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 with altogether false and
concocted stories and the petitioner 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 by the petitioner brought
adverse impact on respondents health and
the respondent lost his working strength and
positive thinking due to depression. The
petitioner is trying to take 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 the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
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 has started harassing the
answering respondent in various ways 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 the respondent at her own 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 additional pleas and submissions
mentioned under separate 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 1 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 that marriage between the

petitioner and respondent was performed at

Maszid Fateh Puri,Chandni Chowk , New Delhi-

11006. Since, the respondent belonged to a

different religion i.e.Hindu and 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 marriage to respondent without

disclosing the very fact of her previous

marriage and three children from said wedlock

thus, concealing the facts of previous

marriage and children are made 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 2 of the

petition are wrong and denied. 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 that the marriage was

solemnized in a very simple way without

exchange of any gifts and dowry articles.

3. That the contents of para 3 of the

petition are wrong and denied. It is denied

that when the complainant 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 dowry given in the marriage and

started saying that the dowry given in the

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 4 of the

petition are wrong and denied. It is denied

that the mother in law of 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 and one Alto Car for her parent in

dowry.
5. That the contents of para 5 of the

petition are wrong and denied. 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 Car in dowry otherwise the

complainant will not remain in their house.

6. That the contents of para 6 of the

petition are wrong and denied. 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 7 of the

petition are wrong and denied. It is denied

that when the complainant opposed their

behaviour towards her and dowry 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 8 of the

petition are wrong and denied. It is denied in

few days in the matrimonial home they all made

her life a hell.

9. That the contents of para 9 of the

petition are wrong and denied. It is denied

that on 15.12.2008, when the father of the

complainant along with few persons came to

bring the complainant to her parental home

after marriage. It is denied that the

complainant told her father regarding this

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

It is denied that the father discussed the

matter with Rajpal and the husband of 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 10 of the

petition are wrong and denied. 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 11 of the

petition are wrong and denied. 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 12 of the

petition are wrong and denied. 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 13 of the

petition are wrong and denied. 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 14 of the

petition are wrong and denied. 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 15 of the

petition are wrong and denied. It is denied

that the respondent has no 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 petition of the

petitioners are liable to be dismissed with

exemplary costs.

DELHI: RESPONDENT
DATED:18.08.2010

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 contents of para 1 of the

application are partly admitted and partly

wrong and denied. It is denied that the

petitioner has no source of income and is

unable to earn her livelihood and to

maintainable herself. It is denied that

petitioner has no moveable and immoveable

property or income to maintain herself.

2. That the contents of para 2 of the

application are admitted.

3. That the contents of para 3 of the

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: RESPONDENT
DATED:18.08.2010

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

AFFIDAVIT

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

R/o Village Bhabhisha, Tehsil Budhana,
Distt. Muzaffar Nagar (U.P.) 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