1. The contents of present Civil Misc. Application is totally
false, frivolous and vexatious, hence the present Civil Mise Application is required to be rejected with costs 2. The Respondent state that, the Petitioner approached to this Hon'ble Court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts. Hence the present Civil Misc. Application is required to be rejected with cost 3. The Respondent state that, the Petitioner have filed present application just for harassment. The present case is filed without any cause of action. 4. The Respondent state that the Petitioner have filed the Petition No. A- 1386 of 2000 for Dissolution of marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Respondent craves leave to refer and rely upon the petition filed by the petitioner before Hon ble Court respondent against the present Respondent. 5. The Respondent states that the petitioner in the said petition also prayed for interim relief hence, Hon ble Family Court vide by order dated 18/05/2007 have been pleased to partly allow the said application for interim and granted Rs. 500/ (Rupees Five Hundred Only) per month. 6. The Respondent states that the respondent is the law-abiding citizen and paid the interim maintenance to the petitioner as per the order. 7. The Respondent states that vide by the consent term dated 10/11/2006 the petitioner admitted in para no 4 that there are no exchanges pending between the parties and in para no 6 the petitioner admitted that there are no dues and claims of whatsoever nature against each other in future. The Respondent further states that vide by the said consent term the petitioner and the respondent mutually agreed for the Mutual Consent Divorce and prayed before the Hon'ble Court for mutually dissolution of the marriage between the parties. 8. The Respondent states that in the above facts and circumstances the present Civil Misc. Application filed by the petitioner is totally on wrong footing and just filed for harassing the respondent.
In view to the above, the present Civil Misc. Application be rejected
with costs.
PLACE: Bandra
DATE: 04/01/22
Advocate For Respondent
IN THE COURT OF FAMILY COURT AT BANDRA AT MUMBAI CIVIL M.A. 92 OF 2019
Mrs. Swati V Pardhi
…Petitioner VS Mr. Vandesh S Pardhi …Respondent
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS
DATED_ THIS DAY OF_______2022
Ms. Sonal Hemant Mishal
Advocate for Respondent
Office No.1, Basement, Shopper's
Point, Next to Moti Mahal hotel, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058 Contact: +919969849102/ 9820846067 Email:sonalmishal5@gmail.com Code No- I-17497
Donald L. Pruitt Dennis L. Pruitt v. Howard County Sheriff's Department Michael A. Chiuchiolo, Sheriff, Howard County Herbert Stonesifer, 76 F.3d 374, 4th Cir. (1996)