IN THE COURT OF SH.

NOROTTAM KAUSHAL, PRINCIPAL

JUDGE DISTT.FAMILY COURT, NORTH-WEST, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
MAINTENANCE PETITION NO.______/2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
SMT.SHAHEEN PARVEEN

PETITIONER
VERSUS

SHAKEEL @ GAURAV

RESPONDENT

REPLY BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TO THE PETITION UNDER SECTION 125 Cr.P.C.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:
1. That the petition is not maintainable also
in view of the facts that the petitioner is
gainfully employed and the respondent is
totally unemployed and leading hand to mouth
life.
2. That the petition deserves dismissal as
the petitioner has concealed the real facts,
which malafidely motives.
3. That the petition is debarred any cause of
action and has been filed with malafide
motive and on the basis of concocted facts
and story.
4. That the petition of the petitioner is
based

on

altogether

false,

baseless

and

concocted allegations and the petitioner has

come

forward

concocted

with

stories

altogether
and

the

false

petitioner

and
is

guilty of misrepresentation and suppression

of true facts and as such the petition is
liable to be dismissed.

5.

That

the

petitioner

herself

is

guilty

and treated the respondent with cruelty and

caused

mental

tension

and

torture

to

the

answering respondent disclosing her children

and previous marriage after 3 to 4 months of
getting . The cruel treatment meted out to
the

respondent

adverse

impact

by
on

the

petitioner

respondents

brought

health

and

the respondent lost his working strength and

positive

thinking

petitioner

is

due

to

trying

depression.
to

take

The

undue

advantages of her own wrongs and as such the

petition is liable to be dismissed.
6.That the petition filed by the petitioner
in

the

present

form

is

legally

not

maintainable in as much as the same is not

in accordance with personal law as such
the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7.

That

petition

is

absolutely

vague

and

ambiguous and lacks particulars and events.

The

petition

has

been

drafted

by

taking

false and frivolous pleas and as such the

petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. That the petition is an abuse of process
of law. The motive behind the filing of the
petition

is

that

the

petitioner

and

her

relatives want to put undue pressure upon

the respondent to extort money from him and
as

such

dismissed.

the

petition

is

liable

to

be

9.That

the

answering

respondent

has

never

turned out her from the house. The petitioner

has

herself

left

the

company

of

the

respondent, in fact she was so hostile and

abusive in nature that no prudent man can
expect such behavior from his wife.
10.That it is pertinent to mention here that
the

petitioner

answering

has

respondent

started
in

harassing

various

ways

the
by

abusing in filthy language, and by other ways

of torture when the petitioner made false
complaints with CAW cell (North).
11.That the petitioner has not come to the
court with clean hands and suppressed the
true facts before this Honble Court, hence
the present petition/application is liable
to be dismissed.
12.That the petitioner has been a qualified
beautition, earning a handsome amount has no
locus standi to file the present petition
because she was having animus dessrendi since
the day when her truth of previous marriage
and having children from said marriage came
to knowledge of answering respondent, thus
concealment

of

her

previous

marriage

and

children there from makes her liable to be

prosecuted in criminal court of law. She also
committed

series

of

cruelties

towards

the

respondents without any legal justification.

12. That no cause of action ever accrued in

the favor of the petitioner and against the
Respondent,

hence

the

present

petition/application is not maintainable and

is liable to be dismissed with cost.
13. That the petitioner has

left the company

of

own

the

respondent

at

her

for

wrongs

committed by her towards respondent.

14.

The

contents

of

each

and

every

preliminary objection may kindly be read as

reply to each of the para on merits, who so
ever, it is relevant.
REPLY ON MERITS CUM FACTUAL SUBMISSIONS :
That the answering respondent craves the
leave of this court that the contents of
the

addional

pleas

and

submissions

mentioned under seprate heading also be

read as part and parcel to this reply on
merits

cum

factual

submissions

as

the

same are not being repeated for sake of

brevity.
REPLY ON MERITS:
1. That the contents

of

para

of

the

petition are not admitted to the extent that

marriage

was

solemnized

according

to

Muslim

rites and ceremonies at Tis Hazari Courts. It

is

submitted

petitioner

and

that

marriage

respondent

was

between
performed

Maszid Fateh Puri,Chandni Chowk , New

the
at

Delhi-

11006.

Since,

different

the

respondent

religion

belonged

i.e.Hindu

and

to

the

petitioner came to contact of respondent in the

year ,2014 when she opened a beauty parlour
near in the vicinity of respondent and after
getting

interaction

at

several

occasions

decided to marry with each other she offered a

proposal

for

disclosing

marriage

the

very

to

respondent

fact

of

her

without
previous

marriage and three children from said wedlock

thus,

concealing

the

facts

of

marriage and children are made

previous

and both the

parties belong to low strata of society where

the concept of exchange of dowry articles are
very big thing.

2.

That

the

contents

of

para

petition are wrong and denied.

of

the

It is denied

that the marriage was solemnized with dignity

and good dowry was presented.

It is denied

that marriage party was also given good feast.

It

is

submitted

solemnized

in

that
very

the
simple

marriage
way

was

without

exchange of any gifts and dowry articles.

3.

That

the

contents

of

para

petition are wrong and denied.

that

when

the

complainant

of

the

It is denied

reached

at

the

matrimonial home after marriage, the husband

Harinder Singh, mother-in-law Ombiri and Rajpal
Singh

and

Raju,

who

is

the

brother

of

the

father-in-law of the complainant were not happy

with

the

started

dowry

saying

given
that

in

the

the

dowry

marriage

and

given

the

in

marriage is not according to their status and

their prestige has been lowered in the society
from this marriage.

4.

That

the

contents

of

para

petition are wrong and denied.

that

the

mother

in

law

of

of

the

It is denied

the

complainant

started saying that good proposal of marriage

were coming for many places for her son they
would

have

given

good

dowry,

but

in

this

marriage they have not got the dowry as per

their expectations and started demanding and
pressurisng the complainant to bring one lac of
rupees
dowry.

and

one

Alto

Car

for

her

parent

in

5.

That

the

contents

of

para

petition are wrong and denied.

of

the

It is denied

that Shri Rajpal Singh, who is the brother of

the father-in-law of the complainant is also
unmarried and residing jointly with the family
of her husband also started saying that the
family of the complainant is not according to
their

status

and

the

complainant

should

immediately bring at least rupees of one lac

and

one

Alto

complainant

6.

That

Car

in

dowry

otherwise

the

will not remain in their house.

the

contents

of

para

petition are wrong and denied.

of

the

It is denied

that all the family members of the husband of

the

complainant

started

discarding

and

insulting the complainant and even did not give

sufficient food to her and was not given love
and affection to the complainant as is required
for a newly wedded bride.

7.

That

the

contents

of

para

petition are wrong and denied.

that

when

behaviour

the
towards

complainant
her

and

of

the

It is denied
opposed

dowry

their

demand

the

husband

of

the

complainant

gave

her

severe

beatings with fist and legs and the mother in

law Ombiri and Rajpal Singh were also standing
besides and this beatings by her husband was
gong on at the instance of them.

8.

That

the

contents

of

para

petition are wrong and denied.

of

the

It is denied in

few days in the matrimonial home they all made

her life a hell.

9.

That

the

contents

of

para

petition are wrong and denied.

that

on

15.12.2008,

complainant

along

bring

the

after

marriage.

when

with

complainant

complainant

told

few
to

It
her

the

of

persons

of

the

came

parental

denied

father

the

It is denied
father

her

is

that

regarding

to

home
the
this

dowry demand of Rs.1,00,000/- and one Alto Car.

It

is

matter

denied
with

that
Rajpal

the
and

father
the

discussed

husband

of

the
the

complainant and told them that he has already

given much in dowry and now he cannot give this
additional dowry as demanded by them.

10. That

the

contents

of

para

petition are wrong and denied.

10

of

the

It is denied

that on hearing this the husband and his above

family members lost their temper and insulted
with

him clearly told that you may carry your

daughter immediately and she can stay in her

matrimonial home only if Rs.1,00,000/- and one
Alto Car is given to them.

It is denied that

they did not provide food to her father and the

people, who had come with him.

11. That

the

contents

of

para

petition are wrong and denied.

11

of

the

It is denied

that the complainant was thrown out from her

matrimonial home in three wearing clothes and
retained all the dowry articles and istridhan.

12. That

the

contents

of

para

petition are wrong and denied.

12

of

the

It is submitted

that the complainant is a gainfully employed

being the literate lady and is leading very
decent life at Delhi as she has no liability to
carry on.

13. That

the

contents

of

para

petition are wrong and denied.

13

of

the

It is wrong and

denied that the respondent is a man of means

and he owns 30 bighas of land in his native
village and earn Rs.20,000/- per month. It is
submitted that the respondent is leading hand
to mouth life as he does not have any property
in his name and he is not in employment on
regular basis and is also not capable of doing
the manual work on daily wages.

He some how

manages to eke out his livelihood and out of

that has to maintain and to look his old aged
parents.

14. That

the

contents

of

para

petition are wrong and denied.

14

of

the

It is denied

that the respondent has deserted and neglected

the complainant and has refused to maintain the
complainant.

It

is

submitted

that

the

complainant, who is tuned to the cosmopolitan

amenities is not able to adjust to the native
village of the respondent and for the same the
respondent is not at all responsible as he is
cooperating much with her, but despite that the
complainant did not make effort to adjust for

leading

her

life

in

accordance

with

the

prevailing social custom and mores.

15. That

the

contents

of

para

petition are wrong and denied.

that

the

respondent

has

no

15

of

the

It is denied

other

liability

except to maintain the complainant.

16. That

the

contents

of

para

16

of

the

petition are legal.

The prayer clause of the petition is wrong

and

denied

in

toto.

The

petitioners

are

liable

to

petition
be

of

dismissed

the
with

exemplary costs.

DELHI:
DATED:18.08.2010

RESPONDENT
THROUGH
JAYKANT PRASAD
ADVOCATE
SEAT NO.80, CIVIL WING,
TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI-110054

IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNAINA SHARMA, M.M.,

DISTT. EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
MAINTENANCE PETITION NO.______/2009
IN THE MATTER OF:
SMT.

NEHA

PETITIONER
VERSUS

SH. HARINDER SINGH

RESPONDENT

REPLY ON AND BEHALF OF RESPONDENT TO THE

APPLICATION FOR AD-INTERIM ON BEHALF OF
THE PETITIONER.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1.

That

the

application
wrong

and

are

partly

denied.

petitioner
unable

contents

has

to

earn

maintainable
petitioner

no

It

her

no

para

admitted
is

source

herself.
has

of

1
and

denied
of

of

income

moveable

is
and

partly

that

livelihood
It

the

the

and
and

denied

is
to

that

immoveable

property or income to maintain herself.

2.

That

the

application

3.

That

contents

of

para

of

the

of

para

of

the

are admitted.

the

contents

application are wrong and denied.

It is denied

that the applicant require a sum of Rs.5,000/p.m. for her interim maintenance allowance for
her maintenance and hence seeks an order from
this Honble Court as prayed for in the main
petition.

4.

The contents of para 4 of the application

are matter of record and the contents of the

reply to the said petition may kindly be read
as part and parcel of this application, which
are

not

reproduced

herein

for

the

sake

of

brevity.

The prayer clause of the application is

wrong and denied in toto. The application of
the petitioners are liable to be dismissed with
exemplary costs.

DELHI:
DATED:18.08.2010

RESPONDENT
THROUGH
JAYKANT PRASAD
ADVOCATE
SEAT NO.80, CIVIL WING,
TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI-110054

IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNAINA SHARMA, M.M.,

DISTT. EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
MAINTENANCE PETITION NO.______/2009
IN THE MATTER OF:
SMT.

NEHA

PETITIONER

SH. HARINDER SINGH

VERSUS

RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT
I, Harinder Singh, S/o Sh. Jender Singh,
R/o

Village

Distt.

Bhabhisha,

Muzaffar

Nagar

Tehsil

(U.P.)

Budhana,

presently

at

Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as

under:1.

That the deponent is the respondent in the

above noted case and is well conversant with

the facts of the case and is competent to swear
this affidavit.
2.

That

the

contents

of

the

accompanying

reply to the petition under Section 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 and I have
understood the same and are not repeated herein
for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this 18th day of the
August, 2010 that the contents of the above
affidavit are true to my knowledge and no part
of it is false and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT