IN THE COURT OF MS.

SUREKHA RANI, JMIC, AMRITSAR

…………..PETITIONER

VERSUS

………………………RESPONDENT

(Petition U/s 125 Cr.P.C)

REPLY ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT TO THE PETITION FILED BY THE

PETITIONERS

Sir,

It is respectfully submitted as under:-

Preliminary Objections:-

1. That the present petition is not maintainable being the

malafide one and devoid of truth. In fact, it is the

petitioner who herself has left the company of replying

respondent without any sufficient cause and reason. As

such, the present petition is liable to be set aside.

1
2. That the petitioner has no locas standai to file the

present petition in view of the fact that the petitioner

herself is running her own business of boutique at the

parents hose and is earning a lot in this business and to

pressurize the respondent the present petition has been

filed by the petitioner.

3. That the present petition is not properly verified by the

petitioner and is legally not maintainable, the present

petition does not disclose cause of action. The present

petition is without cause of action is not maintainable in

the present form. As such, the present petition is

dismissed on this score.

4. That the petitioner has cooked up the false and

fabricated story just to get the undue advantage from this

Hon`ble court.

5. That the petitioner has not come to the court with clean

hands and she has suppressed and concealed the

material and true fact from this Hon`ble court. In fact, it

is the petitioner herself who had caused harassment,

torture, mental pain and agony to the replying

respondent and had caused torture to the replying

2
respondent. Since the day of inception of marriage, it is

the petitioner who had given the disgrace, annoyance and

maltreatment to the replying respondent. In fact, the

respondent is laborer. The petitioner always taunts to the

respondent that she had committed a big mistake by

marrying with the respondent and as such, her dreams

have not fulfilled. She used to misbehave with the

respondent in the presence of parents, family members

and friends. The respondent tolerated all this behavior of

the petitioner with the hope that some better sense would

prevail upon the petitioner but is always remain the

wishful thinking of the petitioner. The petitioner had

forced and threatened the respondent to transfer the

property of his father in her name to which the

respondent refused and as such, she left the house of the

respondent. At the time of leaving the house of the

respondent, the petitioner openly threatened to the

respondent that she would teach a lesson to him. The

petitioner always insisted to the respondent to make

separate residence or to shift at her parental house. In

order to save the matrimonial life and future of his

children respondent taken a independent house on rent

near her parental house for the petitioners but there was

no change in the behavior of the petitioner no. 1 towards

the respondent and she always taunt to the respondent

that she had committed a big mistake by marrying with

3
 the respondent and she left the house in that grudge. The

respondent had number of times gone to the house of his

in-laws and had requested to the petitioner to return the

matrimonial house but the petitioner had refused to

return to her matrimonial house. The petitioner has filed

the present petition just to harass the replying

respondent and to pressurize the respondent.

6. That the present petition is time barred.

On Merits:-

1. That the Para no. 1 of the petition is matter of record

2. That the Para no. 2 of the petition is admitted to be

3. That the Para no. 3 of the petition is denied being wrong

and incorrect. It is denied that the marriage of the parties

was performed with great pomp and show manner in

which also denied that sufficient dowry articles

comprising of gold ornaments, house hold articles,

furniture etc. were given by the parents of the petitioner

no. 1 to the respondent and his family members at the

time of marriage ceremony as alleged. It is pertinent to

mention over here that the said marriage was performed

at Gurudwara. It was a simple marriage and no dowry

4
 articles or gift were taken by the respondent and his

family members at time of marriage. The true fact is that

family members of replying respondent incurred the

expenses of food served to the relatives of both the

parties. All the allegations leveled in this Para are vague

and false.

4. That the Para no. 4 of the petition is denied being wrong

and incorrect. It is denied that since the very

performance of the marriage the behavior of the

respondent and his family members comprising or his

mother and father towards the petition no. 1 was very

harrassive, cruel and insultive. It is also denied that the

respondent and his parents used to beat the petition no.

1 for want of more dowry articles as alleged. It is further

denied that the respondent and his parents openly stated

that in case the petitioner no. 1 wants to live happily in

her matrimonial house In that event she should bring

valuable articles and gold ornaments from her father and

cash amount from her parents as alleged. Rest of the

Para is false and denied. The entire allegation leveled in

this Para is false, frivolous and baseless. In fact, it is the

petitioner herself who had caused harassment, torture,

mental pain and agony to the replying respondent and

had caused torture to the replying respondent. Since the

day of inception of marriage, it is the petitioner who had

5
 given the disgrace, annoyance and maltreatment to the

replying respondent. In fact, no such demands were ever

raised by the respondent and his family members. The

petitioner cooked up the false and baseless story just to

get the un- due advantage from this Hon`ble court.

5. That the Para no. 5 of the petition is stoutly denied being

wrong and incorrect. it is denied that the respondent is

taking liquor daily and also taking various other

intoxicants and also denied that under the influence of

liquor and other intoxicants, he used to beat the

petitioner no. 1 black and blue as alleged and further

denied that harass and humiliate the innocent petitioner

no. 1 for want of more dowry articles. The entire

allegation leveled in this Para is false, frivolous and

baseless. In fact, she always quarrels with petty matters

with the respondent and his family members. It is all

concocted story of the petitioner no. 1 and there are no

merits in the same.

6. That the Para no. 6 of the petitioner is denied being

wrong and incorrect. it is denied that at the time of birth

of first two daughters, the mother of the petitioner no. 1

had given sufficient gift articles to the respondent and his

parents but they did not feel satisfied with the same. The

6
 true fact is that at the time of birth of daughters of the

petitioner no. 1 and respondent incurred all the expenses

from his own pocket as they were living separate from the

parents in rental house.

7. That the Para no. 7 of the petition is denied being wrong

and incorrect. It is denied that the petitioner no. 1 while

living in her matrimonial house was kept confined in four

walls of the room and also denied that she was not

provided with the basic necessities of life. The entire

allegation leveled in this Para is false, frivolous and

baseless.

8. That the Para no. 8 of the petition is denied being wrong

and incorrect. it is about nine years back the respondent

and his parents after giving merciless beating and also

denied that turned her from matrimonial house thereby

directing the petitioner no. 1 to bring Rs. 1,50,000/- from

her parents. In fact, the petitioner no. 1 left the

matrimonial house of the respondent it is denied that

since then petitioners are living in the parental house of

the petitioner no. 1. As father of the petitioner no. 1 has

expired and petitioners are living at the meager income of

brothers of the petitioner no. 1. The entire allegation

leveled in this Para is false, frivolous and baseless. No

7
 such demands were ever raised by the respondent and

his parents as alleged.

9. That the para no.9 of the petition is denied being wrong

and incorrect. it is denied that thereafter, mother and

brother of the petitioner no. 1 along with respectable of

the society went to her matrimonial house and also

denied that requested to the respondent and his parents

to rehabilitate the petitioner no. 1 along with other

petitioners in her matrimonial house but these persons

have openly stated that unless and until their demand of

more dowry articles and cash of Rs.1.5 lacs shall not be

fulfilled, the petitioner would not be allowed to enter into

their house. No such demands were ever raised by the

respondent and his parents as alleged.It is further denied

that few days back the respondent under the influence of

liquor tried to forcibly enter in the parental house of the

petitioner no. 1 and also threatened to kill all the

petitioners and further denied that respondent

threatened that he will pour acid/chemicals on the body

of the petitioner no. 1. It is also denied that the

petitioners are having reasonable apprehension that the

respondent may cause harm to their life and property.

The entire allegation leveled in this Para is false, frivolous

and baseless. It is all concocted story of the petitioner no.

1 and there are no merits in the same.

8
10. That the Para no. 10 of the petition is denied being

wrong and incorrect. The true fact is that the petitioner

is woman of means and she is earning more than

10,000/-. It is specifically denied that the respondent is

man of means and further denied that he possesses

movable and immovable property. It is further denied

that he is having 12 acre of land in cultivation and it is

vehemently denied that respondent is also running dairy

farm and selling buffalos and cows and also denied that

respondent is earning Rs.50,000/- P.M. without any kind

of liability upon his shoulder except to maintain the

petitioners. Anything which is specifically not admitted

deems to be denied. The present petition has been filed

by the petitioner just to harass the replying respondent

and to pressurizing the respondent.

11. That the para no.11 of the petition is denied being

wrong and incorrect. As stated above, the petitioner

herself has left the matrimonial house of the respondent.

It is denied that petitioner no. 1 is not doing any work

and is totally dependent upon her brothers who too does

not have high financial status. It is also denied that

petitioners are not having any movable and immovable

property in their names which can yield income. Rest of

9
 the Para is denied. It is further denied that petitioners

are entitled to get Rs. 40,000/-per month as

maintenance. Anything which is specifically not admitted

seems to be denied. The instant petition has been file just

to harras the respondent and to pressurizing the

respondent. .

12. That the Para no. 12 of the petition is matter of

record.

13. That the Para no. 13 of the petition is denied being

wrong and incorrect. The petition based on wrong,

incorrect and baseless allegation and is without any

merits and same is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner

is not liable to get any relief from this Hon`ble court as

alleged in the Para under reply, as such, the application

may kindly be ordered to be dismissed with costs.

Any other relief to which the respondent is found

entitled to may also be granted to the respondent in the

interest of justice, equity and law

10
 …..……Respondent

Date: 30.10.2013 Sukhjinder Singh

AMIT MONGA, ADVOCATE

Verifications:-

Verified that the contents of the Para no. 1 to 6 of preliminary

(Respondent)

11
 IN THE COURT OF MS. SUREKHA RANI, JMIC, AMRITSAR

AFFIDAVIT

SMT KANWALJIT KAUR AND OTHER

VERSUS

SUKHJINDER SINGH

(Petition U/s 125 Cr.P.C)

REPLY ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT TO THE PETITION FILED BY THE

PETITIONERS
AFFIDAVIT

I,SUKJINDER SINGH SON OF BACHAN SINGH AGED____ YEARS RESIDENT OF

VILLAGE GHUMAN,KAHLA WARI,TEHSIL DERA BABA NANAK,DISTRICT

GURDASPUR DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY DECLARE AND AFFIRM AS UNDER:-

Preliminary Objections:-

1. That the present petition is not maintainable being the

malafide one and devoid of truth. In fact, it is the

petitioner who herself has left the company of replying

respondent without any sufficient cause and reason. As

such, the present petition is liable to be set aside.

12
2. That the petitioner has no locas standai to file the

present petition in view of the fact that the petitioner

herself is running her own business of boutique at the

parents hose and is earning a lot in this business and to

pressurize the respondent the present petition has been

filed by the petitioner.

3. That the present petition is not properly verified by the

petitioner and is legally not maintainable, the present

petition does not disclose cause of action. The present

petition is without cause of action is not maintainable in

the present form. As such, the present petition is

dismissed on this score.

4. That the petitioner has cooked up the false and

fabricated story just to get the undue advantage from this

Hon`ble court.

5. That the petitioner has not come to the court with clean

hands and she has suppressed and concealed the

material and true fact from this Hon`ble court. In fact, it

is the petitioner herself who had caused harassment,

torture, mental pain and agony to the replying

respondent and had caused torture to the replying

respondent. Since the day of inception of marriage, it is

the petitioner who had given the disgrace, annoyance and

maltreatment to the replying respondent. In fact, the

respondent is laborer. The petitioner always taunts to the

13
respondent that she had committed a big mistake by

marrying with the respondent and as such, her dreams

have not fulfilled. She used to misbehave with the

respondent in the presence of parents, family members

and friends. The respondent tolerated all this behavior of

the petitioner with the hope that some better sense would

prevail upon the petitioner but is always remain the

wishful thinking of the petitioner. The petitioner had

forced and threatened the respondent to transfer the

property of his father in her name to which the

respondent refused and as such, she left the house of the

respondent. At the time of leaving the house of the

respondent, the petitioner openly threatened to the

respondent that she would teach a lesson to him. The

petitioner always insisted to the respondent to make

separate residence or to shift at her parental house. In

order to save the matrimonial life and future of his

children respondent taken a independent house on rent

near her parental house for the petitioners but there was

no change in the behavior of the petitioner no. 1 towards

the respondent and she always taunt to the respondent

that she had committed a big mistake by marrying with

the respondent and she left the house in that grudge. The

respondent had number of times gone to the house of his

in-laws and had requested to the petitioner to return the

matrimonial house but the petitioner had refused to

14
 return to her matrimonial house. The petitioner has filed

the present petition just to harass the replying

respondent and to pressurize the respondent.

6. That the present petition is time barred.

On Merits:-

1. That the Para no. 1 of the petition is matter of record

2. That the Para no. 2 of the petition is admitted to be

3. That the Para no. 3 of the petition is denied being wrong

and incorrect. It is denied that the marriage of the parties

was performed with great pomp and show manner in

which also denied that sufficient dowry articles

comprising of gold ornaments, house hold articles,

furniture etc. were given by the parents of the petitioner

no. 1 to the respondent and his family members at the

time of marriage ceremony as alleged. It is pertinent to

mention over here that the said marriage was performed

at Gurudwara. It was a simple marriage and no dowry

articles or gift were taken by the respondent and his

family members at time of marriage. The true fact is that

family members of replying respondent incurred the

expenses of food served to the relatives of both the

15
 parties. A ll the allegations leveled in this Para are vague

and false.

4. That the Para no. 4 of the petition is denied being wrong

and incorrect. It is denied that since the very

performance of the marriage the behavior of the

respondent and his family members comprising or his

mother and father towards the petition no. 1 was very

harrassive, cruel and insultive. It is also denied that the

respondent and his parents used to beat the petition no.

1 for want of more dowry articles as alleged. It is further

denied that the respondent and his parents openly stated

that in case the petitioner no. 1 wants to live happily in

her matrimonial house In that event she should bring

valuable articles and gold ornaments from her father and

cash amount from her parents as alleged. Rest of the

Para is false and denied. The entire allegation leveled in

this Para is false, frivolous and baseless. In fact, it is the

petitioner herself who had caused harassment, torture,

mental pain and agony to the replying respondent and

had caused torture to the replying respondent. Since the

day of inception of marriage, it is the petitioner who had

given the disgrace, annoyance and maltreatment to the

replying respondent. In fact, no such demands were ever

raised by the respondent and his family members. The

petitioner cooked up the false and baseless story just to

get the un due advantage from this Hon`ble court.

16
5. That the Para no. 5 of the petition is stoutly denied being

wrong and incorrect. it is denied that the respondent is

taking liquor daily and also taking various other

intoxicants and also denied that under the influence of

liquor and other intoxicants, he used to beat the

petitioner no. 1 black and blue as alleged and further

denied that harass and humiliate the innocent petitioner

no. 1 for want of more dowry articles. The entire

allegation leveled in this Para is false, frivolous and

baseless. In fact, she always quarrels with petty matters

with the respondent and his family members. It is all

concocted story of the petitioner no. 1 and there are no

merits in the same.

6. That the Para no. 6 of the petitioner is denied being

wrong and incorrect. it is denied that at the time of birth

of first two daughters, the mother of the petitioner no. 1

had given sufficient gift articles to the respondent and his

parents but they did not feel satisfied with the same. The

true fact is that at the time of birth of daughters of the

petitioner no. 1 and respondent incurred all the expenses

from his own pocket as they were living separate from the

parents in rental house.

7. That the Para no. 7 of the petition is denied being wrong

and incorrect. It is denied that the petitioner no. 1 while

living in her matrimonial house was kept confined in four

walls of the room and also denied that she was not

17
 provided with the basic necessities of life. The entire

allegation leveled in this Para is false, frivolous and

baseless.

8. That the Para no. 8 of the petition is denied being wrong

and incorrect. it is about nine years back the respondent

and his parents after giving merciless beating and also

denied that turned her from matrimonial house thereby

directing the petitioner no. 1 to bring Rs. 1,50,000/- from

her parents. In fact, the petitioner no. 1 left the

matrimonial house of the respondent it is denied that

since then petitioners are living in the parental house of

the petitioner no. 1. As father of the petitioner no. 1 has

expired and petitioners are living at the meager income of

brothers of the petitioner no. 1. The entire allegation

leveled in this Para is false, frivolous and baseless. No

such demands were ever raised by the respondent and

his parents as alleged.

9. That the para no.9 of the petition is denied being wrong

and incorrect. it is denied that thereafter, mother and

brother of the petitioner no. 1 along with respectable of

the society went to her matrimonial house and also

denied that requested to the respondent and his parents

to rehabilitate the petitioner no. 1 along with other

petitioners in her matrimonial house but these persons

have openly stated that unless and until their demand of

more dowry articles and cash of Rs.1.5 lacs shall not be

18
 fulfilled, the petitioner would not be allowed to enter into

their house. No such demands were ever raised by the

respondent and his parents as alleged. It is further

denied that few days back the respondent under the

influence of liquor tried to forcibly enter in the parental

house of the petitioner no. 1 and also threatened to kill

all the petitioners and further denied that respondent

threatened that he will pour acid/chemicals on the body

of the petitioner no. 1.It is also denied that the

petitioners are having reasonable apprehension that the

respondent may cause harm to their life and property.

The entire allegation leveled in this Para is false, frivolous

and baseless. It is all concocted story of the petitioner no.

1 and there are no merits in the same.

10. That the Para no. 10 of the petition is denied being

wrong and incorrect. The true fact is that the petitioner

is woman of means and she is earning more than

10,000/-. It is specifically denied that the respondent is

man of means and further denied that he possesses

movable and immovable property. It is further denied

that he is having 12 acre of land in cultivation and it is

vehemently denied that respondent is also running dairy

farm and selling buffalos and cows and also denied that

respondent is earning Rs.50,000/- P.M. without any kind

of liability upon his shoulder except to maintain the

petitioners. Anything which is specifically not admitted

19
 deems to be denied. The present petition has been filed

by the petitioner just to harass the replying respondent

and to pressurizing the respondent.

11. That the para no.11 of the petition is denied being

wrong and incorrect. As stated above, the petitioner

herself has left the matrimonial house of the respondent.

It is denied that petitioner no. 1 is not doing any work

and is totally dependent upon her brothers who too does

not have high financial status. It is also denied that

petitioners are not having any movable and immovable

property in their names which can yield income. Rest of

the Para is denied. It is further denied that petitioners

are entitled to get Rs. 40,000/-per month as

maintenance. Anything which is specifically not admitted

seems to be denied. The instant petition has been file just

to harras the respondent and to pressurizing the

respondent. .

12. That the Para no. 12 of the petition is matter of

record.

Deponent

Verified that the contents of the above said affidavit are

true and correct to my knowledge and belief. Verified at

Amritsar on 30 /10/2013.

Deponent

20
IN THE COURT OF MS SUREKHA RANI, JMIC, AMRITSAR

SMT KANWALJIT KAUR AND OTHER

VERSUS

SUKHJINDER SINGH

(Petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C)

REPLY TO THE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MAINTENCE

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION:-

1. That all the preliminary objections mentioned in

reply/written statement may be read as part and parcel

of this reply in order to avoid the repetition of facts.

Reply on merits:-

1. That the Para no. 1 of the application is replied in this

way that the applicant had filed a false, frivolous and

baseless petition against the respondent.

21
2. That the Para no. 2 of the application s replied in this

manner that the reply to main petition may kindly be

read as part and parcel of this Para of the application.

3. That the Para no. 3 of the application is absolutely

wrong and incorrect. The Petitioner does not have prima

facia case/petition to succeed. It is submitted that all

the allegation leveled in the para under reply are false,

frivolous and baseless

4. That the para no. 4 of the application is denied being

wrong and incorrect. It is denied that respondent is man

of means and again denied that he owns and possess

movable and immovable properties. It is denied that

respondent is earning Rs50.000/- P.M. without any

kind of liability upon his shoulder except to maintain

the petitioners. It is again denied that petitioner is

entitled to any maintenance as alleged. As submitted

above, it is the petitioner who left the matrimonial

house without any sufficient cause or reason and after

quarreling with the respondent and his family members

it is the petitioner who left the matrimonial house as

such, under law she is not entitled to any maintenance.

Otherwise she is also having sufficient source of

income. Anything which is not specifically admitted

deems to be denied.

22
 5. That the para no.5 of the application is denied being

wrong and incorrect. As stated above, the petitioner

herself has left the matrimonial house of the

respondent. It is denid that petitioner no. 1 is not

doing any work and is totally dependent upon her

brothers who too does not have high financial status. It

is also denied that petitioners are not having any

movable and immovable property in their names which

can yield income. Rest of the Para is denied.

6. The last- unnumbered Para of the application is denied

being wrong and incorrect. The application based on

wrong, incorrect and baseless allegation and is without

any merits and same is liable to be dismissed. The

applicant is not liable to get any relief from this Hon`ble

court as alleged in the para under reply, as such, the

application may kindly be ordered to be dismissed with

costs.

Any other relief to which the respondent is found

entitled to may also be granted to the respondent in the

interest of justice, equity and law

…………Respondent

Date: 30.10.2013 Sukhjinder Singh

AMIT MONGA, ADVOCATE

23
IN THE COURT OF MS SUREKHA RANI, JMIC, AMRITSAR
AFFIDAVIT

SMT KANWALJIT KAUR AND OTHER

VERSUS

SUKHJINDER SINGH

(Petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C)

REPLY TO THE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MAINTENCE

AFFIDAVIT

I,SUKJINDER SINGH SON OF BACHAN SINGH AGED____ YEARS

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GHUMAN,KAHLA WARI,TEHSIL DERA BABA

NANAK,DISTRICT GURDASPUR DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY DECLARE

AND AFFIRM AS UNDER:-

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION:-

1. That all the preliminary objections mentioned in

reply/written statement may be read as part and

parcel of this reply in order to avoid the repetition of

facts.

24
Reply on merits:-

1. That the Para no. 1 of the application is replied in this

way that the applicant had filed a false, frivolous and

baseless petition against the respondent.

2. That the Para no. 2 of the application s replied in this

manner that the reply to main petition may kindly be

read as part and parcel of this Para of the application.

3. That the Para no. 3 of the application is absolutely

wrong and incorrect. The Petitioner does not have

prima facia case/petition to succeed. It is submitted

that all the allegation leveled in the Para under reply

are false, frivolous and baseless

4. That the Para no. 4 of the application is denied being

wrong and incorrect. It is denied that respondent is

man of means and again denied that he owns and

possess movable and immovable properties. It is

denied that respondent is earning Rs50.000/- P.M.

without any kind of liability upon his shoulder except

to maintain the petitioners. It is again denied that

petitioner is entitled to any maintenance as alleged. As

submitted above, it is the petitioner who left the

matrimonial house without any sufficient cause or

reason and after quarreling with the respondent and

his family members it is the petitioner who left the

matrimonial house as such, under law she is not

25
 entitled to any maintenance. Otherwise she is also

having sufficient source of income. Anything which is

not specifically admitted deems to be denied.

5. That the Para no.5 of the application is denied being

wrong and incorrect. As stated above, the petitioner

herself has left the matrimonial house of the

respondent. It is denied that petitioner no. 1 is not

doing any work and is totally dependent upon her

brother who too does not have high financial status. It

is also denied that petitioners are not having any

movable and immovable property in their names which

can yield income. Rest of the Para is denied.

Deponent

Verified that the contents of the above said affidavit are

true and correct to my knowledge and belief. Verified at

Amritsar on 30 /10/2013.

Deponent

26