IN THE COURT OF LD.

PRINCIPAL JUDGE, NORTH WEST

DISTRICT, FAMILY COURT, ROHINI, DELHI
M T Case No. 188/18

PRIYA MISHRA
…..Petitioner
Vs

RAGHAV PANDEY ……....Respondent

REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE SEC

125 CRPC PETITION FILED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONER

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

Preliminary Submissions:

1. That the present petition is an abuse of process of law and a mere

counter blast to the guardianship petition instituted by the

respondent seeking custody of his minor child which is under

control of the petitioner.

2. That the present petition is a mere concocted story full of lies and

surmises which have been suited to the case of the petitioner herein

and to try and portray the respondent in a bad light to get a

favourable order from this Learned Court.

3. That the respondent states he got married to the petitioner herein

on 21.02.2019 with all religious rites and rituals while the

respondent was located in Maharashtra for his work. The

respondent states that the petitioner has left her matrimonial

 premises and is not living with the respondent and his family for

reasons best known to her own self.

4. That the respondent states that he had at times requested his wife

i.e. the petitioner herein to try and devote time to cater to family

needs and to try and change her behavior and attitude to him and

his family members so that their family life should not suffer and

they are able to build a healthy relationship.

5. That it is stated that as happens in every married life there use to be

some quarrels at times but same were settled with time but

however the petitioner cared less for her in laws or for respondent

or his family.

6. That however again with intervention of family members and

relatives good sense prevailed and petitioner came back to her

matrimonial home and they tried to manage things in cordial

manner.

7. That the respondent submits that on 21.01.2018 to his uttermost

shock and surprise the petitioner informed him that she has decided

to file complaint under section 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of domestic

violence act against the respondent and his family. That he was

further threatened of dire consequences and to be falsely entangled

in frivolous cases if the monetary considerations as per her

 expectations are not met and if the respondent does not transfer his

savings and assets in her name. That it is further to say that at the

time of leaving she has taken along all her jewellery and Istridhan.

8. It is submitted that the Respondent requested her to sort out the

issues amicably and come back to him. That about the sudden

decision of petitioner to leave her matrimonial house and his

apprehension of being subject to false and frivolous allegations at

their hands and her parents and relatives, however he had still

hoped that he shall be able to sort out the issues amicably without

the intervention of Court. It is submitted that the Respondent is a

lot into his wife only and can do anything for his wife. He still

believes that he can give love, care and affection to his wife

despite of knowing the fact the Complaint left him and resides in

her matrimonial house.

9. The respondent states that even his parents at times tried to speak

to the petitioner who however pay no heed to their requests as well

and continued to act weird in her daily routine and use to leave

early from home and come back only after all household work for

the day was finished and paid no heed to respondent or his family

requests to try and sort the issues amicably.

10. The respondent states that time and again he had informed his

parents in law that the petitioner herein was not acting in a normal
manner and not looking after the interest and welfare of and use to

neglect him and his wellbeing, they were also informed that it was

the respondent and his family including his parents who use to

look after and carry daily routine activities but hoping that things

would get back to normal with time and the differences of married

life if any would heal up and things would get sorted while the

petitioner was living with the respondent………..

Parawise Reply on Merits:

1. That the contents of para 1 under reply are denied for the

manner they have been pleaded. That it is agreed that that the

Petitioner and the Respondent got married according to Hindu

rites and ceremonies on 22.11.2010 at Gulmohar Garden,

Sector 17, Rohini, Delhi amongst family members and friends

of both sides, however no specific demands was raised by Shri

Devender Ahuja (father of Respondent) and Mrs Nisha Ahuja

(mother of Respondent). That the Petitioner is making only

baseless allegations just to tarnish the image of the respondent

and his family members.

2. That the contents of para 2 under reply are admitted however it

is to clarify that the minor child Riaan Ahuja is under unlawful

custody if the petitioner and is not being allowed to meet the

respondent being his natural guardian and father and for which
 separate proceedings have already been instituted by the

respondent herein.

3. That the contents of para 3 under reply are admitted except the

fact that the respondent is having any side business from which

his earnings were Rs 2.5 Lakhs apart from Rs 7.5 lakh per

annum that he was earning. That the petitioner is merely using

allegations without any substantiate proof to support her claims

which should be negated by this Ld Court.

4. That the contents of para 4 under reply are vehemently denied

for being concocted, baseless and without any proof. That any

allegation to tarnish the image of the respondent or his family

member by portraying that they demanded any alleged liquor

counter is not accepted and is mere fag of imagination of the

petitioner herein and she be put to strict proof to prove the

same.

5. That the contents of para 5 under reply are denied for being

vague and baseless. That any alleged articles were never in

possession of the respondent or any of his family members and

were only in possession of the petitioner herein and any

allegation of entrusting the same to the respondent, his family

members is nothing short of a mere imagination and she be put

 to strict proof to prove the same. That it is further to add that in

fact at the request of petitioner’s family members as they

demanded 2 gold rings for her younger sisters namely…………

& …………. The same was provided to them.

6. That the contents of para 6 under reply are vague and baseless

and cannot be relied upon. That the petitioner had rather always

spent her time in comparing each and every thing viz a viz with

her parental home and use to pass comments about the living at

her matrimonial home and was never satisfied with the

comforts provided by the respondent herein.

7. That the contents of para 7 under reply are denied at the outset.

That it specifically denied that the father in law of the petitioner

no 1 had at any point of time waned to extort money out of

pockets of the petitioner and further denied that at any point of

time he had coerced the petitioner for bringing any article from

her matrimonial home. That it is further denied that the

petitioner kept on bringing cash and other articles from her

parental home for some time after marriage to allegedly ensure

the greed of respondent and her in laws. That the petitioner be

put to strict proof to prove the same.

8. That the contents of para 8 under reply are wrong and denied.

That it is denied that any amount was spent by parents of the

 petitioner as per demands of Sh. Devender Ahuja (father in law)

and Mrs Nisha Ahuja (mother in law) and any amount if so

spent was only as per their own choice and was not a forced

decision. That the allegation qua spending of amount is just a

mere mechanical allegation without any specific details or

proof and thus cannot be relied upon.

9. That the contents of para 9 under reply are denied for being

vague and baseless. That it is denied that any gifts for the

petitioner’s sister in law or he brother in law were ever

demanded. That any gifts if given were at their own choice and

comfort and now only because of sour relations between the

families is she raising such vague allegations.

10.That the contents of para 10 under reply are vague and baseless

That it is denied that the petitioner had been a subject to mental

cruelty by her mother in law or that she has ever foul mouthed

her by giving any alleged taunts. That it is further to say that

since the petitioner is good at cooking and thus question of

doubting her cooking skills does not arise. That further the

allegation that her mother in law used to instigate respondent

against the petitioner is bad and denied. That rather it was the

petitioner who has always chosen to make a mountain out of

mole on any trivial issue in the family. That the parents of the

respondent had never interfered in the matrimonial life of the

 respondent. That any allegation that the respondent ever

mistreated her, bad mouthed her or ill - treated her is

unfounded. That further the allegation that the respondent use

to snatch the earnings of the petitioner from her as he was

having unfettered access to her bank account and debit card is

nothing but a laughable assumption. That the respondent in a

highly qualified person and there was no occasion for him to

snatch her earnings as alleged, and further in today’s world the

petitioner always had the occasion to control the spending.

11.That the contents of para 11 under reply are false and

fabricated. That it is denied that there used to be regular

bickering in the family on minor issues and further that there

were tiredness due to wedding preparations and there was no

difference in behavior towards petitioner.

12.That the contents of para 12 under reply are partially admitted

except the fact that the Petitioner and her family didn’t gifted

any expensive gifts as such mentioned by the Petitioner.

13.That the contents of instant para 13 under reply are denied for

being vague and baseless. That it is stated that the allegation

that the family of respondent’s family were demanding money

on the pretext of wedding is completely false as wedding

expenses were beard by both the families equally.

14.That the contents of instant para 14 under reply are denied for

the manner they have been partially denied. That it is stated that

the allegation that the Petitioner and her family went Allahabad
 for wedding preparations and to take care of things is true but

the last minute preparations were left on the part of petitioner’s

family as they had not told the exact number of guests coming

by their side and for accommodation, catering respondent’s

family had taken the full responsibility and they number of

guests they were told about out-numbered in the last moment.

15.That the contents of instant para 15 under reply are denied for

being wrong and vexatious. That the petitioner is

misrepresenting the facts and stating false accusations against

respondent and his family. The respondent and his family have

never demanded any form of dowry from petitioner or her

family at any point of time. There has never been any

harassment or abuse by the Respondent and his family. There is

no proof on record which shows any kind of money given by

the petitioner or her father to respondent or his father. The

pictures annexed by the petitioner ___ wherein cash and gold or

any kind of gift by the petitioner was given by their own will

and hence there was no demand by the respondent or his

family. This clearly shows that the petitioner is trying to put

false accusations on the respondent and his family in order to

extort money.

16.That the contents of para 16 under reply are denied for being

vague and denied. It is submitted that the respondent spent its

own money for the wedding and on the other functions of the

wedding ceremony.
17.That the contents of para 17 under reply are denied for being a

mere assumptive story and allegations are a mere performa

without any basis and any specifications The reception was

done before the marriage because of the sole reason of the

respondent of not being available on the next day of marriage as

the respondent had to go for some urgent office work.

18.That the contents of para 18 under reply are denied for the

manner they have been pleaded. That it is stated that there is no

such incident that has occurred. It is submitted that the

respondent and his family did not demand such specific sweet

and it was ordered by the petitioner and her family by their own

will.

19.That the contents of instant para are denied for being wrong and

vexatious. That it is specifically denied that the respondent’s

mother just kept the cash and jewellery boxes in a safe locker as

there were many guests and servants present in the house. The

respondent and his family have true belief that the marriage is a

very sacred ritual and the petitioner is stating frivolous facts

before the court and is trying in all possible ways to showcase a

bad image of the respondent and the completely different

picture of the night.

20. That the contents of instant para 20 under reply are vague and

baseless. That it is stated that the petitioner knew before the

marriage only that the respondent had to leave the very next day

after the marriage due to work. The petitioner is trying to

 mislead the Hon’ble Court by stating false and vague

statements.

21.That the contents of para 21 under reply are denied for the

manner they have been pleaded. That it is stated that the

Respondent’s father asked the Petitioner for the valuabe things

in order to keep it safely in the locker and not to seize it from

petitioner. It is denied that the Petitioner’s father ever handed

any cash to the Respondent.

22.That the contents of para 22 under reply are denied for being

wrong as the Petitioner’s mother gifted the gold ring, shagun,

saree, sweets with his own fill in order to honor her, there was

no demand from the Respondent’s mother at any point of time.

The tickets annexed by the petitioner nowhere shows that the

petitioner family has paid for the tickets.

23.That the contents of para 23 under reply are denied unless

specifically admitted. That it is stated that it was already told by

the respondent to the petitioner that the respondent would not

be able to take the petitioner along with her to Mumbai because

first he has to setup a proper home in Mumbai so that the

petitioner later does not faces any problem living there.

24.That the contents of para 24 are denied for being wrong and

hence denied. That it is specifically denied that there was any

 interference from any family member much less than the sister

in law.

25.That the contents of para 25 under reply are wrong and denied.

That it is stated that in July 2012 it was mother of the petitioner

who took her along, second occasion she left on her won

leaving behind the minor son and finally her parents came and

took her along with all her belongings.

26.That the contents of instant para 26 under reply are wrong and

denied. That it is stated that the respondent is the legal and

natural guardian of the respondent and thus has all rights to

retain the documents of the minor son, rather it is the petitioner

who is not allowing to let the respondent meet the minor son

and retains his illegal possession.

27.That the contents of instant para 27 under reply are denied. That

its is stated that the police authorities were well informed that

she has already taken all her belongings along including

jewellery articles.

28.That the contents of instant para 28 under reply are admitted

and it is stated that they are mere after thought and counter blast

to guardianship petition instituted by the respondent herein.

29.That the contents of instant para 29 under reply are denied for

being ague and baseless. That it stated that the petitioner is a

qualified………… and ws working as ……… for the

period……….. That it is stated that respondent is ready and

wiling to look after the neds of his minor son at any point of
 time and rather it is the petitioner who does not allow him to

even meet him much less have his custody. That the petitioner

has deliberately chosen not to get herself employed so as to try

and get gainfully rich at cost of respondent. That it must be

made clear that it is not a situation where the petitioner is not

able to work but it’s a case where she deliberately chose not to

work.

30.That the contents of instant para 30 under reply are denied

unless specifically admitted. That it is stated that the

respondent is always ready and willing to look after the needs

of his minor son and the petitioner by keeping him in her

custody and his shield cannot be allowed to gain advantage of

the present situation.

31.That the contents of para 31 are denied for being vague and

baseless. That it is stated that the respondent till the time she

was residing with him has always taken care to provide all care

and comfort to her.

32.That the contents of this para 32 are denied for being wrong and

is stated that this Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to try and

adjudicate the present dispute.

REPLY TO PRAYER

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

may kindly be pleased

 To Reject The Present Petition In Favour Of The Respondent

and or Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

Applicant

()
ADVOCATES
211, SURYA KIRAN BUILDING,
19 KASTURBA GANDHI MARG,
NEW DELHI – 110 001
9650961777
New Delhi
Dated: .07.2018
 IN THE COURT OF LD. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, NORTH WEST
DISTRICT, FAMILY COURT, ROHINI, DELHI
M T Case No. 188/18

Ms. Sonal Wadhwa & Anr

…..Complainant/Non-Applicant
Vs

Saurabh Ahuja
…..Respondent
Affidavit

I, Saurabh Ahuja, S/o Devinder Kumar Ahuja, Aged about 36 years,

R/o ED-69B, Pitam Pura, Delhi – 110 034,do hereby solemnly affirm
as under:

1. That I am the respondent herein in the above mentioned matter and

fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and am
competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the accompanying reply has been drafted by my counsel under

my instructions and the contents thereof has been drafted by me and
the contents of the same are true and correct to the best of
knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified at New Delhi on this 24 th day of July, 2018 that the contents
of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief and nothing material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT