the petitioner way before their marriage about her first marriage and asked to get it annulled.

19.  That the contents of Para No.19 of the petition are not admitted and denied on the ground of the false, concocted and being a lie.

20.  That the contents of Para No.20 of the petition are denied on the ground of being frivolous, concocted and nothing but a bunch of lies created so as to set a ground for divorce so as to cover his own wrongdoings. 21.  That the contents of Para No.21 of the petition are denied on the ground of being false and misrepresented and needs no comments regarding the same.

 

22.  That the contents of Para No.22 of the petition are denied on the ground of being false and misrepresented and needs no comments regarding the same.

23.  That the contents of Para No.23 of the petition are denied on the ground of being false and misrepresented and needs no comments regarding the same.

24.  That the contents of para No.24 to Para No. 30 of the Pet Petition ition needs no reply being a matter of record.

Prayer

Filed by Respondent

Through Eunomia Law Associates LLP Counsel for the Petitioner E-23, LGF, Mandir Marg, Janagpura Extension, New Delhi-110014

 

8800948797

Place: Dated:

New Delhi .11.2019