IN THE COURT OF SH. S. K.

SHARMA, DISTRICT JUDGE “FAMILY COURT” FARIDABAD

In Re :-

Rakesh Kumar Versus Nisha

Petition u/s 13 of H.M.A.

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

Sir,

The following is submitted as under:-

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:-

1. That the instant application is a tool for making pressure upon the

petitioner-answering respondent to withdraw the petition by keeping

the applicant-Nisha in his company inspite of her misbehave etc. for

detail mentioned in main petition.

2. That the para No. 4 of application is mentioning several sources of

income i.e. totally not less than Rs. 3,15,000/- per month petitioner-

answering respondent by concealing the answering respondent is a

young boy of developing age and how, in what manners have arranged
two companies of transport by having 8-10 Eicher Canters from which

earning Rs. 2,50,000/- per month, constructed three shops by

purchasing the land underneath as alleged income of Rs. 15,000/- per

month, having been purchased a plot area 100 sq. yards at Nehar Par

Old Faridabad in which running Milk Dairy and from which earning Rs.

20,000/- per month, purchasing a plot 1000 sq. yards in which

constructed several quarters and from which earning Rs. 20,000/- per

month, having in his name three acres agricultural land in

Gautambudh Nagar and from which earning Rs. 10,000/- per month,

by the law if, any property ancestral inherited by father of the

answering respondent then cannot be partitioned in his lifetime and no

claim can be of ownership in lifetime of Karta i.e. father. As per

aforesaid and contents of para No. 4 of application, the answering

respondent is stated a capitalist person by having huge income per

month then why not residing in Urban Estate of City Faridabad. As a

matter of fact, the answering respondent was a victim of un-employee

then considering facing circumstances, the father purchased as first

one Eicher Canter with help of finance company and same was sold,

thereafter purchased other Eicher Canter bearing its No. HR-38-N-

5908, same failed due to not received orders of business, even failed

to pay the installment of finance company, hence, sold out to Sukhbir

as evident transferred on 30-06-2011 in the name of Sukhbir.

being a victim of again un-employee who is residing in an

unauthorized colony Nehar Par, Old Faridabad, which is stated Milk

Dairy, however, one Cow is kept for milk to the family and no other

Cow and buffaloes etc.

3. That the all income sources to the answering respondent as alleged in

para No. 4 of the application are totally made-up, false, fabricated and

on the other hand the applicant is a qualified educated lady upto

M.Com & is earning more than Rs. 12,000/- per month as employee in

a office at Noida, however, this proof of an employee could not be

obtained as refused by the employer at the instance of applicant. The

applicant has concealed the material facts from this Hon’ble court,

hence, is not entitled for discretionary and equitable relief in the

instant application.

4. That the income sources are without any proof & evidence with

application, even the other material facts of FIR No. 6 dated 12-01-

2011, U/s 498-A, 406, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S. Bhupani by involving the

answering respondent, relatives and family members, for detail

therein, further arresting and releasing on bail by the Hon’ble court

and taken all dowry articles, ornaments, furniture, car, utensils etc. by

the applicant, have been concealed from this Hon’ble court.

liable to be dismissed, in the interest of justice.

REPLY PARAWISE:-

1- That the contents & averments of para No. 1 of the application are

matter of record, hence, needs no reply.

2- That the contents & averments of para No. 2 of the application are

vehemently and specifically wrong and denied in respect of

petitioner-answering respondent is guilty of committing matrimonial

offences, deserting the applicant, made the life a virtual hell for

want of dowry and inflicted atrocities, harassed and turned out on

7-10-2010 with minor baby.

3- That the contents & averments of para No. 3 of the application are

wrong and denied in respect of the parents of applicant are poor

persons, for evident presented Car at the time of performing

marriage of applicant with petitioner-answering respondent. It is

vehemently denied that the applicant has no source of income and

unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter.

4- That the contents and averments of para No. 4 of the application

are vehemently and specifically wrong and denied in respect of

running transport, having 8-10 Eicher Canter and from earning Rs.
2,50,000/- per month, earning rental income Rs. 15,000/- p.m.

from three shops, running milk dairy at Nehar Par Faridabad and

earning Rs. 20,000/- per month from that, earning Rs. 20,000/- per

month from quarters at Kot Laholi, Dadri, District-Gautambudh

Nagar, having three acres agricultural land and from which earning

Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is vehemently denied that father of

petitioner-answering respondent is getting handsome salary of Rs.

40,000/- per month from Escorts Company and has no liability. It is

vehemently denied that the petitioner-answering respondent has

refused to provide maintenance to the applicant and thrown out as

alleged. The contents of preliminary objections may kindly be read

as part and parcel as part of this para.

REPLY TO PRAYER PARA:-

That each and every contents of prayer para of application are

vehemently wrong and denied for the reasons and submissions

mentioned in preliminary objections and reply parawise on merit of

this reply AND the applicant is not entitled to the relief sought or

any relief, in any manner whatsoever, hence, the application

deserves dismissal on merit.

It is, therefore, prayed that the application of the applicant may

Petitioner-respondent
 Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ranbir
Bhati, R/o Gali No. 5, New Indira
Complex, Nehar Par, Kheri Road,
Old Faridabad, District-Faridabad
(Haryana).

Through Counsel:-

V.L. Sharma & Shiv Sharma

Advocates, Faridabad

VERIFICATION:-

Verified that the contents & averments of this reply has

Verified at Faridabad on 26-11-2011

Petitioner-Respondent