IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY

COURT, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI

Maintenance petition no. _____/2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

MONIKA SHARMA & ANR ...PETITIONERS

VERSUS
DEEPAK SHARMA ...RESPONDENT

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT TO

THE MAINTENANCE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
UNDER SECTION 125 CR.P.C.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

That the contents of the petition under reply are wrong and denied
unless and until specifically admitted to be true and correct. Anything
contrary to stated herein is deemed to be wrong and denied.

Before setting out the reply on merits, the respondents seek the leave
of this Hon’ble Court to raise the following preliminary objections,
which are prejudice to each other :-

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:-

1. That the petition is bad in eyes of law and not maintainable as the
same is against real facts and circumstances of the case. Hence the
petition is liable to be dismissed.There are no specific allegations in
regard to their overt-act for maltreatment and harassment of the
Petitioner. The allegations are vague in nature and liable to be proven
by the Petitioner.
2. That the Petitioners have filed the present petition without having
sufficient cause or reason for demanding maintenance from the
respondents. The Supreme Court, in Preeti Gupta and another v.
State of Jharkhand and another (Criminal Appeal No. 1512/ 2010),
observed that “Exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be
 reflected in the criminal petitions. The allegations in the petition
should be scrutinized with great care and circumspection especially
against the husband’s relatives.” The social fibre of family life must
not be ruined or demolished due to institution of false
allegations/cases.
3. That the Petitioners have not come to this Hon’ble Court with clean
hands and has suppressed the true facts and filed the present petition
on the basis of false and fabricated allegations. The Apex Court, in
State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal (1999 SCC (Crl) 426, held that
“Where the allegations made in the petition are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can
ever reach a just a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused the proceedings are liable to be
quashed.”
4. That the present petition under reply is not maintainable as petitioner
no. 1 has deliberately concealed the material and vital facts from this
Hon’ble court and the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically opined
that any party that conceals facts from the court can be sent away
unheard.

REPLY ON MERITS:-

1. That the contents of Para No. 1 of the petition are partly admitted to
the extent that the marriage was solemnised on 12.11.2009 at the
native place of Petitioner at Masjid Moti Delhi according to Hindu
rites and customs. Rest of the para under reply is wrong and it is
denied that the marriage of the parties was solemnised with dowry
because of compulsion of Groom’s side and father of the petitioner
spent huge amount of money in the marriage.
2. That the contents of Para No. 2 are false and denied as the entire
allegation of torturing, taunting and harassing is based on false
grounds. On the contrary it is submitted that since the solemnisation of
the marriage, Petitioner No. 1 was given full love and affection and
she is always treated as a daughter of the family.
3. That the contents of Para No. 3 are vehemently denied as the entire
allegation of violence after intoxication is misconceived and
afterthought and has no iota of truth.
4. That the contents of Para No. 4 including that since the beginning
there were continuous demands for dowry are wrong and denied.
5. That the contents of Para No. 5 that the respondent started demanding
dowry from the Petitioner and when his demands were not fulfilled,
harassed the Petitioner and threatened divorce are wrong and denied.
6. That the contents of Para No. 6 are false and denied. It is further
specifically denied that the late father-in-law, mother-in-law and
sister-in-law of the Petitioner pressurised her to leave the matrimonial
home and further taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry. It is
further specifically denied that the sister-in-law was actively involved
in mental harassment.
7. That the contents of Para No. 7 that the Respondent physically
assaulted the Petitioner and did not take her to the doctor are
vehemently denied. It is humbly submitted that the Respondent never
abused the petitioner physically.
8. That the contents of Para No. 8 are false, misconceived and has no iota
of truth. It is humbly submitted that the miscarriage was a deliberate
action taken by the Petitioner along with the help of her sister which
was itself brought in the knowledge of the Respondent after 2 months.
Furthermore, the Respondent had no role to play in it.
9. That the contents of the Para No. 9 are completely false and denied. It
is specifically denied that her mother-in-law used to threaten her that
she will remarry the Respondent to someone suitable and who would
get more dowry. It is further denied that the family of the Respondent
used to mentally and physically torture the petitioner.
10. That the contents of Para No. 10 are completely false and denied. It is
specifically denied that the Petitioner became pale and weak and
feared her life owing to the alleged misconduct of the respondent.
11. That the contents of Para No. 11 are wrong and denied. On the
contrary it is respectfully submitted here that the contents of the
foregoing paras maybe read as a part and parcel of the corresponding
para and the contents of the same are not repeated herein for the sake
of brevity.
12. That the contents of the Para No. 12 that the Respondent did not
maintain the Petitioner are false and denied. On the contrary, it is
humbly submitted that the Respondent provided Rs. 10,000 in cash to
the Petitioner every month in addition to various bank transactions for
 the purpose of fulfilling basic domestic needs. Copy of the Deposit
slips of last few months is annexed herewith as (Annexure A) for
kind perusal of this court.
13. That the contents of Para No. 13 are false and denied. It is humbly
submitted that the Petitioner did not perform all domestic works and
the Respondent had maids for all such tasks. It is further denied that
the Respondent did not inflict any atrocities or cruelties upon the
Petitioner.
14. That the contents of Para No. 14 are false and denied. It is humbly
submitted that the respondent were not trying to get rid of the
Petitioner.
15. That the contents of Para No. 15 are partly accepted to the extent of
the demise of the Respondent’s father. The rest is denied.
16. That the contents of Para No. 16 are a matter of record.
17. That the contents of Para No. 17 that the respondent under the
influence of his mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the Petitioner used
to beat and torture her are vehemently denied.
18. That the contents of Para No. 18 are false and denied. It is specifically
denied that the sister in law taunted and tortured her. That food and
clothes were not given to the Petitioner is vehemently denied. It is
further submitted that the entire jewellery and valuables of the
Petitioner are already in possession of the parents of Petitioner.
19. That the contents of the Para No. 19 are completely false and denied.
On the contrary it is submitted that the Respondent took complete care
of the Petitioner during her pregnancy. He also provided her with
medicines and took the Petitioner for regular health check-ups.
20. That the contents of Para No. 20 are denied in its entirety. The facts
are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
21. The contents of Para No. 21 are based on false allegations and denied.
22. The contents of Para No. 22 are based on false allegations and denied.
23. The contents of Para No. 23 are false and denied.
24. The contents of Para No. 24 are false and denied. On the contrary, the
Petitioner had amount of money received as maintenance from the
Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent also provided her with
basic necessities.
25. That the contents of Para No. 25 are false and denied.
26. That the contents of Para No. of 26 are a matter of fact and not
disputed.
27. That the contents of Para No. 27 that a hospital expense of Rs.
1,00,000 was demanded to be borne by the Petitioner’s parents are
false and denied. On the contrary, it is humbly submitted that the total
medical expense was not Rs. 1, 00,000. Furthermore, the Respondent
bore all such expenses.
28. That the contents of Para no. 28 are falsely fabricated and are
vehemently denied.
29. That the contents of Para no. 29 are falsely fabricated and are
vehemently denied. On the contrary, the Petitioners were well taken
care of and provided all necessities.
30. That the contents of Para No. 30 that the Respondent threatened the
Petitioner about his re-marriage with a girl namely Jyoti Gulia is false
and denied. On the contrary, the Respondent celebrated special
occasions with the Petitioner and also accompanied her to marriages
as her husband.
31. That the contents of Para No. 31 about the threats to Petitioner for
emptying the 2nd floor, or disconnecting water and electricity is false.
Such baseless allegations are vehemently denied.
32. That the contents of Para No. 32 are denied.
33. That the contents of Para No. 33 are false and denied.
34. That the contents of Para No. 34 are false and denied. The Respondent
earns mere Rs. 21,000 after deduction of all necessary amounts from
the real income of Rs. 35,000. The petitioner should be put under strict
burden of proof for proving her allegation. The Respondent is not a
recipient of any income apart from his salary.
35. That the contents of Para 35 need no reply as they are a matter of law
and record.
36. That the contents of Para 36 are vehemently denied.
37. That the contents of Para 37 is a matter of record and is not disputed.
38. That the contents of Para 38 are false and denied to the extent of
failure of Respondent to maintain the Petitioners. The Respondent
provides the Petitioner with enough money to sustain and fulfil her
basic needs. The petition is vague and is liable to be dismissed.
 PRAYER

It is therefore, most respectfully, prayed before this Hon’ble Court that in

view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the present matter
this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the present petition against
the Petitioner and in favour of the respondent.

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in
view of the abovementioned facts and circumstances of the present matter.

Prayed accordingly,

RESPONDENT
THROUGH
PLACE: NEW DELHI
DATED Counsel for Respondent
WESTERN LEGAL (INDIA)LLP
CHAMBER 4-A
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI-01

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Delhi on the __________ that the contents of above

paragraphs in the above application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and noting material has been concealed
therefrom.

DEPONENT