IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,

DISTRICT SOUTH DELHI

Family Suit No. 786/2020

Mr. Sarvesh Choudhary

S/o Mr. Sridesh Choudhary

R/o F-26, Khanpur

New Delhi ...............................................................…........................Plaintiff

v.

Mrs. Sanjana Choudharty

W/o Sri Sridesh Choudhary

R/o 45, Gita Apartments, Saket

New Delhi…………………………………………...……………..……… Respondent

The humble petition of the petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That, both the petitioner and the respondent are the citizens of India and
are presently residing at the aforesaid addresses.

2. That, both the petitioner and the respondent are by faith and religion
Hindus and till filling of the present petition they have never changed their
religion.
3. That, the petitioner, Sridesh Choudhary, and the respondent, , got married
according to the Vedic Hindu rites on 10 May, 2018 in Delhi, and the said
marriage is still subsisting. Be it stated here that at the time of marriage
both the petitioner and the respondent was of age above 21 years.

4. That, the respondent, comes from Nagpur but she spent her formative
years mostly in Delhi. Her father was transferred to Delhi in 2000 in the
Commerce Ministry of the Government of India and she came to Delhi
along with the rest of the family. She passed her B.Sc. from the Delhi
University in 2015 and completed her M.Sc. from America in 2017.
Thereafter, she met petitioner in Delhi, and they end up marrying each
other in 2018.

5. That the respondent and her family have committed fraud on petitioner
because the consent of the petitioner for the marriage was obtained by
fraud. In April, 2014 the respondent had told that she had met had a little
misfortune during her graduation period in that she had a bad attack of
sunstroke which affected her mental condition for sometime”. Some days
later, she informed him that “cerebral malaria” was mentioned as an
additional reason of the mental affectation. She also told him that after a
course of treatment at the Aiims Mental Hospital, she was cured.

6. In another meeting with the petitioner, the respondent's father asked

petitioner to discuss the matter, if necessary, with the doctors of the Mental
Hospital or with one Dr. Shyam, a relative of the respondent’s mother. This
was a much planned move to commit a fraud on the petitioner for if the
petitioner had a doubt and wanted to clarify, he would end up clarifying it
with the relative of respondent and would never be able to figure out the
actual reason.

7. That, the respondent was suffering from the schizophrenia and she was
treated in the Aiims Mental Hospital in the year 2014 but schizophrenia was
 an incurable and dangerous form of unsoundness of mind, being hereditary
and recurring; and these facts were suppressed from the husband before
he consented for the marriage.

8. That, the parents and the relatives of the respondent had known or ought
to have known that the respondent’s disease was diagnosed as
schizophrenia before her marriage was settled with the petitioner and that
they had deliberately concealed this fact from the petitioner and his father
and deliberately gave them to understand and made them believe that the
nature of the illness was simply a sunstroke and cerebral malaria.

9. That, during this period a girl named Shubha was born to them on March
11, 2019. The respondent delivered in Delhi at her maternal home, and
returned after 3 months.

10. That after the respondent return, she started to show careless attitude,
weird behaviour, used to get angry at petty things, and refused to agree
with anything the petitioner said. After the petitioner consulted his
brother , a doctor-by profession, he told him that it could be the sign of the
recurring schizophrenia.

11. That a fortnight later on June, 2019, the petitioner got the respondent
examined by Dr. Seth, a Psychiatrist in charge of the Aiims Mental Hospital.

12. That Dr. Seth wanted adequate data to make his diagnosis and suggested
that he would like to have a few sittings exclusively with the respondent.

13. That for no good reason, the respondent was averse to submit herself to
any such scrutiny.
14. That, she herself decided that she should stay for some time with a
relative of hers, Mrs. Shanti On the evening of the 27th, she packed her
tidbits and the appellant reached her to Mrs. Shanti's house.

15. That, she had promised to see Dr, Seth but there was no consultation
thereafter with Dr. Seth.

16. That it was not her alone in her cruel act, her family have also been doing
the act to make the life of petitioner miserable. Father of the respondent
instead of offering wise counsel were fanning the fire of discord that was
devouring the marriage. He abused me and said, “From the spark of your
foolish and half-baked egoism, a big conflagration of family quarrels will
break out and all will perish therein. You worthless person, who cherishes a
desire to spit on my face, now behold that the entire world is going to spit
on your old cheeks. It is my earnest desire that the father-in-law should
beat your son with foot-ware in a public place.”

17. That on the next day, 26 September 2019 , the petitioner wrote a letter to
the police asking for protection as he feared danger to his life from the
respondent’s family.

18. That on the October 18, the respondent saw the appellant but that only
gave to the parties’ one more chance to give vent to mutual dislike and
distrust. After a brief meeting, she left the broken home for good.

19. That on the 20th, the appellant once again wrote to the police renewing his
request for protection.

20. On October 1, 2019 the respondent wrote to the petitioner complaining

against his conduct and asking for money for the maintenance of her and
the daughters.
21. That on October 3, 2019 the respondent wrote a letter to the Secretary,
Ministry of Women and Child Development, saying that the petitioner had
deserted her, that he had treated her with extreme cruelty and asking that
the Government should make separate provision for her maintenance.

22. That on October 10, her statement was recorded by an Assistant

Superintendent of Police, in which she alleged desertion and ill-treatment
by the petitioner. Further statements were recorded by the police and the
Food Ministry also followed up respondent’s letter of October 19 but
ultimately nothing came out of these complaints and cross complaints.

23. That, on November 3, 2019 the petitioner wrote to respondent’s father

complaining of respondent’s conduct and expressing regret that not even a
proper invitation was issued to him when the naming ceremony of the child
was performed. The most important day in the life of father in relation to
his child was also snatched from the petitioner.

24. That on December 15, 2019 the petitioner wrote to respondent’s father
stating that he had decided to go to the court for seeking separation from
the respondent. As this is the last resort the respondent have left.

25. That the petitioner bears all types of cruelties because he wanted to save
his married life and do not want to spoil his life. Many times the parents and
relatives advised the respondent to behave properly, to return and take all
false accusations back but no use. The petitioner also tried to advise the
respondent many to change the behaviors but the respondent refused to
accept the legitimate requests of the petitioner.

26. That the cause of action of action to file the present petition accrued to
the petitioner many times when the respondent treated the appellant with
cruelty during their brief meeting on October 18, in Delhi that she refused
to allow to the appellant any access to the children. The cause of action
 also accrued on when respondent wrote to the petitioner complaining
against his conduct and asking for money for the maintenance of her and
the daughter.

27. That the present petition has not been by the petitioner filled in collusion
with the respondent.

28. That no such petition is pending or has been filed or decided by any court
of law on the same subject matter between the same parties.

29. That the petitioner has no legal impediments why the relief sought for is
not granted to the petitioner.

30. That the petitioner is still residing at R/o F-26, Khanpur, New Delhi within the
jurisdiction of this court therefore, this Hon’ble court has got the
jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition.

31. That a fixed court fee has been paid on the petition.
 PRAYER

32. The plaintiff therefore prays that this court may be please to:

1. Pass a decree/ order under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 declaring the marriage annulled on the ground that the consent of the
husband for marriage was obtained by fraud.

2. Pass a decree of judicial separation under Section 10 (1) (b) of Hindu

Marriage Act on the ground that the respondent has treated petitioner with
such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the
petitioner that it would be injurious for him to live with her.
3. Grant any relief, which, in the circumstances, the Hon’ble Court thinks
fit.

4. Award costs and expenses of the suit in favor of the plaintiff and against
the respondent.

5. Pass such further or other order as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.

Date: 05.11.2020

Advocate for Petitioner.

Sd/-
Petitioner.
 AFFIDAVIT

I, Mr. Sarvesh Choudhary, the deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and state
as under that:-
1. That I am the plaintiff in the captioned suit. I am fully conversant
with the facts of the plaint and competent to swear this affidavit on my
behalf.

2. That the present appeal has been drafted by my counsel under my

instructions and guidance and the contents of the same are true and
correct and are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to
avoid repetition and prolixity.

3. That the contents of the plaint may kindly be read as part and parcel
of this Affidavit also.

DEPONENT
 VERIFICATION

I, Sarvesh Choudhary, the above mentioned plaintiff, S/o, Sridesh Choudhary,

R/o F-26, Khanpur, New Delhi, do hereby verify that the above stated facts are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Place- Saket Court Complex

Date: 05.11.2020

Petitioner