Reply 125 CRPC

IN THE COURT OF SH.
NOROTTAM KAUSHAL, PRINCIPAL

JUDGE DISTT.FAMILY COURT, NORTH-WEST, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
MAINTENANCE PETITION NO.______/2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
SMT.SHAHEEN PARVEEN
PETITIONER
VERSUS
SHAKEEL @ GAURAV
RESPONDENT
REPLY BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TO THE PETITION UNDER SECTION 125 Cr.P.C.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:
1. That the petition is not maintainable also
in view of the facts that the petitioner is
gainfully employed and the respondent is
totally unemployed and leading hand to mouth
life.
2. That the petition deserves dismissal as
the petitioner has concealed the real facts,
which malafidely motives.
3. That the petition is debarred any cause of
action and has been filed with malafide
motive and on the basis of concocted facts
and story.
4. That the petition of the petitioner is
based
on
altogether
false,
baseless
and
concocted allegations and the petitioner has

come
forward
concocted
with
stories
altogether
and
the
false
petitioner
and
is
guilty of misrepresentation and suppression

of true facts and as such the petition is
liable to be dismissed.
5.
That
the
petitioner
herself
is
guilty
and treated the respondent with cruelty and

caused
mental
tension
and
torture
to
the
answering respondent disclosing her children

and previous marriage after 3 to 4 months of
getting . The cruel treatment meted out to
the
respondent
adverse
impact
by
on
the
petitioner
respondents
brought
health
and
the respondent lost his working strength and

positive
thinking
petitioner
is
due
to
trying
depression.
to
take
The
undue
advantages of her own wrongs and as such the

petition is liable to be dismissed.
6.That the petition filed by the petitioner
in
the
present
form
is
legally
not
maintainable in as much as the same is not

in accordance with personal law as such
the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7.
That
petition
is
absolutely
vague
and
ambiguous and lacks particulars and events.

The
petition
has
been
drafted
by
taking
false and frivolous pleas and as such the

petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. That the petition is an abuse of process
of law. The motive behind the filing of the
petition
is
that
the
petitioner
and
her
relatives want to put undue pressure upon

the respondent to extort money from him and
as
such
dismissed.
the
petition
is
liable
to
be
9.That
the
answering
respondent
has
never
turned out her from the house. The petitioner

has
herself
left
the
company
of
the
respondent, in fact she was so hostile and

abusive in nature that no prudent man can
expect such behavior from his wife.
10.That it is pertinent to mention here that
the
petitioner
answering
has
respondent
started
in
harassing
various
ways
the
by
abusing in filthy language, and by other ways

of torture when the petitioner made false
complaints with CAW cell (North).
11.That the petitioner has not come to the
court with clean hands and suppressed the
true facts before this Honble Court, hence
the present petition/application is liable
to be dismissed.
12.That the petitioner has been a qualified
beautition, earning a handsome amount has no
locus standi to file the present petition
because she was having animus dessrendi since
the day when her truth of previous marriage
and having children from said marriage came
to knowledge of answering respondent, thus
concealment
of
her
previous
marriage
and
children there from makes her liable to be

prosecuted in criminal court of law. She also
committed
series
of
cruelties
towards
the
respondents without any legal justification.
12. That no cause of action ever accrued in

the favor of the petitioner and against the
Respondent,
hence
the
present
petition/application is not maintainable and

is liable to be dismissed with cost.
13. That the petitioner has
left the company
of
own
the
respondent
at
her
for
wrongs
committed by her towards respondent.

14.
The
contents
of
each
and
every
preliminary objection may kindly be read as

reply to each of the para on merits, who so
ever, it is relevant.
REPLY ON MERITS CUM FACTUAL SUBMISSIONS :
That the answering respondent craves the
leave of this court that the contents of
the
addional
pleas
and
submissions
mentioned under seprate heading also be

read as part and parcel to this reply on
merits
cum
factual
submissions
as
the
same are not being repeated for sake of

brevity.
REPLY ON MERITS:
1. That the contents
of
para
of
the
petition are not admitted to the extent that

marriage
was
solemnized
according
to
Muslim
rites and ceremonies at Tis Hazari Courts. It

is
submitted
petitioner
and
that
marriage
respondent
was
between
performed
Maszid Fateh Puri,Chandni Chowk , New
the
at
Delhi-
11006.
Since,
different
the
respondent
religion
belonged
i.e.Hindu
and
to
the
petitioner came to contact of respondent in the

year ,2014 when she opened a beauty parlour
near in the vicinity of respondent and after
getting
interaction
at
several
occasions
decided to marry with each other she offered a

proposal
for
disclosing
marriage
the
very
to
respondent
fact
of
her
without
previous
marriage and three children from said wedlock

thus,
concealing
the
facts
of
marriage and children are made
previous
and both the
parties belong to low strata of society where

the concept of exchange of dowry articles are
very big thing.
2.
That
the
contents
of
para
petition are wrong and denied.
of
the
It is denied
that the marriage was solemnized with dignity

and good dowry was presented.
It is denied
that marriage party was also given good feast.

It
is
submitted
solemnized
in
that
very
the
simple
marriage
way
was
without
exchange of any gifts and dowry articles.
3.
That
the
contents
of
para

that
when
the
complainant
of
the
It is denied
reached
at
the
matrimonial home after marriage, the husband

Harinder Singh, mother-in-law Ombiri and Rajpal
Singh
and
Raju,
who
is
the
brother
of
the
father-in-law of the complainant were not happy

with
the
started
dowry
saying
given
that
in
the
the
dowry
marriage
and
given
the
in
marriage is not according to their status and

their prestige has been lowered in the society
from this marriage.
4.
That
the
contents
of
para

that
the
mother
in
law
of
of
the
It is denied
the
complainant
started saying that good proposal of marriage

were coming for many places for her son they
would
have
given
good
dowry,
but
in
this
marriage they have not got the dowry as per

their expectations and started demanding and
pressurisng the complainant to bring one lac of
rupees
dowry.
and
one
Alto
Car
for
her
parent
in
5.
That
the
contents
of
para
of
the
It is denied
that Shri Rajpal Singh, who is the brother of

the father-in-law of the complainant is also
unmarried and residing jointly with the family
of her husband also started saying that the
family of the complainant is not according to
their
status
and
the
complainant
should
immediately bring at least rupees of one lac

and
one
Alto
complainant
6.
That
Car
in
dowry
otherwise
the
will not remain in their house.
the
contents
of
para
of
the
It is denied
that all the family members of the husband of

the
complainant
started
discarding
and
insulting the complainant and even did not give

sufficient food to her and was not given love
and affection to the complainant as is required
for a newly wedded bride.
7.
That
the
contents
of
para

that
when
behaviour
the
towards
complainant
her
and
of
the
It is denied
opposed
dowry
their
demand
the
husband
of
the
complainant
gave
her
severe
beatings with fist and legs and the mother in

law Ombiri and Rajpal Singh were also standing
besides and this beatings by her husband was
gong on at the instance of them.
8.
That
the
contents
of
para
of
the
It is denied in
few days in the matrimonial home they all made

her life a hell.
9.
That
the
contents
of
para

that
on
15.12.2008,
complainant
along
bring
the
after
marriage.
when
with
complainant
complainant
told
few
to
It
her
the
of
persons
of
the
came
parental
denied
father
the
It is denied
father
her
is
that
regarding
to
home
the
this
dowry demand of Rs.1,00,000/- and one Alto Car.

It
is
matter
denied
with
that
Rajpal
the
and
father
the
discussed
husband
of
the
the
complainant and told them that he has already

given much in dowry and now he cannot give this
additional dowry as demanded by them.
10. That
the
contents
of
para
10
of
the
It is denied
that on hearing this the husband and his above

family members lost their temper and insulted
with
him clearly told that you may carry your
daughter immediately and she can stay in her

matrimonial home only if Rs.1,00,000/- and one
Alto Car is given to them.
It is denied that
they did not provide food to her father and the

people, who had come with him.
11. That
the
contents
of
para
11
of
the
It is denied
that the complainant was thrown out from her

matrimonial home in three wearing clothes and
retained all the dowry articles and istridhan.
12. That
the
contents
of
para
12
of
the
It is submitted
that the complainant is a gainfully employed

being the literate lady and is leading very
decent life at Delhi as she has no liability to
carry on.
13. That
the
contents
of
para
13
of
the
It is wrong and
denied that the respondent is a man of means

and he owns 30 bighas of land in his native
village and earn Rs.20,000/- per month. It is
submitted that the respondent is leading hand
to mouth life as he does not have any property
in his name and he is not in employment on
regular basis and is also not capable of doing
the manual work on daily wages.
He some how
manages to eke out his livelihood and out of

that has to maintain and to look his old aged
parents.
14. That
the
contents
of
para
14
of
the
It is denied
that the respondent has deserted and neglected

the complainant and has refused to maintain the
complainant.
It
is
submitted
that
the
complainant, who is tuned to the cosmopolitan

amenities is not able to adjust to the native
village of the respondent and for the same the
respondent is not at all responsible as he is
cooperating much with her, but despite that the
complainant did not make effort to adjust for
leading
her
life
in
accordance
with
the
prevailing social custom and mores.
15. That
the
contents
of
para

that
the
respondent
has
no
15
of
the
It is denied
other
liability
except to maintain the complainant.
16. That
the
contents
of
para
16
of
the
petition are legal.
The prayer clause of the petition is wrong

and
denied
in
toto.
The
petitioners
are
liable
to
petition
be
of
dismissed
the
with
exemplary costs.
DELHI:
DATED:18.08.2010
RESPONDENT
THROUGH
JAYKANT PRASAD
ADVOCATE
SEAT NO.80, CIVIL WING,
TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI-110054
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNAINA SHARMA, M.M.,

DISTT. EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
SMT.
NEHA
PETITIONER
VERSUS
SH. HARINDER SINGH
RESPONDENT
REPLY ON AND BEHALF OF RESPONDENT TO THE

APPLICATION FOR AD-INTERIM ON BEHALF OF
THE PETITIONER.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1.
That
the
application
wrong
and
are
partly
denied.
petitioner
unable
contents
has
to
earn
maintainable
petitioner
no
It
her
no
para
admitted
is
source
herself.
has
of
1
and
denied
of
of
income
moveable
is
and
partly
that
livelihood
It
the
the
and
and
denied
is
to
that
immoveable
property or income to maintain herself.
2.
That
the
application
3.
That
contents
of
para
of
the
of
para
of
the
are admitted.
the
contents
application are wrong and denied.
It is denied
that the applicant require a sum of Rs.5,000/p.m. for her interim maintenance allowance for
her maintenance and hence seeks an order from
this Honble Court as prayed for in the main
petition.
4.
The contents of para 4 of the application
are matter of record and the contents of the

reply to the said petition may kindly be read
as part and parcel of this application, which
are
not
reproduced
herein
for
the
sake
of
brevity.
The prayer clause of the application is

wrong and denied in toto. The application of
the petitioners are liable to be dismissed with
exemplary costs.
DELHI:
DATED:18.08.2010
RESPONDENT
THROUGH
JAYKANT PRASAD
ADVOCATE
SEAT NO.80, CIVIL WING,
TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI-110054
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNAINA SHARMA, M.M.,

DISTT. EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
SMT.
NEHA
PETITIONER
SH. HARINDER SINGH
VERSUS
RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
I, Harinder Singh, S/o Sh. Jender Singh,
R/o
Village
Distt.
Bhabhisha,
Muzaffar
Nagar
Tehsil
(U.P.)
Budhana,
presently
at
Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as

under:1.
That the deponent is the respondent in the
above noted case and is well conversant with

the facts of the case and is competent to swear
this affidavit.
2.
That
the
contents
of
the
accompanying
reply to the petition under Section 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 and I have
understood the same and are not repeated herein
for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this 18th day of the
August, 2010 that the contents of the above
affidavit are true to my knowledge and no part
of it is false and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT

Reply 125 CRPC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reply 125 CRPC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reply 125 CRPC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the preliminary objections raised by the respondent?

What are the preliminary objections raised by the respondent?

What arguments does the respondent make against cruelty by the petitioner?

What arguments does the respondent make against cruelty by the petitioner?

IN THE COURT OF SH.

NOROTTAM KAUSHAL, PRINCIPAL

REPLY BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

concocted allegations and the petitioner has

guilty of misrepresentation and suppression

and treated the respondent with cruelty and

answering respondent disclosing her children

the respondent lost his working strength and

advantages of her own wrongs and as such the

maintainable in as much as the same is not

ambiguous and lacks particulars and events.

false and frivolous pleas and as such the

relatives want to put undue pressure upon

turned out her from the house. The petitioner

respondent, in fact she was so hostile and

abusing in filthy language, and by other ways

children there from makes her liable to be

respondents without any legal justification.

12. That no cause of action ever accrued in

petition/application is not maintainable and

left the company

committed by her towards respondent.

preliminary objection may kindly be read as

mentioned under seprate heading also be

same are not being repeated for sake of

petition are not admitted to the extent that

rites and ceremonies at Tis Hazari Courts. It

Maszid Fateh Puri,Chandni Chowk , New

petitioner came to contact of respondent in the

decided to marry with each other she offered a

marriage and three children from said wedlock

marriage and children are made

and both the

parties belong to low strata of society where

petition are wrong and denied.

that the marriage was solemnized with dignity

that marriage party was also given good feast.

exchange of any gifts and dowry articles.

petition are wrong and denied.

matrimonial home after marriage, the husband

father-in-law of the complainant were not happy

marriage is not according to their status and

petition are wrong and denied.

started saying that good proposal of marriage

marriage they have not got the dowry as per

petition are wrong and denied.

that Shri Rajpal Singh, who is the brother of

immediately bring at least rupees of one lac

will not remain in their house.

petition are wrong and denied.

that all the family members of the husband of

insulting the complainant and even did not give

petition are wrong and denied.

beatings with fist and legs and the mother in