IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SH.

HARISH KUMAR,
PJFC, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
C.C. NO. OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

STUTI SINGH …PETITIONER S

VERSUS

VIKAS BAMEL …RESPONDENT

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENT TO THE PETITION UNDER SECTION
125 CODE OF CRININAL PROCEDURE FOR GRANT OF
MAINTENANCE.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

At the outset all the averments made in the

petition by the Petitioner is denied in toto unless

specifically admitted. That the contents and

averments made in the application are false, wrong

and baseless.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION/SUBMISSION:

1. That the present petition has been filed by the

Petitioner with malafide intention and to

unnecessary harass and humiliate the

answering respondent. It is to the best knowledge of

 the answering respondent that the marriage

between the Petitioner and the respondent was

solemnized in a very simple manner since it was a

love and inter caste marriage and further no

harassment or torture on the demand of dowry was

ever committed by the answering respondents or

any of his other family members and as such the

allegations leveled against the answering

respondent are false and based on concocted story.

2. That the present petition filed by the Petitioner s is

apparently an abuse of the process of law as the

Petitioner has not come with clean hands before

this Hon’ble Court and hence the present petition is

liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost at the

very threshold.

3. That there is no cause of action in favour of the

Petitioner as against the answering respondent for

filing the present petition hence the present petition

is liable to be dismissed.

4. That the Petitioner is a wrongdoer and the present

petition has been filed with malafide intentions and

ulterior motives to harass the answering respondent

 and hence the present petition is liable to be

dismissed.

5. That the Petitioner has only leveled vague

allegations against the answering respondent

without even mentioning the date of any such

violence that had ever occurred and it is germane to

mention here that in the last 11 years of the said

marriage, the Petitioner had not filed even a single

complaint at any level against the respondent or

any of his family members. It is further submitted

that no specific allegations have been made against

the answering respondent and hence the present

petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. That the Petitioner has not stated the true and

correct facts in her petition and has even concealed

relevant material facts from this Hon’ble court.

7. That the marriage of the Petitioner and respondent

No. 1 was solemnized in a simple manner but just

after the marriage the Petitioner started showing her

colors and used to harass the answering

respondent.

8. That the Petitioner was harassing and torturing the

answering respondents and other family members

 just after the marriage. The Petitioner used to leave

her matrimonial house without informing the

answering respondents.

9. That the Petitioner used to harass the answering

respondent and his family members and always

looked for the chances that how to quarrel with the

answering respondent and other family members

and went to her parental home at her own on petty

issues. It is pertinent to mention here that from the

date of the said marriage i.e. 24.09.2012 to August,

2022, the Petitioner had not filed even a single

complaint anywhere against the respondent or any

of his family members which clearly shows that the

Petitioner was very happily residing with the

respondent and, hence, the present petition is

nothing else but a gross misuse of the law, hence,

the present petition is liable to be dismissed with

exemplary cost.

10. That the marriage of the sister of the respondent

was solemnized on 29.04.2013 and having a

moral/social duty, the respondent had to help his

family members in the said marriage of his sister in

every manner and when the respondent asked the

 petitioner to bring meals for the relatives in night at

about 9.00 PM on 26.04.2013 then instead of

bringing the meals she made a cut on her left hand

and this created lots of worries and tension in the

family and everyone was having mental tension that

she should not create any ugly scene on occasion of

marriage.

11. That the present petition under reply filed by the

Petitioner is nothing but gross misuse of process of

law against the answering respondent. The petition

filed by the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed with

heavy cost.

PARA WISE REPLY TO PETITION FOR

MAINTENANCE:

1-2. That the contents of the para no.1 & 2 of the

petition under reply need no reply being the matter

of record.

3. That the contents of para no. 3 of the petition

under reply are false and specifically denied that the

petitioner was tortured mentally and physically,

but, on the contrary, it is submitted that the

behaviour of the petitioner was quarrelsome,

 arrogant and used to rebuke the petitioner and his

family members in front of the relatives.

4. That the contents of para-No.4 of the petition under

reply are wrong, false and specifically denied that

after the solemnization of the marriage the

Petitioner was abused, tortured and treated with

extreme humiliation. It is pertinent to mention here

that the Petitioner was given a warm welcome, love

and affection by the respondent and rather it was

the respondent and his family members who always

became the victims of torturing, cruelties and

harassment in the hands of the Petitioner even for

the petty issues.

5. That the content of para-No. 5 of the petition under

reply are wrong, false and specifically denied that

the petitioner was taunted and emotionally

blackmailed for demanding money and car

materials for the family.

6. That the contents of para No. 6 of the petition under

reply are wrong, false and specifically denied that

the father-in-law tried to set the petitioner on fire

and pressurized the petitioner to bring a car. It is

also wrong, false and denied in toto that petitioner

 would be involved in false criminal cases which

would ruin her advocacy career.

7. That the contents of para No. 7 of the petition under

reply are wrong, false and specifically denied but

on the contrary, it is pertinent to mention here that

the Petitioner used to keep her salary with her and

used to say respondent will do all the expense and

she will keep her salary with her. The petitioner

refused to perform the religious ceremony of newly

married wife.

8. That the contents of para No. 8 of the petition under

reply are wrong, false and specifically denied. It is

also wrong, false and denied in toto that the

respondent is not a responsible person and

petitioner used to support the respondent and his

family.

9. That the contents of para No. 9 of the petition under

reply are wrong, false and specifically denied and on

the contrary, it is pertinent to submitted that the

petitioner used to say openly she is a feminist lady

and therefore she will not do all the household

chores and even if utensils were to be washed then

she used to say that half she will do and half will be
 done by the respondent whatsoever may be the

circumstances. The expenses of the entire

household was borne by the respondent, hence, the

Petitioner be put to produce the strict proof of the

same.

10. That the contents of para No. 10 of the petition

under reply are wrong, false and specifically denied

that the respondent was having extra marital

affairs. It is also denied that the petitioner invested

her entire saving to start the business for

respondent, hence, the Petitioner be put to produce

the strict proof of the same , whereas on the

contrary, it is submitted that the respondent gave

all the comforts of life to the Petitioner.

11. That the contents of para No. 11 of the petition

under reply are wrong, false and specifically denied

that the respondent used to be threat to the life of

the petitioner. It is submitted that in December

2012 on Sunday morning when the mother of the

petitioner asked her to bring a glass of water as

some neighbor visited them, the petitioner brought

a glass of water and threw the same on the face of

the respondent. It is worthwhile to mention here

 that the petitioner got drafted a petition for divorce

and sent the same on the e-mail of the respondent

on 18.02.2018. It is false, wrong and denied in

entirety that the respondent had abused and

thrown the petitioner out of the house in the middle

of the night. It is pertinent here to mention that on

12.04.2018 at about 3 PM when the parents of the

respondent came to give desi ghee, the petitioner

became angry that they have disturbed her and she

gave a sandal blow on the face of the father of the

respondent. She even threatened that they will be

sent behind bars in a false criminal case.

12. That the contents of para No. 12 of the petition

under reply are wrong, false and specifically denied

in entirety and it is submitted that the petitioner did

not allow the respondent to have sexual inter course

with her for couple of months and on many

occasion she used to give slap on the his face and

used to say that a woman is meant for this purpose.

It is pertinent here to mention that when after a

long period petitioner did not conceive, they went to

see doctor Sushma Sinha, Apollo Hospital, Sarita

Vihar, Delhi on 13.06.2016 and HSG test was

conducted upon the petitioner and Dr. said that due

 to Fiboroids both the fallo pians tubes have been

closed and there are remote chance of conceiving

and some girls who gets married in their sinister

age get it closed themselves.

13. That the contents of para No. 13 of the petition

under reply are wrong, false and specifically denied

that the petitioner was turned out from the

matrimonial home at Delhi rather it is stated that

the petitioner picked up a quarrel with the

respondent on 23.06.2019 at 9.00 PM at Azad

Nagar, Hisar and after that she left her matrimonial

house without any reason or cause. That the

content under reply are partly admitted being the

matter of record that petitioner received a petition

for divorce in 2021 and partly denied that the the

respondent doesn’t reside in Hisar.

14. That the contents of para No. 14 of the petition

under reply are wrong, false and specifically denied

in entirety. It is submitted that petitioner always

used to say that she is working in a US based MNC

and taking double salary of the respondent and now

she has purchased a flat in her name.

15. That the contents of para No. 15 of the petition

under reply are wrong, false and specifically

denied in entirety and it is worthwhile to submit

here that the respondent No. 1 is working as a Field

Executive with Hemkund Special Security Services

Pvt. Ltd. and getting only Rs. 12,500/- per month

as salary.

16. That the contents of para No. 16 of the petition

under reply are wrong, false and it is submitted that

the petitioner is having a decent job and she left the

matrimonial home voluntarily without any reason or

cause.

17. That the contents of para No. 17 of the petition

under reply are wrong, false and specifically denied

in entirety. It is worthwhile to mention that

petitioner is already earning a decent salary and

just for the sake of harassing the respondent she is

praying for maintenance.

18. That the contents of para No. 18 of the petition

under reply need no reply being the legal contents.

That the last para of the petition under

reply is the prayer clause and the contents of the

same are totally wrong, false and hence specifically

 denied, hence, the Petitioner s are not entitled for

any relief as prayed for.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that

keeping in view of the above mentioned facts and

circumstances, this Hon’ble court may kindly be

pleased to dismiss the petition filed by the Petitioner

with heavy exemplary cost, in the interest of justice.

RESPONDENT

NEW DELHI
DATED: THROUGH

(VINEET MALIK)
ADVOCATE
CH. NO. 735, DWARKA COURTS,
SEC-10, DWARKA,
NEW DELHI-110075

VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this __ day of November,

2023, that the contents of paras No.1 to 18 of the

parawise reply on merits are true and correct and those

of paras No. 1 to 11 of the preliminary objections are true

to the information received and believed to be correct.

Last para is a prayer before this Hon’ble court.

RESPONDENT