IN THE COURT OF MS.KIRAN BANSAL: M.M., DELHI.

M.P.-1584/03/07

IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT. ANITA KANDARI NEGI & ANR. ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

SH. SUNIL SINGH NEGI ...RESPONDENT

REPLY OF THE APPLICATION U/S 125 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE AS AMENDED UPTO DATE.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

PRELIMINARY OBJETIONS:

1. That the present application is not maintainable and is

liable to be dismissed for the reason that the respondent is

a working lady. Admittedly, the respondent is working in

Bureau Of Legislative Studies, Old Secretariat, Delhi and is

earning a handsome salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. The bank

Account No.14536 in Dena Bank is a conclusive proof for the

earnings of the respondent. On the other hand the petitioner

is earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- approx. per month and has many

liabilities including an un-married sister and an old aged

father to maintain besides pursuing his studies.

The salary slip of the respondent is being placed on record

for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

2. That the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be

rejected as the same has been filed after manipulating the

things. It is submitted that the applicant has also filed an

application under Section 24 of HMA claiming maintenance and

litigation expenses wherein she initially accepted the fact

that she was an earning lady but later on amended the

application U/s.24 of H.M.A. malafidely after manipulating

the things in the office with the help of her father who is

P.A. to Vidhan Sabha Speaker (Gazetted Officer) and is posted

in the same department/office. The relevant portion of the

application filed by the petitioner is being reproduced

herein for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court :

“That the applicant was earlier working in Bureau of

Legislative Studies, Old Secretariat, Delhi, a society

on contract basis. But due to her pregnancy she

stopped going there and consequently vide letter dated

1.2.2007 said authority terminated her services.”

It clearly indicates that the petitioner is well in a

position to earn her livelihood and the job was left because

of her own convenience as she was pregnant and was needed

rest and therefore, the applicant is capable of joining the

same service or equivalent service again as the child took

birth on 11.2.2007 and is more than one year old. As per the

averments made by the petitioner, she is living with her

parents and therefore, even the child can be taken care of by

his grand parents and other relatives. As a matter of fact

the petitioner has actually started working with the same

office and is manipulating the records just in order to claim

maintenance and harass the respondent.

3. That the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be

rejected for the reason that the petitioner has preferred to

refuse the company of the respondent and deliberately left

the matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason and

therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance from the

respondent as per provision of law. Even a false complaint

filed by the petitioner in C.A.W. cell in order to harass the

respondent and his family members, was later on withdrawn

when the respondent and his family members were granted

protection from the court of law and the

petitioner/complainant found it difficult to prove the

allegations.

The copy of the birth certificate is being placed on record.

The copy of the application U/s.24 of H.M.A. is being placed

on record for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.

4. That the present application is not maintainable and is

liable to be dismissed for the reason that the bio-data as

provided by the respondent clearly discloses the fact that

the respondent is a graduate from Delhi University holding

diploma in Computer Applications and is having knowledge of

English short-hand and is working in Bureau of Legislative

Studies, Delhi Vidhan Sabha as Assistant where her father

Shri S.S.Kandari is a Gazetted officer working there and

therefore, the respondent is liable for perjury that she is

not earning anything. By no stretch of imagination one can

come to the conclusion that the petitioner is unable to earn,

which is the main ingredient for granting relief to the

petitioner as per section 125 of Cr.P.C. The fact has been

cleverly and mischievously manipulated by the respondent. On

the other hand the petitioner is earning a sum of Rs.6,000/-

per month only out of which the petitioner has to continue

with his studies of Diploma in Autocad in Mechanical

engineering besides maintaining himself and his younger

sister and is also providing maintenance to his parents at

Uttranchal.

5. That the application is not maintainable and is liable to be

rejected for the reason that the present application is

nothing but gross abuse and misuse of process of law and

shows the malafide of the petitioner who has preferred the

present petition just in order to harass the respondent.

REPLY ON MERITS:

1. Denied. It is denied that the applicants are dejected and

neglected wife and son respectively of the respondent. It is

submitted that the petitioner No.1/wife has willfully

neglected the company of the respondent and left the

matrimonial home and when even after various effort the

petitioner No.1 did not return back to the matrimonial home,

the aggrieved respondent filed a petition U/s.9 of H.M.A. in

order to bring the petitioner No.1 back. It is submitted that

the wife was pregnant and the respondent was taking proper

care and was also providing the medical facility as per the

CGHS facility provided to the respondent but the petitioner

No.1 did not care the emotions and effort of the respondent

and deserted him without any rhyme or reason for the same.

2. Para no.2 needs no reply being matter of record. However, it

submitted that even the information of child birth was not

disclosed to the respondent and the respondent came to know

about the birth of the petitioner No.2 only in the court when

the petitioner No.1 filed an application U/s.24 of H.M.A.

3. Denied. It is denied that though the applicant no.1 married

with the respondent adoring all ecstasy of marriage but her

marriage ecstasy remained monetary and nipped into mud due to

constant murmuring of respondent’s married and unmarried

sisters Mrs.Anita Bisht, Mrs.Sunita Rawat and Miss Sumitra

Negi for insufficient dowry despite the fact that the parents

of applicant no.1 gave it beyond their capacity. It is

submitted that the marriage of the parties was a simple

marriage and the sisters never made any demand, whatsoever.

The petitioner No.1 had earlier also made such frivolous

allegations and filed a complaint with C.A.W. cell but later

on the complaint was withdrawn when the respondent and his

family members were granted protection from the court of law

and the petitioner/complainant found it difficult to prove

the allegations. It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 and

her mother always passed sarcastic remarks against the

respondent that he was earning lesser than the petitioner

no.1.

4. Denied. It is denied that the applicant no.1 remained in the

company of respondent from 20.4.2006 to 14.6.2006 when she

was left at her parents house by the respondent on the

pretext that he is preparing for departmental examination or

shall take her back after examination within two three days

but that day never came or till date the applicant no.1 is

living at the mercy and morsel of her parents. It is further

denied that rather from the subsequent conduct of the

respondent and his married and unmarried sisters it is now

revealing that it was a mere excuse in order to get rid of

the applicants with a pre planned conspiracy for oblique

motives. It is submitted that the petitioner no.1 left the

matrimonial home on 10.5.2006 without informing the

respondent and after that the petitioner no.1 and her family

members started threatening the respondent to implicate him

in false dowry cases in case he does not kick out his

unmarried sister. Since the same was not possible for the

reason that the sister is pursuing her studies at Delhi and

the parents are living in Uttaranchal, the respondent’s house

is the only shelter for her. On the other hand the respondent

tried his best to bring back the petitioner no.1 to her

matrimonial home but every time she refused to come back and

join the company of the respondent. The respondent last time

visited the parental house of the petitioner no.1 on

2.10.2006 with his father in order to bring back the

petitioner no.1 but the family of the petitioner no.1

including her two brothers started humiliating and beating

the respondent. When the respondent came back to his house,

the two brothers even followed the respondent and went to the

extent of beating the younger sister of the respondent and

ransacked the house of the respondent for which the younger

sister made a complaint to the police but the same was

managed by the family of the petitioner no.1 being

influential persons of the locality and no action was taken

by the police.

5. Denied. It is denied that on persistent calling the

respondent on 20.6.2006 all of sudden took the applicant no.1

to matrimonial home when she was returning from her work

place and on reaching there started humiliating her by

throwing her ornaments and clothes on the bed saying that

“YAIHEE KURA KABAR DAI RAKHA HAI TERE MAA-BAAP NAI” or

further giving filthy abuses to the applicant and her parents

or thereafter left the applicant no.1 at 7.30 p.m. at the

garage of applicant no.1’s father. It is further denied that

the unmarried sister of the respondent Miss Sumitra also

sided with the respondent and also accused the applicant no.1

for bringing insufficient dowry. The entire allegations is a

cooked up story just in order to take sham defence for not

joining the matrimonial home by the petitioner no.1.

6. Denied. It is denied that on 14.6.2006 when the respondent

left the applicant no.1 at her parents house she was under

family way. It is further denied that the respondent did not

bother even to know how about her, what to speak of making

provision for her maintenance and living. It is also denied

that all the expenses of applicant no.1 of her check up and

other medical expenses including delivery are borne by the

parents of applicant no.1. It is submitted that on later

dates i.e. on 5.8.2006, 26.12.2006 and on other dates the

entire treatment was provided by the respondent through

C.G.H.S. Dispensary Timarpur for which the respondent used to

meet the petitioner no.1 outside and used to take her to the

dispensary. The respondent had even applied for permission

letter for delivery of the child in Ram Manohar Lohia

Hospital. However, the respondent’s parents did not give

their consent for the same and even the delivery of the child

was not intimated to the respondent malafidely and the

respondent came to know about the birth of the child only

after two months when the petitioner no.1 filed an

application U/s.24 of H.M.A.

7. Denied. It is denied that even after birth of the child

neither the respondent nor any of his sister visited to wish

the child despite information what to speak of either

bringing them in the matrimonial home or making provisions

for their sustenance. The contents of the preceding paras may

also be read as reply to this para.

8. Denied. It is denied that during the course of medical check

up the doctors required the Applicant no.1 to call respondent

for VDRL test. It is further denied that after persistent

requests the respondent agreed for it but required the

applicant no.1 to come at his CGHS dispensary. It is also

denied that the applicant no.1 even for the welfare of would

be child agreed for it or on 5.8.2006 went there. It is

further denied that CMO, CGHS Dispensary Timarpur, Delhi also

suggested the parties for the VDRL test. It is further denied

that the respondent promised that he would take permission

from his department for said check up from the penal

hospital, but not turn up thereafter, what to speak of

getting his VDRL test conducted and as such the parents of

applicant no.1 was to get it done at their expenses. It is

submitted that it was the doctor at C.G.H.S. Dispensary where

the respondent was getting the petitioner no.1 treated

advised for VDRL Test and it was the petitioner no.1 who

refused for the test and said that she would follow the

treatment and advise of her parents instead of doctors at

C.G.H.S. Hospital.

9. Denied. It is denied that the respondent instead of taking

the applicant no.1 to matrimonial home in order to cause her

further mental pain and agony started getting made unwanted

calls on her mobile from Mobile No.919873975472 and

911202756260, which act of the respondent compelled the

applicant no.1 to make a complaint with the local police on

1.8.2006. It is submitted that the respondent tried his best

to bring back the petitioner no.1 to her matrimonial home and

in this regard made certain calls in order to convince her

for coming back and joining the matrimonial home. Certain

calls were also made by the respondent for taking the

petitioner no.1 to the doctors and the petitioner no.1

accompanied the respondent on various occasion to the doctor

which clearly shows that the petitioner no.1 is living

separately and has deserted the respondent only at the

instance of her family members who unnecessarily interfered

into the matrimonial life of the parties.

10. Denied. It is denied that when the respondent came to know

about filing of complaint, he alongwith his father came at

the house of applicant no.1’s parents on 2.10.2006 or started

fighting with the applicant no.1 and her parents or giving

them filthy abuses. It is further wrong and denied that the

respondent even started casting aspersion on the character of

applicant no.1, which act of respondent compelled the

applicant no.1 to lodge a complaint with the police. The

contents of the preceding paras may also be treated as reply

tot his para.

11. Denied. It is denied that the local police called the

respondent. It is denied that the respondent in order to hide

his misdeeds firstly attempted to involve applicant no.1’s

brothers in connivance with his sisters in false cases of

causing harm to him or attempting to violate the modesty of

his sisters but when did not succeeded in it and found

himself in hot water, ultimately apologized for his

misbehaviour. It is further denied that the applicant no.1

and her parents in order to settle the matrimonial home of

the parties pardoned the respondent or as such the matter was

compromised or the respondent again promised to take bck the

applicant no.1 to matrimonial home but to no effect or rather

filed a false case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act

1955 as amended upto date for conjugal rights accusing the

applicant no.1 that she is not joining his company. It is

submitted that it was the family members of the petitioner

no.1 who apologised for their misbehaviour managed to get the

matter abate influencing the local police.

12. Denied. It is denied that the applicants submit that the

respondent has never an intention to keep the applicants and

the said petition is a false or motivated one in order to

avoid his liability to maintain the applicants as he is

openly saying that the said petition is filed only with a

view to harass the applicant no.1 or her parents as well as,

as a shield to the dowry cases, if any, filed by the

applicant no.1. The fact that the respondent has filed a

petition U/s.9 of H.M.A. clearly falsifies the allegations.

13. Denied. It is denied that there was not even a single day

when the respondent in connivance and conspiracy with his

married and unmarried sisters named above would not have

harassed the applicant no.1 for insufficient dowry and would

not have made her life a complete hell. It is further denied

that the married sisters of the respondent used to visit the

respondent and stayed there for days together and poisoned

his ears against the applicant no.1 besides accusing her for

insufficient dowry as stated above. It is denied that the

sisters of the respondent used to say that the applicant

no.1’s father should buy a house for the parties and or

otherwise gave a portion of his plot in Burari to respondent

and of the cost of the house on the plea that they have

married their daughter to a Government employee and people

are giving in dowry at least Rs.4-5 lakhs to said sort of

match. It is further denied that they further used to say

that in a match, they have received for respondent, the

girl’s side was giving a house in Ram Park, but since there

was electricity problem, so they refused for said proposal

and agreed for the present one keeping in mind that the

father of applicant no.1 is a gazette officer and would give

sumptuous dowry. The contents of preceding paras may also be

treated as reply tot his para.

14. Denied. It is denied that not only this but the behaviour

of the respondent with his unmarried sister Miss Sumitra, who

is about 28 years old, cast and shadow of doubt about their

relationship. It is denied that during the period the

applicant no.1 remained in the matrimonial home, she found

many times her sitting in the lap of respondent and watching

late night television together and not allowing the

petitioner to enter said room or when the applicant no.1

objected for it, the respondent left the applicant no.1 at

her parents house on 14.6.2006 on the pretext that he is

preparing for departmental examination and take her back

after examination as submitted in the preceding paras. It is

denied that the respondent and his unmarried sister usually

claimed that they are “EK BADAN DO JAAN”. The allegations are

mischievous and a concocted story just in order to make false

and bald allegations on the sacred relations between brother

and sister. No prudent person would believe such an

allegation which is not only false but mischeivous in nature.

15. Denied. It is denied that when the applicant no.1 found

that the respondent has no intention to take her back and has

no remorse for his illegal and unlawful acts as well as his

petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is only an

eye wash, the applicant no.1 was coerced to file a complaint

in the Crime Against Women Cell on 15.3.2007 narrating the

misdeeds of the respondent and his sisters and demanding her

dowry articles as well as action against them, which

complaint is pending adjudication before the authority. The

allegations are not only false but mischievous and amounts to

defamation and the respondent reserves his right to file

proper case against the petitioner no.1 for the said offence.

This is further proved that there was no substance in the

allegation by the conduct of the petitioner no.1 who not only

stopped pursuing the complaint filed with the C.A.W. Cell but

also withdrew it.

16. Denied. It is denied that the unmarried sister of the

respondent is so cruel that she even did not spare her step

mother and tried to involve her in false criminal case

because of which the father of respondent, who was working in

Delhi Vidyut Board was compelled to take VRS and settled

himself in Uttranchal at Kotdwar. The allegations are devoid

of truth and deserves rejection. It is further submitted that

the petitioner no.1 be subjected to strict proof of the

allegations made under the present petition and take stern

action against petitioner no.1 for making such a nefarious

and bad allegations which is false and frivolous in nature.

17. Denied. It is denied that since the date of respondent came

to know about lodging of complaint with the Crime Against

Women Cell, the respondent and his unmarried sister are

threatening the applicant no.1 for dire consequences and in

these circumstances it is difficult for the applicant no.1 to

live in the company of respondent till Miss Sumitra is

married and respondent makes such an atmosphere for living

together by winning the faith of applicant no.1. It is

submitted that it was the respondent who regularly attended

the proceedings before C.A.W. Cell and the petitioner no.1

always abstained from attending the proceedings and

ultimately withdrew the complaint which was filed with

ulterior motives and malafide intention.

18. Denied. It is denied that the respondent has means to

maintain the applicants but he is intentionally and

deliberately neglecting them. It is denied that the

respondent is working in Laser Science & Technology Centre,

DRDO, Metcalf House, Ministry of Defence, Delhi as Technician

B and his parent salary is in between Rs.13,500/- to

Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioner no.1 be subjected to

strict proof of the facts enumerated in the corresponding

para of the petition. The contents of the preceding paras may

be treated as reply to this para also.

19. Denied. It is denied that the respondent has no liability

except the applicants. It is denied that the father of

respondent along with his second wife and children from said

marriage are living in Kotdwar and respondent has no

liability towards them. It is denied that the father of

respondent has taken VRS from Delhi Vidyut Board and is

getting pension from there. It is further denied that even

otherwise the respondent is not maintaining cordial relations

with his father because of respondent’s unmarried sister. The

contents of the preceding paras may be treated as reply to

this para also.

20. Denied. It is denied that the respondent of his own and

because of his aforesaid relations with his unmarried sister,

is not only avoiding the marriage of his unmarried sister but

is keeping with himself for oblique motives. It is denied

that the father of the respondent is ready and willing to

keep her with himself and not only to maintain her but also

to get her married but the respondent is avoiding it for

oblique motives. It is further denied that even otherwise

said sister of the respondent is not a liability of the

respondent but is of his father. It is denied that this plea

is taken in the alternative. The contents of the preceding

paras may be treated as reply to this para also.

21. Denied. It is denied that even otherwise the unmarried

sister of the respondent is not at all dependent upon the

respondent and is doing tuition and stitching job and earning

handsomely. The contents of the preceding paras may be

treated as reply to this para also.

22. Denied. It is denied that the applicant no.1 was earlier

working in Bureau of Legislative Studies, Old Secretariat,

Delhi, a society on contract basis. It is further denied that

due to her pregnancy she stopped going to there or

consequently vide letter dated 1.2.2007, said authority

terminated her services. The contents of the preceding paras

may be treated as reply to this para also.

23. Denied. It is denied that now the applicant no.1 is not

working anywhere or has no means to maintain herself as well

as the minor child. It is further denied that the applicants

are totally dependent for their livelihood and shelter upon

the mercy and morsel of applicant no.1’s parents, who have

their other liabilities. The contents of the preceding paras

may be treated as reply to this para also.

24. Denied. It is denied that the respondent is legally and

morally bound to maintain the applicants but is intentionally

and deliberately neglecting them at the instance of his

sisters and particularly his unmarried sister. The petitioner

no.1 is an earning lady and is capable of maintaining herself

and petitioner no.2.

25. Denied. It is denied that the applicant no.1 at least

requires a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month for her maintenance

and shelter, as she cannot live for an indefinite period in

the house of her parents i.e. Rs.5,000/- per month for

maintenance including clothes, medicines, dieting etc. etc.

or Rs.2,500/- per month for rental accommodation or the

applicant no.2 Rs.2,000/- per month for his maintenance

including clothes, medicines, dieting etc. etc. The

petitioner no.1 is an earning lady and is capable of

maintaining herself and petitioner no.2. The contents of the

preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also.

26. Denied. It is denied that the respondent can easily affords

to pay the aforesaid total amount of Rs.10,500/- per month to

the applicants for their maintenance and shelter. The

petitioner no.1 is an earning lady and is capable of

maintaining herself and petitioner no.2. The contents of the

preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also.

The salary slip is being placed on record.

27. Denied. It is denied that the respondent is further liable

to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as medical expenses incurred by

the parents of the applicant no.1 during the pregnancy period

of applicant no.1 including delivery expenses. The petitioner

no.1 is an earning lady and is capable of maintaining herself

and petitioner no.2. The contents of the preceding paras may

be treated as reply to this para also.

28. Denied. It is denied that the respondent is further liable

to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as expenses for present

proceedings, which are thrusted upon the applicants due to

his neglect and conduct as mentioned herein above. The

petitioner no.1 is an earning lady and is capable of

maintaining herself and petitioner no.2. The contents of the

preceding paras may be treated as reply to this para also.

Last para is prayer clause which is totally wrong and denied.

It is denied that any maintenance in favour of the applicants

and against the respondent may be passed much less for a sum

of Rs.10,500/- per month for their maintenance and a sum of

Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses of the applicant no.1

and a sum of Rs.11,000/- as cost of present proceedings.

P R A Y E R:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the

application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. as filed by the applicants be

dismissed with heavy exemplary costs, in the interest and

furtherance of justice.

RESPONDENT

DELHI. THROUGH

DATED: 29.4.2008. (_____________)ADVOCATE

IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL : M.M. DELHI.

IN THE MATTER OF:

MRS.ANITA KANDARI NEGI ...APPLICANTS

VERSUS

MR.SUNIL SINGH NEGI ...RESPONDENT

A F F I D A V I T

I, Sunil Singh, S/o. Sh. Soban Singh, R/o. Qtr. No. 36,

Sector-IV, Multi Storey, Timarpur, Delhi – 110054, do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare as under : -

1. That I am the respondent in the above-mentioned case and am

fully conversant with the facts of the case and as such am

competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the contents of the accompanying reply to the

application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. are true and correct to my

knowledge and belief and the same has been drafted by my

counsel under my instruction as such the same are not being

reproduced for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified on solemn affirmation at Delhi on this 29th day of

April, 2008 that the contents of paras No.1 to 2 of the above

affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it

is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT