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 giving reply parawise to the abovementioned

petition, the replying respondent wants 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 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 and despite request made by

 respondent, 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. Prior to filing of the complaint

before CAW Cell, 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, contents, contentions, allegations and

assertions, hence the present petition is 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 are

wrong, baseless, hence denied as alleged. 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, only

some persons were attended the said marriage and no

such alleged amount was ever spent.

5. That the contents of para 5 of the present petition are

wrong, baseless, hence denied as alleged. 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. It is

specifically wrong and denied that parental 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 despite repeated requests of the

respondent. 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 and after the marriage, she did not try to

understand 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 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.

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 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 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 and despite request made by

respondent, 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 R-

82, 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 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 R-

82, 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