You are on page 1of 14

IN THE COURT OF MS.KIRAN BANSAL: M.P.-1584/03/07 IN THE MATTER OF: SMT. ANITA KANDARI NEGI & ANR.

VERSUS SH. SUNIL SINGH NEGI

M.M., DELHI.

...PETITIONER

...RESPONDENT

REPLY OF THE APPLICATION U/S 125 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE AS AMENDED UPTO DATE. MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: PRELIMINARY OBJETIONS: 1. That a the present lady. application Admittedly, is the not maintainable is and is in

liable to be dismissed for the reason that the respondent is working respondent working Bureau Of Legislative Studies, Old Secretariat, Delhi and is earning a handsome salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. The bank Account No.14536 in Dena Bank is a conclusive proof for the earnings of the respondent. On the other hand the petitioner is earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- approx. per month and has many liabilities including an un-married sister and an old aged father to maintain besides pursuing his studies. The salary slip of the respondent is being placed on record for kind perusal of this Honble Court. 2. That the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected as the same has been filed after manipulating the things. It is submitted that the applicant has also filed an application under Section 24 of HMA claiming maintenance and litigation expenses wherein she initially accepted the fact that she was an earning lady but later on amended the application U/s.24 of H.M.A. malafidely after manipulating the things in the office with the help of her father who is P.A. to Vidhan Sabha Speaker (Gazetted Officer) and is posted

in the same department/office. The relevant portion of the application filed by the petitioner is being reproduced herein for kind perusal of this Honble court : That the applicant was earlier working in Bureau of Legislative Studies, Old Secretariat, Delhi, a society on contract basis. But due to her pregnancy she stopped going there and consequently vide letter dated 1.2.2007 said authority terminated her services. It clearly indicates that the petitioner is well in a

position to earn her livelihood and the job was left because of her own convenience as she was pregnant and was needed rest and therefore, the applicant is capable of joining the same service or equivalent service again as the child took birth on 11.2.2007 and is more than one year old. As per the averments made by the petitioner, she is living with her parents and therefore, even the child can be taken care of by his grand parents and other relatives. As a matter of fact the petitioner has actually started working with the same office and is manipulating the records just in order to claim maintenance and harass the respondent. 3. That the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected for the reason that the petitioner has preferred to refuse the company of the respondent and deliberately left the matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance from the respondent as per provision of law. Even a false complaint filed by the petitioner in C.A.W. cell in order to harass the respondent and his family members, was later on withdrawn when the respondent from and the his family it members of law to were and prove granted the the protection allegations. The copy of the birth certificate is being placed on record. The copy of the application U/s.24 of H.M.A. is being placed on record for kind perusal of this Honble court. court

petitioner/complainant

found

difficult

4. That

the

present

application

is

not

maintainable

and

is

liable to be dismissed for the reason that the bio-data as provided by the respondent clearly discloses the fact that the respondent is a graduate from Delhi University holding diploma in Computer Applications and is having knowledge of English short-hand and is working in Bureau of Legislative Studies, Delhi Vidhan Sabha as Assistant where her father Shri S.S.Kandari is a Gazetted officer working there and therefore, the respondent is liable for perjury that she is not earning anything. By no stretch of imagination one can come to the conclusion that the petitioner is unable to earn, which is the main ingredient for granting relief to the petitioner as per section 125 of Cr.P.C. The fact has been cleverly and mischievously manipulated by the respondent. On the other hand the petitioner is earning a sum of Rs.6,000/per month only out of which the petitioner has to continue with his studies besides of Diploma in Autocad in Mechanical his younger engineering Uttranchal. 5. That the application is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected for the reason that the present application is nothing but gross abuse and misuse of process of law and shows the malafide of the petitioner who has preferred the present petition just in order to harass the respondent. REPLY ON MERITS: 1. Denied. It is denied that the applicants are dejected and neglected wife and son respectively of the respondent. It is submitted neglected matrimonial that the home the and petitioner of when the even No.1/wife respondent after has and willfully left effort the the company maintaining himself and

sister and is also providing maintenance to his parents at

various

petitioner No.1 did not return back to the matrimonial home, the aggrieved respondent filed a petition U/s.9 of H.M.A. in order to bring the petitioner No.1 back. It is submitted that the wife was pregnant and the respondent was taking proper care and was also providing the medical facility as per the

CGHS facility provided to the respondent but the petitioner No.1 did not care the emotions and effort of the respondent and deserted him without any rhyme or reason for the same. 2. Para no.2 needs no reply being matter of record. However, it submitted that even the information of child birth was not disclosed to the respondent and the respondent came to know about the birth of the petitioner No.2 only in the court when the petitioner No.1 filed an application U/s.24 of H.M.A. 3. Denied. It is denied that though the applicant no.1 married with the respondent adoring all ecstasy of marriage but her marriage ecstasy remained monetary and nipped into mud due to constant murmuring of respondents married and unmarried sisters Mrs.Anita Bisht, Mrs.Sunita Rawat and Miss Sumitra Negi for insufficient dowry despite the fact that the parents of applicant no.1 the No.1 gave it beyond of the their capacity. was such a It is submitted The that marriage had parties made simple

marriage and the sisters never made any demand, whatsoever. petitioner earlier also frivolous allegations and filed a complaint with C.A.W. cell but later on the complaint was withdrawn when the respondent and his family members were granted protection from the court of law and the petitioner/complainant found it difficult to prove the allegations. It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 and her no.1. 4. Denied. It is denied that the applicant no.1 remained in the company of respondent from 20.4.2006 to 14.6.2006 when she was left at her parents house by the respondent on the pretext that he is preparing for departmental examination or shall take her back after examination within two three days but that day never came or till date the applicant no.1 is living at the mercy and morsel of her parents. It is further denied that rather from the subsequent conduct of the respondent and his married and unmarried sisters it is now revealing that it was a mere excuse in order to get rid of the applicants with a pre planned conspiracy for oblique mother always passed sarcastic remarks against the respondent that he was earning lesser than the petitioner

motives. It is submitted that the petitioner no.1 left the matrimonial home on 10.5.2006 without informing the respondent and after that the petitioner no.1 and her family members started threatening the respondent to implicate him in false dowry cases in case he does not kick out his unmarried sister. Since the same was not possible for the reason that the sister is pursuing her studies at Delhi and the parents are living in Uttaranchal, the respondents house is the only shelter for her. On the other hand the respondent tried his best to bring back the petitioner no.1 to her matrimonial home but every time she refused to come back and join the company of the respondent. The respondent last time visited 2.10.2006 petitioner the parental his but house the of in family the order of petitioner to the bring no.1 back on the no.1 with no.1 father

petitioner

including her two brothers started humiliating and beating the respondent. When the respondent came back to his house, the two brothers even followed the respondent and went to the extent of beating the younger sister of the respondent and ransacked the house of the respondent for which the younger sister managed made by a complaint family to of the the police but the same was the petitioner no.1 being

influential persons of the locality and no action was taken by the police. 5. Denied. It is denied that on persistent calling the

respondent on 20.6.2006 all of sudden took the applicant no.1 to matrimonial home when she was returning from her work place and on reaching KABAR DAI there RAKHA started HAI humiliating MAA-BAAP her NAI by or throwing her ornaments and clothes on the bed saying that YAIHEE KURA TERE further giving filthy abuses to the applicant and her parents or thereafter left the applicant no.1 at 7.30 p.m. at the garage of applicant no.1s father. It is further denied that the unmarried sister of the respondent Miss Sumitra also sided with the respondent and also accused the applicant no.1 for bringing insufficient dowry. The entire allegations is a cooked up story just in order to take sham defence for not joining the matrimonial home by the petitioner no.1.

6. Denied. It is denied that on 14.6.2006 when the respondent left the applicant no.1 at her parents house she was under family way. It is further denied that the respondent did not bother even to know how about her, what to speak of making provision for her maintenance and living. It is also denied that all the expenses of applicant no.1 of her check up and other medical expenses including delivery are borne by the parents of applicant no.1. It is submitted that on later dates i.e. on 5.8.2006, 26.12.2006 and on other dates the entire treatment was provided by the respondent through C.G.H.S. Dispensary Timarpur for which the respondent used to meet the petitioner no.1 outside and used to take her to the dispensary. The respondent had even applied for permission letter for delivery of the child in Ram Manohar did not and filed Lohia give the an Hospital. was not However, intimated months the to respondents the parents

their consent for the same and even the delivery of the child respondent the malafidely no.1 respondent came to know about the birth of the child only after two when petitioner application U/s.24 of H.M.A. 7. Denied. It is denied that even after birth of the child neither the respondent nor any of his sister visited to wish the child despite information what to speak of either bringing them in the matrimonial home or making provisions for their sustenance. The contents of the preceding paras may also be read as reply to this para. 8. Denied. It is denied that during the course of medical check up the doctors required the Applicant no.1 to call respondent for VDRL test. It is further denied that after persistent requests the respondent agreed for it but required the applicant no.1 to come at his CGHS dispensary. It is also denied that the applicant no.1 even for the welfare of would be child agreed for it or on 5.8.2006 went there. It is further denied that CMO, CGHS Dispensary Timarpur, Delhi also suggested the parties for the VDRL test. It is further denied that the respondent promised that he would take permission from his department but not for said up check up from to the penal of hospital, turn thereafter, what speak

getting his VDRL test conducted and as such the parents of applicant no.1 was to get it done at their expenses. the respondent was getting the petitioner no.1 It is treated submitted that it was the doctor at C.G.H.S. Dispensary where advised for VDRL Test and it was the petitioner no.1 who refused for the test and said that she would follow the treatment and advise of her parents instead of doctors at C.G.H.S. Hospital. 9. Denied. It is denied that the respondent instead of taking the applicant no.1 to matrimonial home in order to cause her further mental pain and agony started getting made unwanted calls on her mobile act from of Mobile the No.919873975472 compelled and the 911202756260, which respondent

applicant no.1 to make a complaint with the local police on 1.8.2006. It is submitted that the respondent tried his best to bring back the petitioner no.1 to her matrimonial home and in this regard made certain calls in order to convince her for coming back and joining the matrimonial home. Certain calls were also no.1 made to by the respondent and the for taking the no.1 petitioner which the doctors the petitioner no.1 is

accompanied the respondent on various occasion to the doctor clearly and shows has that petitioner the living at the separately deserted respondent only

instance of her family members who unnecessarily interfered into the matrimonial life of the parties. 10. Denied. It is denied that when the respondent came to know

about filing of complaint, he alongwith his father came at the house of applicant no.1s parents on 2.10.2006 or started fighting with the applicant no.1 and her parents or giving them filthy abuses. It is further wrong and denied that the respondent even started casting aspersion on the character of applicant no.1, which act of respondent compelled the applicant no.1 to lodge a complaint with the police. The contents of the preceding paras may also be treated as reply tot his para. 11. Denied. It is denied that the local police called the

respondent. It is denied that the respondent in order to hide

his misdeeds firstly attempted to involve applicant no.1s brothers in connivance with his sisters in false cases of causing harm to him or attempting to violate the modesty of his sisters in but hot when did not succeeded in it and for found his himself water, ultimately apologized

misbehaviour.

It is further denied that the applicant no.1

and her parents in order to settle the matrimonial home of the parties pardoned the respondent or as such the matter was compromised or the respondent again promised to take bck the applicant no.1 to matrimonial home but to no effect or rather filed a false case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 as amended upto date for conjugal rights accusing the applicant no.1 that she is not joining his company. It is submitted that it was the family members of the petitioner no.1 who apologised for their misbehaviour managed to get the matter abate influencing the local police. 12. Denied. It is denied that the applicants submit that the

respondent has never an intention to keep the applicants and the said petition is a false or motivated one in order to avoid his liability to maintain the applicants as he is openly saying that the said petition is filed only with a view to harass the applicant no.1 or her parents as well as, as a shield to the dowry cases, if any, filed by the applicant no.1. The fact that the respondent has filed a petition U/s.9 of H.M.A. clearly falsifies the allegations. 13. Denied. It is denied that there was not even a single day and unmarried sisters named above would not have

when the respondent in connivance and conspiracy with his married harassed the applicant no.1 for insufficient dowry and would not have made her life a complete hell. It is further denied that the married sisters of the respondent used to visit the respondent and stayed there for days together and poisoned his ears against the applicant no.1 besides accusing her for insufficient dowry as stated above. It is denied that the sisters of the respondent used to say that the applicant no.1s father should buy a house for the parties and or otherwise gave a portion of his plot in Burari to respondent and of the cost of the house on the plea that they have

married their daughter to a Government employee and people are giving in dowry at least Rs.4-5 lakhs to said sort of match. It is further denied that they further used to say that in a match, they have received for respondent, the girls side was giving a house in Ram Park, but since there was electricity problem, so they refused for said proposal and agreed for the present one keeping in mind that the father of applicant no.1 is a gazette officer and would give sumptuous dowry. The contents of preceding paras may also be treated as reply tot his para. 14. Denied. It is denied that not only this but the behaviour

of the respondent with his unmarried sister Miss Sumitra, who is about 28 years old, cast and shadow of doubt about their relationship. It is denied that during the period the applicant no.1 remained in the matrimonial home, she found many times her sitting in the lap of respondent and watching late night television together and not allowing the petitioner to enter said room or when the applicant no.1 objected for it, the respondent left the applicant no.1 at her parents house on 14.6.2006 on the pretext that he is preparing for departmental examination and take her back It is after examination as submitted in the preceding paras.

denied that the respondent and his unmarried sister usually claimed that they are EK BADAN DO JAAN. The allegations are mischievous and a concocted story just in order to make false and bald allegations on the sacred relations between brother and sister. No prudent person would believe such an allegation which is not only false but mischeivous in nature. 15. Denied. It is denied that when the applicant no.1 found

that the respondent has no intention to take her back and has no remorse for his illegal and unlawful acts as well as his petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is only an eye wash, the applicant no.1 was coerced to file a complaint in the Crime Against Women Cell on 15.3.2007 narrating the misdeeds of the respondent and his sisters and demanding her dowry articles as well as action against them, which complaint is pending adjudication before the authority. The allegations are not only false but mischievous and amounts to

defamation

and

the

respondent

reserves

his

right

to

file

proper case against the petitioner no.1 for the said offence. This is further proved that there was no substance in the allegation by the conduct of the petitioner no.1 who not only stopped pursuing the complaint filed with the C.A.W. Cell but also withdrew it. 16. Denied. and It is denied that the unmarried sister of to involve her in false criminal the case

respondent is so cruel that she even did not spare her step mother tried because of which the father of respondent, who was working in Delhi Vidyut Board was compelled to take VRS and settled himself in Uttranchal at Kotdwar. The allegations are devoid of truth and deserves rejection. It is further submitted that the petitioner no.1 be subjected to strict proof of the allegations made under the present petition and take stern action against petitioner no.1 for making such a nefarious and bad allegations which is false and frivolous in nature. 17. Denied. It is denied that since the date of respondent to know about lodging of complaint with the Crime

came

Against Women Cell, the respondent and his unmarried sister are threatening the applicant no.1 for dire consequences and in these circumstances it is difficult for the applicant no.1 to live in the company of respondent till Miss Sumitra is married and respondent makes such an atmosphere for living together by winning the faith of applicant no.1. It is submitted that it was the respondent who regularly attended the proceedings before C.A.W. Cell and the petitioner no.1 always abstained withdrew from the attending complaint the which proceedings was filed and with ultimately

ulterior motives and malafide intention. 18. Denied. It the is denied that the respondent has means but them. he It is is intentionally denied that to and the

maintain

applicants neglecting

deliberately

respondent is working in Laser Science & Technology Centre, DRDO, Metcalf House, Ministry of Defence, Delhi as Technician B and his parent salary is in between Rs.13,500/to Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioner no.1 be subjected to

strict proof of the facts enumerated in the corresponding para of the petition. The contents of the preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also. 19. Denied. It is denied that the respondent has no liability the applicants. living taken It is denied and that the father has and of no of is

except

respondent along with his second wife and children from said marriage liability respondent are has in VRS Kotdwar It is from respondent that Vidyut the Board towards them. denied Delhi father

getting pension from there. It is further denied that even otherwise the respondent is not maintaining cordial relations with his father because of respondents unmarried sister. The contents of the preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also. 20. Denied. It is denied that the respondent of his own and

because of his aforesaid relations with his unmarried sister, is not only avoiding the marriage of his unmarried sister but is keeping with himself for oblique motives. It is denied that the father of the respondent is ready and willing to keep her with himself and not only to maintain her but also to get her married but the respondent is avoiding it for oblique motives. It is further denied that even otherwise said sister of the respondent is not a liability of the respondent but is of his father. It is denied that this plea is taken in the alternative. The contents of the preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also. 21. Denied. It is denied that even otherwise the unmarried

sister of the respondent is not at all dependent upon the respondent and is doing tuition and stitching job and earning handsomely. The contents of the preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also. 22. Denied. It is denied that the applicant no.1 was earlier

working in Bureau of Legislative Studies, Old Secretariat, Delhi, a society on contract basis. It is further denied that due to her pregnancy vide she stopped going to said there or consequently letter dated 1.2.2007, authority

terminated her services. The contents of the preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also. 23. Denied. It is denied that now the applicant no.1 is not

working anywhere or has no means to maintain herself as well as the minor child. It is further denied that the applicants are totally dependent for their livelihood and shelter upon the mercy and morsel of applicant no.1s parents, who have their other liabilities. The contents of the preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also. 24. Denied. It is denied that the respondent is legally and deliberately neglecting them at the instance of his

morally bound to maintain the applicants but is intentionally and sisters and particularly his unmarried sister. The petitioner no.1 is an earning lady and is capable of maintaining herself and petitioner no.2. 25. Denied. It is denied that the applicant no.1 at least

requires a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month for her maintenance and shelter, as she cannot live for an indefinite period in the or house of her per parents month i.e. Rs.5,000/per month or for the The of maintenance including clothes, medicines, dieting etc. etc. Rs.2,500/no.2 no.1 for per rental month lady accommodation for and his etc. is applicant including petitioner Rs.2,000/is an maintenance etc. capable

clothes,

medicines, earning

dieting

maintaining herself and petitioner no.2. The contents of the preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also. 26. Denied. It is denied that the respondent can easily

affords to pay the aforesaid total amount of Rs.10,500/- per month to the applicants for their maintenance and shelter. The petitioner no.1 is an earning lady and is capable of maintaining herself and petitioner no.2. The contents of the preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also. The salary slip is being placed on record. 27. Denied. It is denied that the respondent is further liable

to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as medical expenses incurred by

the parents of the applicant no.1 during the pregnancy period of applicant no.1 including delivery expenses. The petitioner no.1 is an earning lady and is capable of maintaining herself and petitioner no.2. The contents of the preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also. 28. to his Denied. It is denied that the respondent is further liable pay a sum and no.1 of Rs.11,000/as as expenses herein and is for present The of

proceedings, which are thrusted upon the applicants due to neglect conduct is an mentioned lady above. capable petitioner earning

maintaining herself and petitioner no.2. The contents of the preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also.

Last para is prayer clause which is totally wrong and denied. It is denied that any maintenance in favour of the applicants and against the respondent may be passed much less for a sum of Rs.10,500/- per month for their maintenance and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses of the applicant no.1 and a sum of Rs.11,000/- as cost of present proceedings. P R A Y E R: It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. furtherance of justice. as filed by the applicants be dismissed with heavy exemplary costs, in the interest and

RESPONDENT DELHI. DATED: 29.4.2008. THROUGH (_____________) ADVOCATE

IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL : M.M. DELHI. IN THE MATTER OF: MRS.ANITA KANDARI NEGI VERSUS MR.SUNIL SINGH NEGI ...RESPONDENT A F F I D A V I T I, Sunil Singh, S/o. Sh. Soban Singh, R/o. Qtr. No. 36, Sector-IV, Multi Storey, Timarpur, Delhi 110054, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under : 1. That I am the respondent in the above-mentioned case and am fully conversant with the facts of the case and as such am competent to swear this affidavit. 2. That the contents U/s 125 of the accompanying are true and reply correct to to the my ...APPLICANTS

application

Cr.P.C.

knowledge and belief and the same has been drafted by my counsel under my instruction as such the same are not being reproduced for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT VERIFICATION: Verified on solemn affirmation at Delhi on this 29th day of April, 2008 that the contents of paras No.1 to 2 of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT