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
petition,

the

giving reply parawise to

the

replying respondent wants

abovementioned
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 coordination 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

respondent,

and

despite

request

made

by

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 Honble 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 Lancers
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 Honble 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 Honble 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.

before CAW Cell,

Prior to filing of the complaint

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 Honble court with a pre-planned,

concocted, false, fabricated, vexatious, misconceived,
motivated,
assertions,

contents,
hence

contentions,
the

present

allegations
petition

is

and
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

of

the

present

application/petition needs no reply being matter of record.

2. That

the

contents

of

Para

of

the

present

application/petition needs no reply being matter of record.

3. That the contents of para 3 of the present petition
wrong, baseless, hence denied as alleged.

are

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 petitioners

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,

some persons were attended the said marriage and
such alleged amount was ever spent.

only
no

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

wrong, baseless, hence denied as alleged.

are

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.
specifically

wrong

and

denied

that

parental

It is
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

respondent.

despite

repeated

requests

of

the

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
understand

and after the marriage, she did not try to

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 Officers 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 preplanner 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 Lancers 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 Lancers 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 Lancers 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 Honble 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 preplanner 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
Honble 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

Honble 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 Honble 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 Honble 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

respondent,

and

despite

request

made

by

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 Lancers 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 Lancers 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
Honble 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 R82, Phase-2, Paliavpuram, Meerut, U.P, presently at Delhi,
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

do

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 R82, 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