IN THE COURT OF MS.

VASUNDHRA CHAUNKAR,
LEARNED METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, PATIALA
HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

CC NO.9500/18

IN THE MATTER OF:

XYZ & ORS ...COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

ABC & ANR …RESPONDENT

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO THE CAPTIONED COMPLAINT
FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT

Most respectfully showeth:

That, the present reply is filed by the Respondent No.1

[‘Answering Respondent’] to the Compliant. The contents of

the Complaint are denied in their entirety and nothing stated

herein should be considered as an admission on behalf of the

Answering Respondent unless the same has been specifically

admitted herein below.

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:

1. That, the present Complaint has been filed on basis of

false and concocted allegations, which have been

created merely to harass the Respondent No.1

[‘Answering Respondent’]. The present Complaint

has been filed with a malafide intention without any

cause of action in order to arm twist the answering

Respondent to follow the dictates of the Complainant.

There are several false assertions have been made by

the Complainant in her Complaint as well as her

income affidavit. The answering Respondent reserves

 his right to file an appropriate application before this

Hon’ble Court for perjury.

2. That, the present Complaint is devoid of any merit. All

the allegations made against the answering

Respondent are entirely false. All the allegations made

in the Complaint are vague without any reference to

any specific incident or period when such incident

occurred.

3. That, on the bare reading of the Complaint it is

apparent that the Complainant No.1 is attempting to

seek reliefs beyond the purview of the present

proceedings against the Respondents under the façade

of the present Complaint. This becomes evident from

the fact that despite the Complainant admittedly

having never been in a ‘Domestic Relationship’ with

the Respondent No.2 [brother of the Answering

Respondent]has still impleaded him as a party [without

any cause of action], and is raising issues which ex-

facie pertains to some “ancestral properties” allegedly

belonging to the Respondents and other allied issues

i.e. succession and partition, before this Hon’ble Court.

4. It is submitted that the Protection of Woman from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Act]was enacted for a

specific purpose, and should not permitted to be used

as a tool by the Complainants to initiate fraudulent and

ill motivated Complaints.

5. That, even if the Complaint is taken on face-value no

case has been made out against the Respondent No.1,

much less against the Respondent No.2. The

Complainant in order to wreck her vengeance has

impleaded the Respondent No.2 as party and has

sought reliefs on the grounds which are impermissible

under the Act. It is submitted that the Respondent

No.2 has been staying independently with his family

from the year 1996 and was in no way concerned with

the matrimonial life of ‘Parties’. It is for this reason

why even this Hon’ble Court, was pleased to not issue

notice to the Respondent No.2, even though he has

been arraigned as a party to the Complaint.

6. That, the Complaint has been filed on the basis of false

and misleading averments and several material facts

have been concealed by the Complainant. Therefore,

for the proper appreciation of the facts, it is imperative

for the Answering Respondent to narrate the correct

sequence of events, which are stated in the

subsequent paragraphs.

7. That, before adverting to merits of the Complaint it

would be important to point out that the Complainant

No.1 has falsely stated in ‘Memo of Parties’ that she is

a resident of 171, Sector-A, Pocket – C, Vasant Kunj,

Delhi -110070. The said address belongs to the

Complainant’s parents.It would be relevant to mention

 that the Complainant No.1 is a resident of 1267,

Sector-A, Pocket – B, Vasant Kunj, Delhi. The said

house was purchased by the Complainant No.1 and is

in her name till date. Apart from the said house the

Complainant No.1 is also the joint owner along with

her mother of the house bearing No. 1164, Sector – D,

Pocket – I, Vasant Kunj, Delhi. These material facts

have concealed by the Complainant No.1 from this

Hon’ble Court.

The copy the documents from the Delhi Government

website which show the documents which are owned

by the Complainant No.1 are annexed herewith as

ANNEXURE – A.

8. That, it has also been concealed from this Hon’ble

Court that the answering Respondent from the time

the parties shifted to India from USA in the year 2010

has spent over Rs. 50 lacs towards the maintenance of

the Complainant No.1 and his children. It will be

relevant to mention that the Complainant No.1 used to

generally withdraw all the amounts which the

Respondent used to transfer into the joint account or

would transfer the said amounts immediately to her

private account. The answering Respondent never

asked for any details of where and how the said money

was being used by the Complainant No.1. It appears

that it for this reason, the Complainant No.1 has not

furnished any documents alongwith her income

 affidavit and has falsely stated that the “documents

attached”.

9. That, the Complainant No.1 and theanswering

Respondent were married on 06.02.2003, at ‘Diamond

Palace’, Ghaziabad. It would be relevant to mention

that the Complainant had fraudulently in her Petition

stated that the marriage was performed at Delhi. The

answering Respondent’s parents had passed away

much before the marriage. The answering Respondent

was working abroad during the marriage and

immediately after the marriage the parties shifted to

USA.

10. That, the answering Respondent provided with the best

possible facilities to the Complainant No.1 and took

care of her with love and affections. However, the

same was not reciprocated by the Complainant No.1,

who wanted the answering Respondent to detach all

ties with his family. The Complainant No.1 did not

want the answering Respondent to maintain any

relationship with his siblings.

11. That, the parties had two children in the USA namely

Abhay Singh Chauhan and Aditi Chauhan who were

born on 30.10.2004 [Respondent No.2] and

20.02.2007 [Respondent No.3] respectively. Both the

said children are citizens of USA till date. The

Complainant was very influenced by her parents and

 her sister, who were extremely interfering with the

matrimonial life of the Parties. It was the plan of the

Complainant No.1 and her family to have answering

Respondent under their control and see that he only

follows their dictates. It was for this reason why the

Complainant No.1’s parents used to always ask the

Parties to shift to Delhi close to their house.

12. That the Answering Respondent always maintained

cordial relations with his in-laws, especially with the

father of the Complainant No.1. In the year 2007 on

the request of the Complainant No.1, the answering

Respondent had even transferred an amount of

Rs.7,32,000/-in 2007 to the Complainant No.1’s

father.The answering Respondent was informed that

the said money was for the Complainant No.1’s father

to invest in stocks.

13. That, the Complainant No.1 kept on harassing the

answering Respondent to shift to India and stay at

Delhi close to her parents. The answering Respondent

tried to convince the Complainant No.1 that it would

not be very wise to shift to India especially when he

was having a secured job and a good future in USA.

However the Complainant did not pay any heed to the

same. The answering Respondent often used to be

harassed by the Complainant No.1’s family to shift to

Delhi. Dueto the pressure and harassment which the

answering Respondent had to face by the Complainant

 No.1 and her family, he had to give in to their

demands and was forced to agree to shift to India.

14. That, as per the dictates of the Complainant No.1 and

her family the parties shifted to Delhi, in about 2010.

The answering Respondent was forced to take up a

house right across the streetto the house of the

Complainant No.1’s parents, so that it would be

convenient for the Complainant’s parents to interfere

in the matrimonial life of the parties on daily basis.

During this period the answering Respondent did not

even have the option of taking up a job of his choice.

His life was constantly monitored and controlled by the

Complainant No.1 and her parents, who gave their

unsolicited inputs on every aspect of this life. The

Complainant No.1 under the influence of the family

started picking fights with the Answering Respondent

on petty issues and would create a very somber

environment in the house.

15. That, the answering Respondent looked for a job for

himself in Delhi, however he could not manage one

and therefore decided to start a business. There was a

strong opposition from the Complainant No.1 and her

family who wanted the answering Respondent to find a

job in Delhi and follow their dictates.

16. That, in about October 2011, the answering

Respondent started working to setup a business in the

 name and style of Leafy Greens Agro Pvt. Ltd., which

is fruit ripening unit which was to set up at Roorkee,

Uttarakhand. During the period when the answering

Respondent was trying to set up the factory he was put

to tremendous harassment and stress by the

Complainant No.1 and her family. They made every

effort to coerce him from making any gains in this

regard.

17. That, for operating this business it was important that

the answering Respondent stayed close to the

processing unit. He found Dehradun suitable

considering its proximity to Roorkee and also for the

fact that the Complainant No.1 had done her schooling

from there and therefore it would not be an entirely a

new place for her. He requested the Complainant No.1

to shift alongwith him to Dehradun as even the

children were at that time only aged about 8, 5 and 3

years and therefore they could easily find a school for

them. The parties visited Dehradun, for seeing all the

facilities and house for them to shift. However, the

Complainant No.1 during the trip was least interested

in looking at anything and was more concerned to visit

her old school and friends at Dehradun.

18. That, after their return from Dehradun, when the

answering Respondent told that they would have to

shift to Dehradun, she under the influence of her

parents refused to shift. The Complainant No.1’s family

 also started forcing the answering Respondent to

abandon the entire project. The Answering Respondent

explained to them that the same was not possible at

such an advanced stage.

19. That, the Answering Respondent out of sheer hard

work and persistence managed to get bank loan to set

up the ripening unit by May, 2012 and the construction

work for the plant started. Considering that the

Complainant No.1 was not shifting along with him, the

Complainant No.1 took up a rented premise in

Dehradun, and would travel back to Delhi at least

thrice a month. He would also deposit money in their

joint account for the maintenance and welfareof the

Complainant No.1 and the children. It would be

relevant to point out that the Complainant No.1 on the

basis of concocted averments and by concealing

material facts has sought a relief of restraining the

Respondents from dispossessing or throwing her out

from the ‘shared household’. It is submitted that the

Complainant No.1 had concealed in the Complaint that,

from the year 2012 the ‘shared household’ if any is the

premises where she is presently residing. Therefore,

there is no question of her being thrown out of the

shared household. Further, all the jewellery of the

Complainant No.1 are solely in her custody from day

one, and in fact several valuables of the answering

respondent including jewellery and watches are in the

custody of the Complainant No.1. No dowry was ever

 given or demanded by the answering Respondent. The

Complainant No.1 has malafidely without any basis has

falsely stated that dowry articles and her stridhan are

lying in her matrimonial home. All this false averments

and reliefs have been sought in order to mislead this

Hon’ble Court and create a prejudice against the

answering Respondent.

20. That, in October, 2012 the entire unit of the answering

Respondent caught fire and was completely burnt

down to pulp. During this period the Complainant No.1

did not support the answering the Respondent, and he

on his own, worked towards the setting up of the unit.

It was not until March/April, 2013 that the entire unit

started operations. It would be relevant to mention

that the said business operations did not take off very

well and turned out to be loss making venture. There

has been no production in the Company this year and

all the employees have been removed.

21. That the Complainant refused to join the answering

Respondent in Dehraduninspite of his repeated

requests as she claimed she did not want to move

anywhere away from her parentshouse at Delhi. In

fact, the Complainant No.1 in order to make her

intentions clear to the answering Respondent, had also

purchased the house where is she was presently

residing in the year 2012.

22. That, in June,2013, the answering Respondent shifted

to Haridwar, where is presently residing. He again

requested the Complainant No.1 to come and stay

along with him. But the said request was outrightly

rejected by the Complainant No.1. It would be relevant

to mention that the answering Respondent even after

the institution of the present Complaint offered the

Complainant No.1 to come and stay with him along

with the children. However, the same was again

rejected by the Complainant No.1.

23. That, the answering Respondent often used to visit the

Complainant No.1 and stayed with her and along with

the children. He provided for all the financial assistance

to them and provided them with the best possible

facilities. Whenever the answering Respondent came to

Delhi, in addition to giving them money, he used also

purchase all the requirements in the house and also

shop for the requirements of the children.

24. That, around March, 2015 on the insistence of the

friend Mr. Aditya Goel of the answering Respondent,

they started a Company called ADG Business

Consulting Services Pvt. Limited. The answering

Respondent was merely a nominal director in the

Company and had not say in the day-to-day

functioning of the Company. Except for a couple of

contracts which was executed by the answering

Respondents friend, there was no other business to the

 company. In fact for the last two financial year no

business was done by the said Company. The

answering Respondent did not receive or withdraw any

funds from the Company till date.

25. That, in about September, 2015, the answering

Respondent started Anju Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, which is

an authorized service center for Tata Commercial

vehicles. It is submitted that due to the stress created

by the Complainant No.1 and her family, it started to

take a toll on his health. The answering Respondent

could not work properly and therefore could not

efficiently carry on his profession. The answering

Respondent had also invited the Complainant No.1 and

her parents and sister for the opening, yet none of

them came for the inauguration.

26. That, due to the constant ill-health of the answering

Respondent, he was constrained to consulted a

Doctorfrom Sitaram Bhartia Institute of Science and

Research, where he was treated for depression. The

Complainant No.1, instead of helping the answering

Respondent to recover from his medical issues, gave

him even more stress and was least concerned about

him.

27. That, in about August, 2017, the Complainant No.1

picked a fight with the answering Respondent when he

was at Delhi at the house. She in a fit of rage asked

 the answering respondent to get out of her house and

asked him not to come again. Having no other option

the answering Respondent was constrained to leave

the house. However, he still fulfilled all his obligations

as a father and a husband and continued to support

Complainant No.1 and his children financially. The

answering Respondent still met the children however,

he was not allowed to come into the house of the

Complainant No.1 but met them outside. Due to the ill-

health of the answering Respondent, he again started

to concentrate on his professional career only recently.

28. That, in the end of 2017, the Complainant No.1 started

complaining about the fact that she did not have a

good car for travelling. The answering Respondent in

January 2018 gave her his Mahindra SUV. The said car

is still with the Complainant No.1 and is being used by

her.

29. That, on 31.01.2018, the Complainant called the

answering Respondent for a meeting at her father’s

house. During the meeting the answering Respondent

was threatened that in case he did not shift to Delhi

and follow their dictates he would have to bear huge

consequences for it. The answering Respondent

requested the family of the Complainant No.1 not to

interfere in their matrimonial life and asked them to

send the Complainant No.1 and his children to stay

with him. It was then the Complainant and her family

 levelled slanderous allegations against the answering

Respondent. In fact the allegations were so crass and

defamatory that the answering Respondent has

refrained to state the same in the present reply. Due

to the said humiliation the answering Respondent

forced to leave the house.

30. That, after this incident, the Complainant No.1, in

order to harass the answering Respondent even

further, changed the password of the school website

through which the answering Respondent used to pay

the school fees of his children. When he asked the

Complainant No.1 to give him the password, she

refused do so even after repeated requests. Thereafter

when the answering Respondent met the children, they

for no apparent reason refusedto communicate with

the answering Respondent. Then it became clear to the

him that the complainant No.1 has been brainwashing

the children and using them as a tool against the

answering Respondent. It seemed that the Respondent

was only there to fulfill only the financial aspects of

their life and nothing beyond that. The answering

Respondent was extremely hurt and disappointed that

the children are being used as a device against him. In

fact even today, despite the answering Respondent

doing only good for his children, they have stopped

interacting with him under the influence of the

Complainant No.1 and her family.

 31. That, the answering Respondent inspite of the cold

behavior of the Complainants towards him never tried

to absolve himself of the responsibilities towards the

Complainants. Infact the answering Respondent had

also transferred an amount of Rs. 35,000/- in January,

2019 to the joint account of the parties and has also

sent an email to this effect to the Complainant No.1.

The answering Respondent in February 2019 took a

Health Insurance from ICICI Lombard Insurance

Company for the Complainant No.1 and his children.

The Complainant No.1 is the Nominee of the said

health insurance which is having an annual coverage of

Rs.10,00,000/-.

PARA-WISE REPLY TO THE APPLICATION:

1. The contents of Para 1 of the Complaint are admitted

except for the fact that the Complainant No.1 and the

answering Respondent were married on 06.02.2003, at

‘Diamond Palace’, Ghaziabad and not in Delhi as falsely

stated in the Complaint.

2. The contents of Para 2 are matters of record and hence

merits no reply.

3. The contents of Para 3 and 4 of the Complaint are

totally false, malicious and hence denied. The

Answering Respondent never subjected the

Complainant No.1 to any cruelty whatso ever. The

answering Respondent provided with the best possible

 facilities to the Complainant No.1 and took care of her

with love and affection. However, the same was not

reciprocated by the Complainant No.1, who wanted the

answering Respondent to detach all ties with his

family. The Complainant No.1 did not want the

answering Respondent to maintain any relationship

with his siblings. It was the Complainant No.1 and her

family who harassed the answering Respondent.

4. The contents of Para 5of the Complaint are totally

false, malicious and hence denied. It is vehemently

denied that the Answering Respondent caused utmost,

intolerable, unbearable and immense cruelty on the

Complainant No.1. It was the Complainant No.1 who

had deserted the Answering Respondent under the

influence of her parents and her sister.It is submitted

that the marriage of the parties had problems, due to

the over-interfering nature of the Complainant No.1’s

family and the conduct of the Complainant No.1 who

wanted the Answering Respondent to follow her

dictates.

5. The contents of Para 6 of the Complaint are totally

false, malicious and hence denied. The Answering

Respondent never subjected the Complainant No.1 to

immense, utmost, unbearable, and intolerable cruelty,

hardships, humiliation, mental shock, agonies. The

contents of the preceding Paragraphs and the

Preliminary submissions are reiterated and are not

repeated for the sake of brevity.

6. The contents of Para 7 of the Complaint are totally

false, malicious and hence denied. The Answering

Respondent never subjected the Complainant No.1 to

any cruel treatment let alone of any “insultive” or

“humiliative” behavior. It is denied that he had made

the life of the Complainant No.1 a “total hell,

unbearable and intolerable”. It is submitted that the

such submissions without any description of any

specific incident, reeks of falsehood and the Complaint

is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The contents

of the preceding Paragraphs and the Preliminary

submissions are reiterated and are not repeated for

the sake of brevity.

7. The contents of Para 8 of the Compliant are totally

wrong, false and hence denied. It is submitted that the

answering Respondents parents had expired much

before the parties got married. It would also be

pertinent to mention that both the brother and sister of

the answering Respondent also got married before the

parties got married. From day one of the marriage the

Parties stayed inpendently with no interference from

any family of the answering Respondent. To the

contrary, it was the Complainant No.1, wanted the

answering Respondent to detach all ties with his

family. and did not want him to maintain any

relationship with his siblings.

8. The contents of para 9 are totally false, malicious

hence vehemently denied. The Answering Respondent

 never subjected the Complainant No.1-4 to utmost,

immense, unbearable, and intolerable cruelty,

hardships, humiliation, mental shock, agony, pain,

sufferings etc. It is submitted that the such

submissions without any description of any specific

incident, reeks of falsehood and the Complaint is liable

to be dismissed at the threshold. It is submitted that it

is the Complainant No.1 who appears to be tutoring

the children and turning them hostile towards the

Answering Respondent. The contents of the preceding

Paragraphs and the Preliminary submissions are

reiterated and are not repeated for the sake of brevity.

9. The contents of para 10 are totally wrong, false and

hence denied. It is denied that the Respondent No.1 is

guilty for causing utmost, immense, unbearable, and

intolerable cruelty on the person of the Complainant,

which led to the marital discord between the parties. It

is submitted that the such submissions without any

description of any specific incident, reeks of falsehood

and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed at the

threshold. The contents of the preceding Paragraphs

and the Preliminary submissions are reiterated and are

not repeated for the sake of brevity.

10. The contents of para 11 are totally false, malicious and

hence denied. The Answering Respondent has neither

committed any act that can cause danger to the life,

liberty, physical and mental health of the Complainant

nor indulged in any acts of cruelty/domestic violence

 against the Complainant No.1. All the allegations and

accusations made by the Complainant No.1 are entirely

vague without any specific incident of cruelty which

reeks of falsehood and demonstrate that the present

Complaint has been filed with a sole intention to harass

and humiliate the answering Respondent and brother.

As already stated that the present Complaint has been

instituted by the Complainant No.1 to use it as a tool

against the Respondents and to obtain reliefs by

misleading this Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that the

such submissions without any description of any

specific incident, reeks of falsehood and the Complaint

is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The contents

of the preceding Paragraphs and the Preliminary

submissions are reiterated and are not repeated for

the sake of brevity.

11. The contents of para 12-13 areentirely false and hence

denied. It is vehemently denied that the Answering

Respondent failed to pay the tuition fee of the children

for six months i.e. July 2012, March to May 2013 and

in July 2017. It is also vehemently denied that the

Answering Respondent caused agony to the children

through physical, mental, money related issues. As

already mentioned that the answering Respondent has

till date has spent more than Rs. 50,00,000/- on the

welfare of the Complainant No.1 and his children.

These are concocted allegation levelled by the

Complainant No.1 to mislead this Hon’ble Court. It is

 for this reason the Complainant No.1 has failed to

annex any documents along with her Income affidavit.

The contents of the preceding Paragraphs and the

Preliminary submissions are reiterated and are not

repeated for the sake of brevity.

12. The contents of para 14-15 are wrong and hence

denied. It is denied that the Answering Respondent has

agreed to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- monthly to

the Complainant No.1. It is also vehemently denied

that the Answering Respondent had stopped making

payments at any point of time.It is submitted that the

answering Respondent during this period alone has

spent around Rs. 5.5 lacs for the household expenses

and for the children. During this period as the

answering Respondent was regularly visiting Delhi he

paid for all the expenses of the children including their

school fees. Further he also purchased for the all the

requirements of the family. The Complainant No.1 was

also given cash which she immediately withdrew from

the account. As the Answering Respondent was

running a business he used to face shortage of funds

during certain months but he ensured that he

compensated for the same by paying a lumpsum

amount in the following month.

13. The contents of para 16 are totally wrong, false and

hence denied. It is denied that the Complainant No.1

has to depend on her meager finance and has to

borrow from her father. It is submitted that the

 answering Respondent has till date has spent more

than Rs. 50,00,000/- on the welfare of the

Complainant No.1 and his children. The Complainant

No.1 has also failed to furnish any bank account

statements along with the Complaint. The Complainant

No.1 is a well educated woman, an MBA holder who

was employed before marriage. It is submitted that as

far as the kidney stone problem of the Complainant

No.1 is concerned the answering Respondent took her

to the best hospital and got her treated for the same.

All the averments of financial problems have stated

merely to mislead his Hon’ble Court and are without

any basis.

14. The contents of para 17 and 18 are totally false,

malicious hence vehemently denied. It is vehemently

denied that the children have to cut back on their

expenses and live in fear of their enrolment from

school standing cancelled due to non payment of fees

by Answering Respondent. The Answering Respondent

has provided around 50 lakhs during the period of from

2010 for the maintenance and welfare of the

Complainant and his children. It is submitted that it

was only due to the high handed behavior of the

Complainant No.1, the answering Respondent was not

given the access on the school website in the year

2018, for the payment of fees. The Answering

Respondent has never faulted in payment for any

 necessities of the children especially the school tuition

fees.

15. The contents of para 19 of the Complaint are totally

falseand hence denied. It is denied that the Answering

Respondentmade any reduction of any amounts

towards the Complainant No.1 and his children.

However, it is submitted that the answering

Respondent was unwell during this period and even

had to consult a phycologist. The answering

Respondent even stopped to actively work due to the

mental harassment of the Complainant No.1 and her

family. It is submitted that the car was merely

purchased in the name of the answering Respondent

as the Road Tax was comparatively much less in

Uttarakhand. The answering Respondent did not make

any payments towards the said car.

16. The contents of para 20 of the Complaint are false, and

hence vehemently denied. It is denied that the

Answering Respondent closed the accounts in the

name of the minor children and withdrew an amount of

Rs.10,000/- each from the accounts. It is submitted

that the answering had created a Fixed Deposit of

Rs.10,000/- each in the name of his minor children

Abhay Singh Chauhan, Aditi Singh Chauhan, Ayushi

Chauhan in their respective bank accounts in Kotak

Mahindra Bank.However, the bank started to deduct

money for the non-maintenance of balance. In fact the

 answering Respondent when he got to of the same

spoke to the Bank and also deposited a sum of Rs.

5000/-. All the monies in the said account was taken

by the bank and no amount was ever withdraw by the

answering Respondent.

17. The contents of para 21 of the Complaint are entirely

false and presumptuous. It is submitted that the

answering Respondent has till date paid for all the

requirements of the children and would continue to do

so. It is submitted that the Complainant No.1 has

levelled the allegations in the para without any basis.

It is denied that the answering Respondent is making

his children to live a life of deprivation. As already

mentioned above that the Answering Respondent has

transferred enough funds for the children and the

Complaint No.1. It is would be relevant to mention that

the Mahindra Scorpio is in the custody of the

Complainant No.1 and is being used by her from

January, 2018.

18. The contents of para 22 to 24of the Complaint are

denied for being irrelevant to the present proceedings.

It is submitted that the Complainant No.1 has raised

issues in the said Paras which have no relevance to the

present proceedings which have been instituted under

the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is submitted that

the Complainant is attempting to seek reliefs beyond

 the purview of the present proceedings against the

Respondents under the façade of the present

Complaint. This becomes evident from the fact that

despite the Complainant admittedly having never been

in a ‘Domestic Relationship’ with the Respondent No.2

[brother of the Answering Respondent]has still

impleaded him as a party [without any cause of

action], and is raising issues which ex-facie pertains to

some “ancestral properties” allegedly belonging to the

Respondents and other allied issues i.e. succession and

partition, before this Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that

the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act,

2005 [Act]was enacted for a specific purpose, and

should not permitted to be used as a tool by the

Complainants to initiate fraudulent and ill motivated

Complaints. The issues if any pertaining to “ancestral

property” or Partition are beyond the ambit of the Act

under which this current complaint is filed and such

issues being of the nature of a civil dispute must be

addressed before the appropriate forum.

19. The contents of para 25-26 of the Complaint are totally

false, malicious hence vehemently denied. The

Answering Respondent has never caused any mental

agony to his children or threatened to withdraw their

admission and take them. It is vehemently denied that

the Answering Respondent has overlooked his bleeding

child for the sake of a family function. It is vehemently

denied that the Answering Respondent wanted to send

 his son to live with Respondent No.2 when he was

barely a year old or that the Respondent No.2 has

threatened to keep the children as his own. It is

further vehemently denied that the Answering

Respondent has threatened to throw his children out of

their home. That, these are allegations are solely a

figment of the Complainant No.1’s imagination. It is

submitted that to the contrary, the Complainant No.1

is influencing the children and is using them as a tool

to harass the answering Respondent.

20. The contents of para 27 of the Complaint are false and

concocted and hence denied. It is denied that in

February 2017 during a family function the Respondent

No.2 threatened to kill the Complainant No.1 and her

family. It is submitted that the Complainant no.1

would be put to strict proof of the same.

21. The contents of para 28 of the Complaintis denied for

being false. It is submitted that in May, 2012 the

Respondent had to shift to Dehradun for working on

his business. However, the Complainant No.1 refused

to accompany him for the reasons detailed in the

preliminary submissions. It would be relevant to

mention that till about August, 2017 the answering

Respondent used to come to Delhi and stay with his

family atleast thrice every month.

22. The contents of para 29 of the Complaint are totally

wrong, false and hence denied. It is denied that the

 Answering Respondent is earning Rs.5,00,000/- per

month and is leading luxurious life. The ITR returns of

the answering Respondent have been attached

alongiwth the income affidavit.

23. The contents of para 30 of the Complaint are totally

wrong, false and hence denied. It is denied that the

Complainant No.1 has to depend on her meager

finance and has to depend on her parents for

sustenance. The Complainant No.1 is a well educated

woman, an MBA holder who was earning handsomely

before marriage. The Answering Respondent has

provided for more than Rs. 50 lacs from 2010 till date

for the maintenance and welfare of the Complainant

No.1 and the children.

24. The contents of para 31 and 32of the Complaint are

totally false, malicious hence vehemently denied. It is

denied that the Answering Respondent has committed

any financial, physical or mental cruelty to the

Complainant No.1 on instigation by Respondent

No.2.. . The Complainant admittedly has never been in

a ‘Domestic Relationship’ with the Respondent No.2. It

is submitted that the Respondent No.2 has been

staying independently with his family from the year

1996 and was in no way concerned with the

matrimonial life of the Complainant No.1 or the

Answering Respondent [‘Parties’]. It is for this reason

why even this Hon’ble Court, was pleased to not issue

notice to the Respondent No.2, even though he has

 been arraigned as a party to the Complaint. Further all

these averments in addition to being false and

malicious have nothing to do with the present

proceedings. They have been stated only to mislead

this Hon’ble Court.

25. The contents of para 33 of the Complaint are

completely irrelevant to the fact in issue in the present

proceedings. It is submitted that the issues which are

raised in the said Para of the Complaintvis-à-vis

ancestral property pertain to jurisdiction of the Civil

Courts. It is submitted that the Protection of Woman

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Act] was enacted

for a specific purpose, and should not permitted to be

used as a tool by the Complainants to initiate

fraudulent and ill motivated Complaints.

26. The contents of para 34 of the Complaint are totally

wrong, false and hence denied except those accepted

herein. It is denied that the answering Respondent is

not having income from all the sources as stated by

the Complainant No.1. It is further denied that the

answering respondent has anything to do with Anju

Palace or that he has any construction business with

his brother. All the sources of the income of the

answering Respondent have been detailed in the

preliminary submissions and the same are not

reiterated for the sake of brevity. The answering

Respondent has also filed the Income tax returns for

 the last 3 assessment years along with the Income

affidavit.

27. That in reply to para 35 of the Complaint it is

submitted that the claims raised by Complainant No.1

vis-à-vis property rights if any are matters of

succession and partitionand is beyond the scope of the

present proceedings before this Hon’ble Court. The

inherent falsity in the reliefs being sought by the

Complainant in the said Para is apparent from the fact

that she herself in Para 33 of the Compliant has

claimed that the property being referred by her in Para

35 have been sold.

28. That, the contents of Para 36 of the Complaint are

false and are denied. It is submitted that the

answering Respondent is the father of the children and

has equal rights over the children, yet the answering

Respondent has never tried to take the children away

from their mother. It is relevant to mention that

recently whenever the answering Respondent met his

children, they for no apparent reason refused to

communicate with the answering Respondent. Then it

became clear to him that the complainant No.1 has

been brainwashing the children and using it as a tool

against the answering Respondent which has caused a

lot of pain and mental harassment to the answering

Respondent. Further in the Complaint not a single

allegation has been leveled against the answering

 Respondent that he ever tried to take away the

children from the custody of the Complainant.

29. In reply to para 37 of the Complaint it is submitted

that the Answering Respondent is settled in India now,

had left the US in 2010 at the instance of the

Complainant No.1. Not a single averment is made in

the Complaint that the answering Respondent tried to

leave India. It is submitted that these averments are

made in the Complaint merely to mislead this Hon’ble

Court and create prejudice against the answering

Respondent.

30. In reply to Para 38 and 39 of the Complaint it is

submitted that the Complainant No.1 has failed to

furnish any of her bank accounts, and concealed

several material facts from this Hon’ble Court. It is

submitted that merely on the assertions of the

Complainant No.1 it cannot be considered that she has

no source of Income. The present Complaint has been

filed with a malafide intention without any cause of

action in order to arm twist the answering Respondent

to follow the dictates of the Complainant.

31. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned in the present

reply this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the

Complaint.