IN THE COURT OF SH.DEEPAK JAGOTRA JUDGE: FAMILY COURTS " Court Name"
Petition No. /2013
IN THE MATTER OF:
Smt.(Name of Petitioner) ….Petitioner
(Name of Respondent) …Respondent
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITION U/S.125 Cr.P.C.FOR MAINTENANCE FILED BY PETITIONER
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
Before giving reply paragraph wise to the abovementioned petition, the replying respondent wants to submit some preliminary objections which are jurisdictional in nature go to the root of matter and may be decided first before dealing with the alleged petition.
1. That the petitioner is living separately from her husband with her own will and wish due to non-coordination between wife and husband only. In other words, the petitioner is residing separately from her husband with her own will and wish without any sufficient reason and despite request made by respondent, she refused to live with her husband. Hence, she cannot claim maintenance in view of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C.
2. That the petitioner has suppressed the material facts and has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands, hence the present application is liable to be dismissed.
3. That the petitioner is not entitled for any maintenance because she is an educated and well bodied lady and is able to maintain herself very well. It is submitted that petitioner is/was doing the Job of Teacher in “XXX Public School”, at (location name) and is earning more than Rs. 30,000/- to 40,000/- per month from the said Job and the petitioner intentionally and deliberately concealed the said facts from this Hon’ble Court and the respondent reserves his right to initiate proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C against the petitioner for giving false affidavit before this Hon’ble Court.
4. That on 22.03.2013, the petitioner in a pre-planner manner collected all her jewellery as well as jewellery of her mother-in-law, cash and other valuable items and thereafter, she called her brother and left her matrimonial house without informing any one in her matrimonial house, along with all jewellery, cash and valuable times and since, then she is residing at her parental home. Thereafter, she had filed a complaint before the CAW Cell. Prior to filing of the complaint before CAW Cell, respondent himself went to the parental home of the petitioner several times to take her back, but the petitioner refused.
5. That the present petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has filed the present petition on false grounds and leveled false allegations against replying respondent. It is submitted that petitioner has approached this Hon’ble court with a pre-planned, concocted, false, fabricated, vexatious, misconceived, motivated, contents, contentions, allegations and assertions, hence the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.
6. That it is submitted that present petition is false, frivolous, vexatious, mischievous, motivated, malicious, absurd, abuse and misuse of the process of the court.
7. That the petitioner in any of the para did not disclose that on what grounds, she is seeking the relief/s under Section 125 Cr.P.C and in absence of any specific ground, all the contentions made by the petitioner are vague. The present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.
8. That the present petition has been filed without any basis and has been filed on false ground and therefore, same is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost. Without prejudice to what is stated above in the preliminary objections and in additional to the same parawise reply to the petition has been given below:
REPLY ON MERIT :
1. That the contents of Para 1 of the present application/petition needs no reply being matter of record.
2. That the contents of Para 2 of the present application/petition needs no reply being matter of record.
3. That the contents of para 3 of the present petition are wrong, baseless, hence denied as alleged. It is wrong and denied that the father of the petitioner belong to joint Hindu Family or he spent money out of their capacity and resource for want of knowledge. It is further wrong and denied that on 17.09.2012, on the occasion of Ring Ceremony, parental family members of the petitioner has spent any alleged amount or on 10.12.2012, at the time of Lagan Ceremony, the parental family member of the petitioner gave any alleged sum to the respondent or his family members on any account as alleged. The petitioner be put to strict proof thereof. It is submitted that marriage as well as other functions were solemnized in a very simple manner without any pomp and show and no cash/presents as alleged were given by the petitioner’s parents.
4. That the contents of para 4 of the present petition are wrong, baseless, hence denied except the facts, which are matter on record. It is wrong and denied that any alleged best venue was ever arranged or Rs. 6 lacs were ever spent in the said marriage. The petitioner be put to strict proof thereof. It is submitted that all the functions were organized simply and from the side of respondent, only some persons were attended the said marriage and no such alleged amount was ever spent.
Contents of Prayer clause are wrong, baseless and denied and do not require any consideration from this Hon’ble Court . It is submitted that in the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed by her in the present petition and she is also not entitled for any maintenance amount as alleged.
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner and dismiss the present petition with heavy cost.
Pass any other relief(s) which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the respondents.