1

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, th
COURT, AT VIKHROLI,

MUMBAI

C. C. No. 179/DV/2021

Ms. ANKITA MANGAL …Applicant

Versus

MR. KAPIL AGARWAL

MR. MAHESH AGARWAL …Respondents

REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENTS ON THE PETITION

FILED BY THE APPLICANT UNDER

SECTION 12 OF THE PROTECTION OF

WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC

VIOLENCE ACT, 2005.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:

It is most respectfully submitted on behalf of the Respondents as

under:
 2
1. That, the applicant herein has filed a Petition under

protection of women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.

The contentions raised by the Applicant in the said Petition

are specifically denied by the Respondents and put to the

strict proof of every contention, allegations, raised by the

Applicant in the said Petition.

2. The Petition is a blatant misuse of the law and is liable to

be dismissed. It is humbly submitted that the applicant is

seeking to misuse the powers available to women under

the Act. It is humbly submitted that the special Act is

enacted only to protect the aggrieved person. By any

stretch of imagination these powers cannot be used to

victimize the members of the family of the Respondents.

3. That, the Respondent understood the contents thereof and

in light of the contentions made therein, the Applicant

seeks to file a reply to the said Petition.

 3
4. Before giving reply parawise to the abovementioned

Petition, the Respondent desire to submit some preliminary

objections which in nature to go to the root of matter.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

a. That, the Applicant is living separately from her

husband i.e. Respondent No. 1 with her own will

and wish due to reason best known to her, despite

request made by Respondents she refused to live

with the Respondent No. 1.

b. That, the Applicant has suppressed the material facts

and has not approached this Hon’ble Court with

clean hands, hence the present Petition is liable to be

dismissed.

5. That, the present Applicant is not maintainable because the

Applicant has filed the present Petition on false grounds

and levelled false allegations against the Respondents. It is

submitted that the Applicant has approached this Hon’ble

Court with a pre-planned. Concocted, false, fabricated,

 4
vexatious, misconceived, motivated, contents, contentions,

allegations and assertions, hence the present Petition is not

maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with heavy

coast.

6. That, the Applicant in any of the para did not disclose any

of the occasion in which she was subjected to the domestic

violence on which ground, she is seeking relief/s under

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, and in

absence of any substantive evidence, all the contentions

made by the Applicant are vague. The Present Petition is

not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with heavy

cost.

7. That the present Applicant has been filed without any

substantive evidence and has been filed on false grounds

and therefore, same is not maintainable and is liable to be

dismissed with heavy cost.

 5
8. All the contentions in the Petition are denied except to the

extent as are specifically admitted hereunder or otherwise

dealt with.

9. REASON FOR INVOKING JURISDICTION OF

THIS HON’BLE COURT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

DV ACT. On 12th Aug 2021, at Around 1:30pm, when

Respondent No. 1 was speaking with Applicant over

phone, Applicant's Brother, Punit Mangal grabbed the

phone and started abusing and using foul language against

Respondent No. 1. When Respondent No. 1 asked Punit to

tone down and correct his language but Punit did not

listen. After 90 minutes from the said call, at 3:22pm. The

Applicant's Brother, Applicant herself with Applicant's

Mother Smt Gayatri Mangal and her father Shri Anil

Kumar Mangal came to Respondent No. 1's Apartment.

When Respondent No. 1 opened door, Punit Mangal

pushed the Applicant onto Respondent No. 1 to push, the

Respondent No. 1 behind and all four members of the

Applicant's family made a violent entry into Respondent

No. 1's apartment. After using screaming and threatening

 6
Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 2 was sleeping inside

at that time, Punit grabbed the throat of Respondent No. 1,

punched him several times in the stomach and pushed him

on the Ground. In counter, though Respondent No. 1 tried

to defend himself, but he was too weak in front of the

Applicant's Brother who is much taller and is also bigger

in built than Respondent No. 1. Due to the loud noises and

commotion, Respondent No. 2 also woke up and came

running into the Living Room. Now, Punit Mangal who

was on top of Respondent No. 1, with the help of

Applicant pushed Respondent No. 2 on the sofa where

Respondent No. 2 fell down and got hurt. Subsequently,

Punit Mangal's shamelessness did not end here. He even

put his foot on the chest of a 72yr old man to which

Respondent No. 1 pushed Punit Mangal aside to safeguard

his Father, both the Respondents were deeply terrified and

trembling. After gathering sense and getting up from the

ground, Respondent No. 2 realized that he and his son, are

alone and Applicant's Family members have come with

vicious ideas to harm the Respondents. To safeguard

himself, carefully turned on the audio recorder of his

 7
phone. Admittedly, Respondents were clueless as to how

to save themselves and after few minutes, Respondent No.

1 realized the only way out is to call the Police. Hence,

they approached the Police.

10.That one of the reason of filing of the present petition is

that the applicant and her family are trying to pressurised

the Respondents to withdraw the complaint dated 12th

Aug 2021 as reported by Respondent No. 2 (72yrs old)

against the Applicant's Brother, Punit Mangal, Applicant

herself, Applicant's Mother Smt Gayatri Mangal and Shri

Anil Kumar Mangal, with Tilak Nagar Police Station for

committing the inhuman act at the residential address of

the Respondents, which is duly recorded in CCTV

installed.

11.It is pertinent to note that, the Applicant and her family

members themselves barged into the Respondent’s house

and beat them mercilessly, which is recorded in CCTV

cameras installed at Respondent’s house, but after

committing such inhuman act. The Applicant called

 8
Women Police and over phone lodged a fake complaint

against Respondents claiming that they were beating the

Applicant and her Family. But, while counselling, the

Police Station Incharge of Tilak Nagar Police Station,

Madam Sarita Chavan advised the Applicant and

Respondent No. 1 to go to Sahyadri park on their own and

settle out their differences. It is pertinent to note that

during the counselling both sides, SI Madam Chavan

condemned the act of violence by Punit Mangal and said,

“Kal ko agar tumhara Brother-in-Law aakar tum par

aur tumhare Father par haath uthaye to tumhe achcha

lagega”. To this Punit Mangal Responded, “Waise to aisa

hoga nahin, par agar meri galti hogi to who mujhe

maarega hi”. To this Madam Chavan strongly opposed

such an approach and ideology and advised Punit to never

repeat any such incidence again else he will be punished.

Moreover, during the meeting, Applicant threatened

Respondent No. 1 by showing self-inflicted injury marks

on her arm threatened Respondent No. 1 to have

Respondents jailed by showing a fake self-inflicted injury

mark on her arm. She said, "Maine jaakar ye chot kaa

 9
nishaan Police ko dikhaya naa to tum dono Baap bete

Jail mein chakki peesoge aur tumhari akal thikaane aa

jaayegi." This clearly indicates that Applicant and her

Family members pre-meditated the entire incident of 12th

Aug afternoon and the mark that she inflicted on herself

was even used as a weapon to back up her claims. In

reality, Applicant was not hurt at all, but Respondents were

hurt.

12.After Thought Petition: The present petition has been

filed for the first time after 8+ years of Marriage of

Applicant with Respondent No. 1. The Applicant is highly

educated, modern and has a forward looking personality.

After marrying Respondent No. 1 who was based in USA

at time of marriage, the Applicant got life experiences of

living, studying and working in USA and Applicant got to

travel to multiple countries and destinations over 8+ years

of her stay in USA. Working as a Senior Executive in an

MNC and used to travel for work to multiple countries for

her work. Along with progressive mindset of Applicant's

family, it is difficult to imagine why not even a single

 10
police report or complaint was ever filed by Applicant's

side during the first 8+ years of marriage against the

alleged misbehavior, abuse or torture. Because Respondent

No. 1's Family has always treated the Applicant with

utmost love, affection and Respect. It was only after the

12th Aug 2021 incident of Applicant's Brother

manhandled Respondents, therefore, the Applicant's side

decided to change the narrative of their case, in reality, this

petition is an unfortunate abuse of a Law which has been

instated for Women's Protection. This petition is an

attempt by Applicant and is supported by her Family to

extort money from Respondents after giving them

immense emotional and mental trauma and to divert this

Honorable Court's attention from the inhuman act

committed by the Applicant's brother, Punit Mangal along

with the Applicant, Applicant's Father Shri Anil Kumar

Mangal and Applicant's Mother Smt Gayatri Mangal on

12th Aug 2021.

13.It is pertinent to note that, before approaching this Hon’ble

Court the Applicant had approached the Respondent No. 1

 11
for mutual consent divorce, and Respondent No. 1 was

agreed for the same, therefore, the Applicant appointed her

advocate on her own submission and approval her

advocate drafted divorce petition, but in the entire petition

there were no allegations of any kind of torture, abused,

misbehave, exploitation neither from the Respondents nor

from any of their family members. Which clarifies that the

applicant was never subjected to any of the abuse categorly

mentioned in the Act. In the said draft the Applicant

specifically metioned in Para 14. The Petitioners submit

that they have no grievance against each other and also

declare that they have no grievance of any sort against

their family members. in the said draft she did not mention

of any Dowry, financial gifts or items of material value

given by the Applicant to Respondent's family, whereas

the DV petition makes scathing and baseless allegations of

Respondent No. 1's family asking for things that in reality

never happened. These allegations are all afterthought

14.That, the Applicant filed this present Petition under section

12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

 12
2005 on various grounds which are dealt with the

Respondents in the following paragraphs.

a. That, the contents of para Nos. 1 to 5 of the Petition,

the Respondent offered no comment as it is admitted

fact.

b. That, the contents of para No. 6 of the Petition, the

Respondents state that, the Applicant’s Father

contacted Respondent No. 2 and after they spoke to

each other. He contacted Respondent No. 1 directly.

After talking to Respondent No. 1 and after getting

convinced that Respondents come from solid and

reliable family background, the Applicant’s Father

shared Applicant’s contact number with Respondent

No. 2 who then shared it with Respondent No. 1.

Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 contacted the

Applicant.

c. That, the entire contents of para No. 7 of the

Petition, the Respondent No. 1 states that, the

 13
Applicant and Respondent No. 1 met around 5-7

times, where Respondent No. 1 was invited to

Applicant's then residence multiple times to enable

Applicant's Parents to make a thorough assessment

of Respondent No. 1 and his familial background.

Once Applicant's family was duly convinced, they

suggested to bring Respondent No. 1's Parents from

Gwalior. Respondent No. 1 states that, his Parents

were visiting Mumbai as Respondent No. 1 was

preparing for his US Masters application and

Exams, when they also met with Applicant. After

family meetings both families gave consent for

marriage. It is pertinent to note that nether

Respondent No. 1 nor any of his family members

including Respondent No. 2 made any demands

from Applicant’s family. Respondent No. 1 states

that, at that time, though Respondent No. 1 was

working for a highly sought after Global Investment

Bank, he had aspiration to pursue a long term career

overseas. During that period, Respondent No. 1 was

in New York, USA (4 weeks) as well as in London,

 14
UK for a brief period. Later, Respondent No. 1 was

again in London, UK from 14th Dec 2011 to May

2012, while he briefly returned to Mumbai for his

pre-engagement ceremony with the Applicant on Jan

7th 2012. The Respondents state that, it is wrong,

baseless, hence denied as alleged, that the

Applicant’s parents spent 3 lacs of rupees on pre-

engagement ceremony at Hotel Meluha, Powai.

Hence, the Applicant be put to strict proof thereof.

the Respondents state that, they gave various

expensive gifts to the Applicant and her family

members i.e. Expensive Sarees, Raymond's Suits,

Platinum Ring etc. The Respondents crave leave to

rely on the supporting evidence as and when

required.

d. That, the contents of para No. 8 of the Petition, is

incorrect hence, denied. Respondent No. 1 states

that, on first meeting with the Applicant on 20 th May

2011 at R-City Mall, Mumbai, Respondent No. 1

clearly shared his career aspirations and his on-

 15
going applications pursue higher studies in USA.

Shortly, after first meeting with Applicant,

Respondent No. 1 travelled to New York, USA for

work commitments. Later, Respondent No. 1 was

shifted to London, UK for nearly 5 months (14th

Dec 2011 to May 2012) related to his work at

Deutsche Bank. It was always clear to the Applicant

from day 1 of meeting that Respondent No. 1 was

not based in India. The Respondents further state

that, Respondent No. 1’s successful career was key

criteria for Applicant's Parents insistence on getting

the Pre-engagement done at earliest. As a result,

when Respondent No. 1 Parents and Applicant's

Parents met, Applicant's Parents insisted on a

formalization via Pre-engagement ceremony at

earliest. Given the pressing nature of Applicant’s

Parents request, Respondent No. 1 who was working

at Deutsche Bank London, had to take two weeks

time off from work (7th Jan 2012 - 18th Jan 2012)

and flew back to Mumbai from London for Pre-

engagement ceremony. The Respondents further

 16
state that, when Respondent No. 1 got selected at

one of the top University in the world Princeton

University, the Applicant family was convinced of

the exceptional career prospects of Respondent No.

1. The Respondents crave leave to rely on

supporting evidence as and when required.

e. That, the contents of para No. 9 of the Petition is

incorrect hence, denied. The Respondent No. 1

states that, he resigned from his job at Deutsche

Bank in June 2012 when he went to USA to pursue

his Masters in Finance from Princeton University.

The Respondent No. 1 further states that, he was

never on any Deputation in USA. There was never a

mention of two years of US deputation as no such

thing ever existed from Respondent No. 1 side.

f. That, the contents of para No. 10, of the Petition, the

Respondents offer no comment, as it is admitted

fact.
 17
g. That, the contents of para No. 11 of the Petition, is

false, baseless, hence denies. The Respondents state

that, neither they have forced or insisted for grand/

royal wedding nor they had invited 500 guests, they

have invited 170-180 guests, the Respondents

family is a very educated, highly moral and humble

family. They never took any single rupee of dowry

from the Applicant's family and it can be seen in the

petition itself as the Applicant nowhere mentioned

that the Respondents raised any demand of dowry.

Further, it is admitted fact that the Respondents

voluntarily suggested to share 50% expenses of the

Wedding and wedding ceremonies. But as the

wedding was solemnized at Respondent No. 1’s

hometown, his family had to single handedly

manage all the functions and customs and to caterer

and to look after all the guests and relatives of

Applicant's family, the Respondents had to bear

100% expenses and the Applicant family did not

contribute anything. Hence, the contention of the

applicant that her family spent lacs of rupees on the

 18
engagement and marriage is absolutely false.

Therefore, the Applicant be put to strict proof

thereof.

h. That, the entire contents of para No. 12 of the

Petition are wrong, baseless, hence denied as

alleged, it is wrong and denied that the Respondents

demanded grand reception because they wanted to

invite their friends and families who were not able

to attend their wedding. The Respondent No. 1

states that, his entire family has been based in

Gwalior for multiple generations. Therefore, their

marriage was solemnized on 14th Feb 2014 at

Respondent No. 1's Hometown Gwalior, preceded

by 2 more days of functions arranged at Respondent

No. 1's house and the hotel. All these expenses were

borne 100% by Respondent No. 1's Family and 0%

contribution from Applicant's family. No one from

Respondents family lives in Mumbai, so there never

existed a question of inviting friends and family. On

contrary, the Applicant's family was permanently

 19
settled in Mumbai since 2008. Therefore,

Applicant's Family insisted that those of their

Mumbai relatives who were not able to travel to

Gwalior to attend the marriage, should be given a

Party. Thus a small dinner of 50-55 people was

organized at said location on 21st Feb 2014. It is

pertinent to note that, even Respondent No. 1’s

parents were also not invited in the said dinner

function. Thereafter, like any loving husband,

Respondent No. 1 spent immense amount of

affection, time, companionship and his hard earned

money on the Applicant when Respondent No. 1 got

married to her. In beginning of Aug 2014,

Respondent No. 1 took Applicant to highly exotic

honeymoon vacation at two separate islands of

Hawaii for two weeks. Later during Christmas of

2015, Respondent No. 1 took the Applicant to the

beautiful beaches and old treasures of Mexico and

Belize and other lesser known tourist spots which

were all very expensive and were 100% funded by

Respondent No. 1's own savings in USA. In Feb

 20
2016, on their second marriage anniversary,

Respondent No. 1 took the Applicant to the

beautiful beaches of Hamilton in Bermuda. Each

foreign visit amounted to more than INR 4 Lakhs

and Respondent No. 1 paid for all the expenses of

these trips despite the Applicant's well paid job

along with Applicant's several lakhs of savings in

India which she purposely kept parked in India. that

Respondent No. 1 never asked Applicant to

contribute even a single rupee of hers, and he feels

this is how any loving husband should support his

wife. Respondent No. 1 also bought the costliest and

branded clothes and jewel accessories for his wife

(Applicant), while she continued her full-time job in

India till Sep 2015 and did not contribute a single

rupee for building a joint livelihood after getting

married to Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1

gifted her a Premium Lenovo Laptop used for

Applicant's grad studies, jewellery, expensive

cellphone and all living expenses.

 21
i. That, the contents of para No. 13, of the Petition it is

wrong and false hence denied that the Applicant’s

parents gave 15 silver articles i.e. gaddis worth of

Rs. 1.5 Lakhs, they have also gifted mobile phone of

Rs. 35,000/- and Rs. 21,000/- cash and gifts of Rs. 2

Lakhs. Respondent No. 1 states that, over 8+ years

of marriage, Respondent No. 1's Parents and

Applicant's parents only met twice on Diwali. Once

on 2011 Diwali (before the marriage) and another in

2019, when Respondent No. 1's Mother was

undergoing Cancer Treatment at Mumbai. So when

the Applicant’s parents gifted all the alleged gaddis,

mobile phone and cash. The Applicant be put on

strict proof to provide evidence and clarification of

her allegations.

j. That, the entire contents of para No. 14, of the

Petition are wrong, baseless and false hence denied.

Therefore, the Applicant be put to strict proof

thereof.
 22
k. The entire contention made in para 15 is false,

baseless, bogus hence denied, neither the

Respondents nor any of their family members/

relatives abused the applicant or her family for

anything as the entire arrangement of engagement

and marriage was done by the Respondents alone,

the Applicant and her family never contributed in

any expenses, the applicant crave leave to rely on

the necessary evidence as end when required. The

Respondents further state that, the allegation of

abasement for not giving Honda City Car to

Respondent No. 1 is completely manipulated

allegation and miss-representation of fact.

Respondent No. 2 already bought a Honda City

from his own earnings back in 2008. There is no

question of any taunting before or after marriage.

Therefore, the Applicant be put to strict proof

thereof.

l. With regards to the contention of para No. 16 of the

Petition the Respondent denies that, the

 23
Respondents used to harass the Applicant and her

parents regarding the quality of the gift items as they

were not being as per their standards. The

Respondents further denies that Respondent No. 1’s

brother had gifted Applicant an iPad before

marriage & Applicant gave him a wristwatch, and

he returned the wristwatch mentioning that he didn't

like it. It is further denied that the said iPad be

gifted to the Applicant was taken back by

Respondents, and endlessly taunted the Applicant's

parents for not giving them an expensive gift. It is

further denied that the Applicant had transferred

approx. Rs. 60,000/- (Sixty Thousand Only) to

Respondent No. 2 account. The Respondents state

that, neither the Respondents nor any of their family

members ever abused or harassed the applicant and

her parents for their gifts. The Respondents further

states that, Respondent No. 1’s brother never gifted

the alleged IPad to the Applicant, the fact is the

Applicant herself asked him to get her an IPad for

which she will pay later, and the alleged Rs.

 24
60,000/- was transferred in response of the said I

Pad. The Respondents crave leave to refer and rely

on the evidence of the same as and when required.

m. That the entire contents of para No. 17 of the

Petition are wrong, baseless, hence denied that the

applicant was not aware about the conditions of F2

visa. The Respondents state that, Respondent No. 1

left for his higher studies in USA on 25 th Aug 2012,

i.e. 18 months before his official Hindu marriage

with the Applicant i.e. 14th Feb 2014. Over those 18

months of courtship, Respondent No. 1 shared and

updated the Applicant of life and work conditions

and visa situation in USA. By the time, Applicant

Applied for F2 Dependent visa on 7th Jan 2014 (on

basis of Court marriage with Respondent No. 1 on

12th Jun 2013), the Applicant had all details of

overseas life, work and F-2 visa conditions. Thus,

Applicant is entirely falsifying. Though, Applicant

is trying to appear as a victim by claiming

unawareness of F-2 visa conditions, her submissions

 25
defies logic as the Applicant is an extremely bright,

well-read, independent and strong personality

woman. In addition, the Applicant mentioned to

Respondent No. 1 multiple times that she wanted to

live in USA & have a better life. When USA's F1

visa papers were thoroughly read, filled & signed by

the Applicant, she was well aware of the future &

wanted to pursue the life just like thousands of other

couples who upon marriage move overseas with

their Respective spouses. Respondent No. 1 states

that, it is absolutely false that the Respondents

forced the Applicant to continue working in existing

job of HPCL in Mumbai even after marriage. Hence

she has to make multiple trips of USA ensuring her

job security in India. Respondent No. 1 states that,

there was no question of forcing Applicant on

anything. Applicant was always very rigid, adamant

and never cared for the togetherness of herself with

her husband despite their recent marriage. Her first

priority was always her professional career even

when it came at cost of hurting her married life and

 26
this is easily visible in all her life choices. Further, it

was the support of Applicant's Family including

Applicant's Mother, Smt Gayatri Mangal to continue

long distance marriage until Applicant runs out of

her leaves accumulated during her service at HPCL,

even if it comes at cost of Applicant and Respondent

No. 1 living apart. Respondent No. 1 further states

that, before marriage the Applicant informed him

that she wants to permanently move to USA with

him after marriage, only on her assurance

Respondent No. 1 proceeded his relation. But after

marriage the Applicant did not want to resign from

her job at HPCL Mumbai. In her pursuit to continue

her job in Mumbai, Applicant had to make repetitive

trips from Mumbai to New York and back. After

disagreement between Respondent No. 1 and

Applicant due to the long-distance, somewhere in

the month of Dec, 2014 (after 10months of

marriage) Applicant agreed to resign from HPCL

Mumbai. However, after few days she withdrew her

resignation letter herself without discussing or

 27
sharing with Respondent No. 1. She later

communicated this to Respondent No. 1.

n. That the entire contents of para No. 18, of the

Petition are wrong, baseless, hence denied that

Applicant was all alone in USA and Respondent No.

I did not allow her to talk to anyone. So, the

Applicant did not have any friends and was not able

to talk to anyone. It was like a house detention. It is

further denied that Respondent No. I was very

dominant by nature and put restriction on Applicant

and never gave any kind of freedom. The

respondents further denied that, in end of 2014 when

respondent no. I got the work visa, Respondent No.

1 & 2 started to force and pressurize Applicant to

leave her HPCL Job (Govt. Job). Hence the

Applicant had to Resign from HPCL on 5

September 2015 against her will. Then Applicant

tried her best to get a new job in US but it was not

possible, due to work permit limitations. On several

occasions, Applicant requested to Respondent No. 1

 28
for returning back to India but Respondent No. I

refused and was not considerate of Applicant's

situation. All these stresses triggered Applicant's

autoimmune disorder because of which Applicant

started to get 5-7 big mouth ulcers. The Respondents

state that, it is baseless allegations that Applicant

who is so highly educated, independent and a well-

rounded lady could remain under house detention

that too when it was her deciding when to visit her

newly wedded husband, Respondent No. 1.

Respondent No. 1 further states that, before

marriage the Applicant informed and assured him

that she wants to make her life in USA with him and

she vowed him that she will leave her job and

moved with the Respondent No. 1 and only the said

assurance Respondent No. 1 gave his consent for

marriage as he was never in favour of long distance

relationship, but after marriage the Applicant

refused to come with him on one and other reasons.

Respondent No. 1 further states that, during the

Applicant’s stay with him he was trying to give best

 29
to make her comfortable. He provided the Applicant

with "Unlimited India calling phone plans" so that

while visiting her husband in USA, she does not feel

alone or miss her Parents. He used to take her for

outing to several sight-seeing places in New York.

Respondent No. 1 further state that, he used to leave

his apartment daily for work at 7:30am morning

(EST timezone) and return by 7pm in evening. Then

how could he have controlled behavior of Applicant.

More so, if Respondent No. 1 had any such intent of

limiting or preventing Applicant from talking to

others, why would he provide Applicant with an

India unlimited calling plan. Moreover, the

Applicant used to fly back to India for such

extended periods that the first US Sim card that

Respondent No. 1 gifted her with number got de-

activated. If Respondent No. 1 had slightest intent of

preventing Applicant from calling anyone, why

would he spend one of the most expensive rechanrge

plans giving Unlimited India calling for his wife

whom he loved unconditionally. Respondent No. 1

 30
further states that, he loved Applicant from bottom

of his heart and tried everything in his finite abilities

to comfort his wife who was visiting him in USA

after marriage. Despite, Applicant prioritizing her

job at Mumbai over her new marriage, Respondent

No. 1 always provided all types of financial,

emotional and mental support to her. It is pertinent

to note that during July, 2012 to Dec, 2013,

Respondent No. 1 did not have a job as he was full-

time Masters student whereas Applicant was in a

full-time job at HPCL Mumbai. Still Respondent

No. 1 arranged multiple additional credit cards to his

wife i.e. Applicant, so that she does not have to

worry about any expenses and need not touch her

savings of 6+ years in India. For the comfort of

Applicant, Respondent No. 1 rented a mid-sized

1Bedroom apartment in one of the most expensive

rental neighborhoods in entire world: Upper East

Side of Manhattan New York. Respondent No. 1

single-handedly paid entire rent (USD 2,000 or INR

1.5Lakhs per month) and living expenses of around

 31
USD 1,500 or INR 1lakh per month. Applicant

never contributed even a single Rupee despite her

earning more than 1lakh per month from HPCL

Mumbai. Like any sincere and loving husband,

Respondent No. 1 always kept comfort of Applicant

as his top priority. Out of his sheer love, he gifted

Applicant endless expensive clothes, bags,

accessories and other items so that she never feels

lack of anything. Respondent No. 1 spent in excess

of USD 110,000 or INR 84 Lakhs to which

Applicant claims that she remained under house

arrest. The Respondents crave leave to refer and rely

on the evidence as and when required.

o. That, the entire contents of para No. 19 of the

Petition are wrong, baseless, hence denied that the

Respondent ever abused her for delaying her arrival.

p. That, the entire contents of para No. 20, of the

Petition are wrong, baseless, hence denied. The

Respondent No. 1 states that, whenever the

 32
Applicant used to visit Respondent No. 1 in USA,

she always used to spend earnings of Respondent

No. 1. Despite having an independent well paying

job in India, she decided to spend Respondent No.

1's money in USA and Respondent No. 1 never had

any issues with this. The Applicant is his wife and in

any healthy marriage, it is fine if the lady does not

want to spend her own earned money and rather

spend husband's money. Thus, there is no basis of

Respondent No. 1 forcing Applicant to study to

make her financially dependent on him. The

decision of Applicant pursuing higher studies was

purely driven by her unparalleled career ambition to

get a job in USA, which she was not eligible for

until she earns a higher degree from USA, just like

Respondent No. 1 did. Respondent No. 1, in fact

supported Applicant with the hefty tuition fees of

Master’s program which was way higher than the

Masters fees that was spent on Respondent No. 1's

own Master’s degree. In fact, by that time,

Respondent No. 1 did not even have sufficient funds

 33
to pay Applicant's fees of USD 45,000. Respondent

No. 1 further states that, he only had $24,331 or

16lakhs in his account of which first semester fees

itself would have been ~$17,000 and with monthly

expenses of $4000, Respondent No. 1 very clearly

asked Applicant to support him financially else he

would go bankerupt. Here too, Applicant

deliberately kept her Savings from 8years of her job

in India hidden from Respondent No. 1, from

perusal of the Applicant's ICICI Bank Statement

from March, 2016 it appears that she had multiple

FDs totaling to INR 16lakhs which is even larger

than Respondent No. 1's total savings in USA.

However, Applicant is referring to these savings of

hers as minimal savings. Further, Applicant was

well aware that Respondent No. 1's family had paid

for Respondent No. 1's Master’s degree in 2012-13

and Respondent No. 1 was out of job for more than

18months and that he did not have sufficient

savings, still she insisted on him bearing the

expenses for her Masters. To this, Respondent No. 1

 34
clearly explained his financial difficulties with the

sole intention that she will understand, Respondent

No. 1 requested her either take a student loan or

have some support from her job savings that she

continued after her marriage until Sep, 2015.

Respondent No. 1 further states that, Respondent 2

was never involved between Respondent No. 1 and

Applicant. Respondent No. 2 with his wife was

living in Gwalior, the Applicant is making false

allegations on Respondents that they did not allow

her to visit India to her parents as they failed to fulfil

Respondents demands. The Respondent No. 1 states

that neither he nor any of his family members ever

stop the applicant from doing anything, she did not

go to India just because of her medical condition,

but now the Applicant reversing the entire picture

and presenting that she suffered because she was not

allowed to visit India. Respondent No. 1 states that,

the Applicant was residing in USA and perusing her

Master degree, she was very well aware about the

law for security and safety of women in USA, if she

 35
had any problem with the Respondents, why she did

not take any action against them.

q. That, the contents of para No. 21, of the Petition are

wrong, baseless, hence denied that Respondent No.

1 pressurized the Applicant for job. Respondent No.

1 states that, Applicant was always very keen to do a

job and become even more independent person. She

herself admits in Para No. 17 of her petition, and

when she got the opportunity for the job at Boston,

Respondent No. 1 was not in favour of it initially.

As the Boston job would require Applicant and

Respondent No. 1 to again start living separately

which they have been doing for a long time since

getting married. But, it was clear that Applicant had

made up her mind and nothing could have changed

her. Ultimately, as always, Respondent No. 1 he had

no option left but to admit to Applicant's demands

for the sanity of the household. But Respondent No.

1 was not in favour of long distance relationship

hence, after it became clear that Applicant would

 36
move to Boston to pursue her career dreams,

Respondent No. 1 who was working for the most

prestigious and well known brand name firm, JP

Morgan in New York City offered to try his level

best and find a job in Boston so that the pain of

living separately from his wife can be healed.

Respondent No. 1 Applied for 30+ jobs and in those

jobs, gave in all atleast 50+ rounds of interviews in

Boston, but none of it converted to a job offer.

r. That, the contents of para No. 22, of the Petition are

wrong, baseless, hence denied. Respondent No. 1

state that, he never fought with Applicant's parents

and demanded money back which he has spent on

Applicant’s Masters' fees, he never cursed and

abused Applicant parents. The fact is Applicant's

Father pushed Respondent No. 1 and Applicant's

Brother used very disrespectful and hateful language

for Respondent No. 1, given Punit Mangal being

several years younger to Respondent No. 1, but

Respondent No. 1 never used even a single impolite

 37
word. Respondent No. 1 further denies that, the

Applicant transferred 48750 USD (equivalent to Rs

35 lakh) to Respondent No. 1 account against the

expenses which bared for her master degree. The

Respondent No. 1 states that, The Applicant's email

on 7th April 2019 shows detail of breakdown of

USD 48750. In that email, the Applicant herself

admitted that she received an amount of USD

11,500 or INR 8.625Lakhs which was Respondent

No. 1's Savings and was transferred to Applicant's

account. Later, when Respondent No. 1's Mother

was diagnosed with Stage IV Cancer, and there was

outlay of several lakhs per month, Respondent No. 1

was battling severe financial troubles. Respondent

No. 1 had to send sizable amounts of his savings

from USA to India in order to continue his Mother's

treatment and to create a backup of money in case

some highly expensive treatments like

Immunotherapy were needed in future which cost in

excess of INR 22lakhs per month. Still, it is

shameful to see that Applicant despite her admission

 38
of receiving those funds from Respondent No. 1 is

now claiming that money was in compensation of

her master’s fees. The Respondents crave leave to

rely on supporting evidence as and when required.

s. That, the contents of para No. 23 of the Petition are

wrong, baseless, hence denied. Respondent No. 1

states that, Respondent No. 2 was serving as Head

of the Department of Chemistry at Govt Science

College, Gwalior and was living with his wife, Late

Smt. Shail Agrawal in Gwalior, he had very limited

time to speak to Respondent No. 1 and the Applicant

he has no intervention in their married life. The

Applicant trying to implicate him in this false case

with the sole intention to pressurize and extort huge

sum of money from Respondents.

t. That, the contents of para No. 24 of the Petition are

wrong, baseless, hence denied. Respondent No. 1

never ever asked Applicant to resign from her job at

Boston and move back to India. In fact, he only

 39
requested Applicant to show and express some

affection and care to Respondent No. 1's Mother by

occasionally calling her which Respondent No. 1

realized that Applicant had stopped doing.

Respondent No. 1 states that once, during casual

chat, Applicant told Respondent No. 1, "Main itna

paisa kamaati hoon ki chahoon to apne dam par hi

tumhari Mumm ka poora ilaaj karwa doon." But,

later when Respondent No. 1 said that the Applicant

does not bear even her own living expenses and

makes all of her personal expenses on Respondent

No. 1's credit card while she herself earns as much

as the Respondent No. 1, Applicant got seriously

offended. She got soo offended that after

Respondent No. 1 returned to USA and was visiting

Applicant in Boston, from that day onwards, she

stopped all types of physical intimacy that any

married couple has. It is important to highlight that

the allegation of Respondent No. 1 not initiating any

sexual activity with Applicant is complete twisting

of the fact where Applicant herself declined several

 40
sexual requests from Respondent No. 1 on multiple

occasions.

u. That, the contents of para No. 25 of the Petition are

wrong, baseless, hence denied. Respondent No. 1

states that, neither the Respondents nor any of the

family members ever stayed at the Applicant’s

maternal house, nor the Applicant’s family anyhow

helped them in their painful days. Respondent No. 1

states that, Respondent No. 2 and his wife (mother

of Respondent No. 1) reached Mumbai on 29th Aug

2019. From early morning of 30th Aug 2019

onwards, Respondent No. 1 and his both Parents

used to be at different hospitals all over Mumbai for

consultations and to have a treatment plan set up.

Respondent No. 1's Mother started her

Chemotherapy at Tata Cancer Hospital from first

week of September While she started to develop

very severe side-effects, contrary to the Applicant’s

statement made in her petition, in reality, the

Applicant's family flew to USA for a personal

 41
recreational trip to Applicant who was working

there. Thus, while Respondent No. 1's Mother with

Respondents was running in and out of hospital each

single day due to her worsening health, Applicant

was busy in flying her Parents and Brother to

several scenic beautiful places on East Cost, West

Coast of USA. Not only this, the Applicant even

made these personal travel bookings for her Family's

US visit with Respondent No. 1's bank account. The

Applicant was ended up spending in excess of

$10,000 or INR 7lakhs for her Parents visit while

Respondent No. 1 was struggling to support his

Mother whose health was deteriorating and Doctors

were giving up on her. While, the trip of Applicant's

family was already planned, but what really

disappointed Respondent No. 1 was when towards

mid of Oct shortly before Applicant's parents due

return date to India, Applicant on a phone call with

Respondent No. 1's Mother who was battling severe

side effects of Stage 4 Cancer, Applicant started

screaming and complaining against Respondent No.

 42
1 that he doesn't care for Applicant and never calls

her, the Applicant accidentally slipped on road at

Disney World but he didn't care to call her up to ask

about her health. Of course, Respondent No. 1's

Mother had nothing to say as she was in hospital

battling some serious changes in her health and

fighting life-threatening complications. The

Respondents crave leave to rely and refer the

supporting evidence as and when required.

v. That, the contents of para No. 26 of the Petition are

wrong, baseless, hence denied that the applicant

ever took care of her mother in law, she is very self-

cantered person and cannot think about anyone else,

and the allegations she puts on Respondents and

their family members that they abused her is

absolutely false and cooked up to make her Petition

more presentable as she has not mentioned any

specific incident of violence. The Respondent No. 1

states that, the Applicant had earlier denied to

Respondent No. 1 that despite her Mother-in-Law's

 43
deteriorating health, she does not intend to visit

India. Applicant said, "Abhi abhi mere Mummy

Papa yahaan se laut ke gaye hain. Mere paas abhi

India aane ka kisi se milne ka koi reason nahin

hai." When Respondent No. 1 countered this by

saying that, "Tum har saal 1 baar to India aati hi

ho. Is baar, jab Mummy ki tabiyat itni kharab hai

ki aage ka kuch samajh nahin aa raha, mujhe bhi

tumhari zaroorat lagti hai, to tum kyun ek trip

nahin plan kar rahi?" To this Applicant countered,

"Abhi mera koi bhi India aane ka plan nahin hai.

Haan agar koi sudden emergency ho jaati hai, to

dekhoongi ki kya karna hai". After the above

insensitive conversation, when 2-3 weeks later,

Respondent No. 1 came to know from Applicant's

Parents that Applicant is planning to visit India, he

became very happy. He was really thrilled to meet

his wife. Though, it fizzled soon after Applicant

arrived and continued her distant and detached

behavior with Respondent No. 1. She continued to

avoid any sexual activity despite living apart for

 44
more than 4 months in a different country.

Moreover, while Respondent No. 1 went to office,

Applicant had a serious altercation with Respondent

No. 1's ailing Mother and Respondent No. 1's old

Father i.e. Respondent No. 2 before Applicant

headed out to her Mother's house.

w. That, the contents of para Nos. 27 to 29 of the

Petition are wrong, baseless, hence denied in toto. It

is submitted that, until a few days before the painful

demise of Respondent No. 1's Mother and

Respondent No. 2's Wife, the Applicant continued

her office job at Boston, USA. Throughout

Respondent No. 1's Mother's intense suffering from

Stage IV Cancer over 18 months, Applicant spent

less than a month throughout these 18 months,

Applicant cited her own allergy and eczema and

many other points as reasons to not to visit India to

be around Applicant's Mother-in-Law. In fact, to

add to the agony, contrary to Applicant's baseless

claims of Respondents abusing Applicant's Parents

 45
which never ever happened, it was the Applicant

who often used highly insensitive set of words like,

"Tumhari Maa ko karam hi aise honge ki unhein

Cancer to nahin to aur kya hota........". Being a

caregiver to his own Mother, Respondent No. 1 who

was witnessing the immense suffering of his own

Mother in front of his own eyes, Respondent No. 1

never ever said the things that Applicant has falsely

made up in her petition. The Respondents states that

all the household chores were done primarily by the

Respondents & Respondent No. 1's younger brother

who moved back to India during Sep 2018-

March2019 and in Feb 2020 to July 2020. The

Respondents state that, the Applicant never cared

about her mother-in-law nor her debilitating health.

Her Mother-in-law was diagnosed on 03/Sept/2018

but the Applicant visited India in Dec, 2018 for 4 or

5 weeks in which she spent lesser than 5 days in

Gwalior to meet her mother-in-law & spent all the

time in Mumbai with her parent. Moreover,

Applicant would not even call her mother-in-law in

 46
spite of repeated requests from the mother-in-law

herself. The Respondents further state that, the

Applicant cared for herself, her job & her own

parents only. When Agrawal family had moved to

Mumbai to further mother-in-law's treatment in Tata

Memorial Hospital & mother-in-law was facing

health problems of continuous vomiting, terrible

body ache, cancer eating the muscle mass of her

body, Applicant invited her parents & younger

brother to travel & vacation in USA for 1-2 months.

The Applicant has purposefully hidden these facts to

manipulate the court & use the judicial power to her

benefit. In 2019, Applicant visited Mumbai in Dec,

2019 for 3 weeks in which she spent majority of her

time at her parents house. The Respondents further

state that, the Applicant kept taunting that Agrawal

family should be glad that she showed up before the

passing of mother-in-law. In addition, on the

evening of mother-in-law's passing, Applicant kept

screaming on Agrawal family that Respondents

were stupid to make efforts to save her mother-in-

 47
law. The Respondents further state that, the

Applicant did not perform household chores. The

Respondents & the younger brother used to clean

the home, clean utensils & perform praying rituals

for the passed away mother in law. She kept her

room door closed all day-night & stayed on phone

call or on skype calls with her mother. In addition,

Applicant used to go to her mother's home every

afternoon for many long hours. The Respondents

crave leave to rely on the supporting evidence as

and when required.

x. That, the contents of para No. 30 of the Petition are

wrong, baseless, hence denied. The Respondents

state that, the Applicant did not want to perform

Tehravi ritual which was important in Respondents

family customs but the Applicant had insisted

Respondent No. 1 to do a short-cut of rituals & wrap

up within 3 days of passing. She did not want to

cook food for the Pandit & 1 guest who had helped

Respondent No. 1's mother during her hospital visit.

 48
In fact, Applicant's mother gave instructions to

Respondent No. 2 to not invite anyone on Tehravi

because Applicant would have to cook. The

Respondents state that, the Applicant did not cook

nor performed any rituals on Tehravi. She used the

excuse of periods so she would not be asked to even

participate in Pooja. Further, on the 14th day of

mother's passing, Applicant made a decision to teach

a lesson to Respondents family for organising the

tehravi by abandoning the husband's household &

live with her mother. And the Applicant's mother

had declared "Rishta Khatm" on a call, the

Respondent No. 1 wants a happy family therefore,

he was not ready to accept applicant’s mother’s

decision of rishta khatam, but he was shocked when

the applicant started sending threatening emails to

implicate them in domestic violence case. The

Respondents were scared of Applicant’s threatening

behaviour therefore they have filed written Petition

before Tilak Nagar Police Station if Applicant

would attempt to conspire against Respondents. The

 49
Respondents crave leave to rely on the supporting

evidence as and when required.

y. That, the contents of para No. 31 of the Petition are

wrong, baseless, hence denied. The Applicant

deliberately implicating the Respondent No. 2 in a

false case to pressurize Respondent No. 1 to adhere

illegal demands of the Applicant. Respondent No. 1

states that, at the relevant time he was admitted to

Masina Hospital after his PTSD intensified post

threatening emails from Applicant. The admission

was diagnosed to be suicidal thoughts and Doctor's

diagnosed the reason to be matrimonial dispute and

pressure from Spouse. After getting relived from the

Hospital, the severely distressing impact of the

Applicant’s email did not subside on Respondent

No. 1. Given the harsh tone and baseless allegations

by his own wife. Respondent No. 2 filed preventive

complaint at Tilak Nagar Police Station. However,

throughout this process the Respondent were

hopeful that at some point the applicant and her

 50
family would realize their mistake and would

consider coming back to Respondent No. 1’s house.

That’s why the Respondent No. 1 restrict the

Respondent No. 2 from taking any coercive/legal

action against the applicant and her family members.

The Respondents crave leave to rely on the

supporting evidence s and when required.

z. That, the entire contents of para Nos. 32 and 33, of

the Petition are wrong, baseless, hence denied in

toto. Applicant be put to strict proof thereof. It is

submitted that the Applicant was never tried to save

her relationship, neither she herself nor any of her

family member ever approached the Respondents

for counselling or trying to resolve the issues, in

contrary, they direct approached the Respondent No.

1 for divorce. The Respondents state that, the

Applicant was never harassed or tottered by

Respondents. It is further submitted that the

Applicant is levelling vague and false allegations

against the Respondent and she has failed to give

 51
any specific date, time or instance, when she was

subjected to of such cruelties, which itself shows

that there is no truth in the said allegations. The

Respondent No. 1 states that, on 12th March 2021,

Applicant's Father sent the Wedding invitation of

Applicant's Brother, Punit Mangal for 3days later on

15th March 2021. Though Respondent No. 2 was

partly disappointed with a stranger like treatment

from Applicant's family, but in order to resolve the

marital issues between Applicant and Respondent

No. 1, Respondent No. 2 promised to Applicant's

Father that both Respondents will attend Punit's

wedding on 15th March 2021. On 15th March,

despite Respondent No. 2 chronic back pain,

Respondents reached Wedding venue by travelling

for 2.5hours. Though Applicant's family greeted

Respondent's warmly, but to disappointment of both

Respondent's, Applicant made sure that after an

initial 5sec greeting, during the remaining 1hour

stay of both Respondent, Applicant made sure to not

to interact with Respondent No. 1. This deeply

 52
affected Respondent No. 1's mental state as for the

first time over the last one year, he started to loose

hopes of making his troubled marriage with

Applicant work. But in the said marriage

Respondent No. 1 first time sensed for the first time

that Applicant has made up her mind to separate

from Respondent No. 1 and her actions of not

speaking to her husband despite meeting after 1year,

supported that conclusion. This conclusion got

further cemented, when during a later phone

conversation between Respondent No. 2 and

Applicant's Father, Applicant's Father proposed to

have Applicant and Respondent No. 2 pursue an

amicable divorce.

aa. With regard to the contention of para No. 34 of the

Petition the, Respondent No. 1 states that, the

Applicant herself declined to keep any relation with

him, she herself deserted the applicant. The

Respondents denied that they had ever demand

anything back from the applicant, she is making

 53
false allegations to improvise her case against the

Respondents. With regard to the incident mentioned

in the petition the Respondents have ample evidence

to prove that the Applicant and her family members

were the aggressor, who barged into Respondent’s

house and beat them mercilessly. Even the

concerned police officer also noted the same. The

Respondents crave leave to rely on supporting

evidence as and when required.

bb.That, the entire contents of para 35, of the Petition

are wrong, baseless, hence denied. Applicant be put

to strict proof thereof. the Applicant is not eligible

for any of the relief sought as she has not

approached this Hon’ble court with the clean hands

and intension.

15.The Respondents states that, neither the Respondents nor

any of their family members ever harassed or abused the

Applicant. The Applicant herself is a quarrelsome lady

with high temperament and after marriage she did not try
 54
to understand her responsibilities towards the Respondents

and she used to quarrel with the Respondent and other

family members on one pretext and other and threatened

them to implicate in a false criminal cases.

16.That, the entire petition that the Respondents on several

occasions harass her, threaten her and harmed her but does

not disclose any of the occasion on which she was subject

to these cruelties, it is shows that the entire story made out

in the petition are false, concocted and baseless.

17.That, in the present petition, the applicant ask of INR

86Lakhs which includes several baseless items including

Salary of HPCL after Applicant's resignation and other

items indicate that the intent of the DV Petition is to

misuse the PWDVA to extort money from Respondents.

18.That, the Applicant never shared any financial account info

or about her Savings. While she had unlimited access to

Respondent No. 1's accounts, including the passwords and

login information of Respondent No. 1's salary account

 55
with Bank of America. However, she never revealed any

details of her own account. Even at time of filing year-end

Tax Returns, rather than sharing details with Respondent

No. 1, she would herself download the necessary Deposit

Interest Income statement along with her W2 so that her

account details are never revealed. Though, Respondent

No. 1 noted the severe asymmetry in information sharing,

but he never thought this to be a problem given his

unconditional trust and belief in Applicant and her intent.

As a result, even before Applicant's move to Boston to join

her new job, Respondent No. 1 withdrew USD 11,000

(INR 8Lakhs) and deposited it in Applicant's account in

April. Though, when Respondent No. 1 and his Family

were facing severe financial challenges amidst the cancer

treatment of Respondent No. 1's Mother, Applicant did

deposit USD 48750 which included USD 11,000 but in the

petition, Applicant is claiming this money to be returned to

her.

19.That, Respondent No. 1's Mother was diagnosed with a

rare and a very aggressive type of Stage IV Cancer in Sep

 56
2018. After the dreadful diagnosis, Applicant shortly flew

back to India to be with his Mother and to help her get the

best possible treatment. Though, Respondent's entire

family was in immense grief, Applicant did not care to

visit Respondent No. 1's Mother. Being the only daughter-

in-law in the house, she even did not used to even call her

Mother-in-Law despite being requested several times. The

Applicant later came to India to visit Applicant's own

Mother in Mumbai for 39 days from Nov 22nd till Dec

30th, but Applicant spent only 4 days out of 39days to visit

her Mother-in-Law in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. Even

during those 4 days at Gwalior, Applicant made hurtful

remarks, "Tum logon ko realize nahin hota ki main kitni

achchi bahu hoon. Mere kitne friends hain, jinke in-laws

kabhi aakar apne bete ke saath 1-2 weeks se zyaada

nahin ruk sakte. Main tumhre Parents ko itne mahine

rukne par bhi kuch nahin kehti." This behavior of

Applicant was very disappointing on several fronts. Firstly,

Applicant never viewed Respondent No. 1's Parents as part

of her own Family but always treated them as outsiders

which was reflected in her distant behavior to them.

 57
Secondly, even on a human and moral front, Applicant's

behavior was inappropriate, specially when several

Doctors had already diagnosed Respondent No. 1's Mother

to be a Terminal Cancer Patient with limited life.

Applicant's behavior was also out of line from expectations

of a Hindu Marriage where both Husband and wife jointly

take care of their Parents. Applicant's insensitive behavior

continued even on the day of demise of Respondent No.

1's Mother.

20.The Applicant has suppressed various material facts while

filing the present petition and has given the different

version to suit her own requirements of falsely implicating

the Respondent No. 1 and his old aged father. Applicant

has purposely not mentioned about her current high paying

job and her savings. That, since Dec, 2020, Applicant has

been working as a Senior Manager in the highly coveted

team of Strategy and Consulting at Global MNC,

Accenture and earns an annual salary of INR 40Lakhs per

annum i.e. monthly 3.5 Lakhs per month while she is

demanding for an Interim Maintenance of INR 1Lakh per

 58
month from Respondent No. 1. It is important to highlight

that until Dec, 2020, the Applicant was working as the

Lead Product Manager (PM) for a leading Oil Refining

Services firm at Boston USA where she was making an

annual package of USD 160,000 per annum or INR

1.2Crores per annum or INR 10 Lakhs per month

(additional Equity stocks of her Employer amounting to

USD 10,000 per year) and she joined this firm back in

May2017. This aggregates to INR 3.5-4.0 Crores in Gross

salary. Despite of her high paying job, Applicant continued

to save her money and relied mostly on her husband's

(Respondent No. 1's) funds (who was earning at par with

Applicant until Respondent No. 1 relocated to India to take

care of his Mother fighting Advanced Stage Cancer) for

her personal expenses while she lived separately in a

different city.

21.That, even after 8+ years of marriage, there is no child

between Applicant and Respondent No. 1, as the Applicant

do not want any burden on her career, for her selfishness

 59
she deprived the Respondent No. 1 from the most precious

bliss of his life.

22.It is further submitted that, Respondent, his family,

relatives, and friends approached the Applicant’s parents

for the settlement of this dispute but the Applicant refused

to settled this matter.

23.It is submitted that, the Respondents have never demanded

any dowry from the Applicant nor from her parents and

accordingly there is no issue of torturing the Applicant, as

is alleged, or at all. In fact the Applicant used take an

undue advantage of his good intensions.

24.It is humbly submitted that there is no cause accrued to the

applicant for filing the present Petition and therefore no

relief can be granted to the applicant by this Hon’ble

Court.

25.Therefore, the Respondents humbly submit that the

Petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed

with costs.
 60
26. That, the contents of the prayer clause are wrong,

baseless and denied.

27.It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may kindly dismiss the present application of the

petitioner with cost.

Place: Mumbai

Dated:

RESPONDENT NO. 1

RESPONDENT NO. 2

ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS