IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITAM SINGH, LD.
JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT-01, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
C.S. No. 15/2024
In The Matter of:
ASHISH SINGH ...PLAINTIFF
VS..
NEHA KHANDELWAL ...DEFENDANT
NDOH:15.01.2025
INDEX
S.No Particulars Page
. No.
1. Replication to written statement filed by the
Defendant and by behalf of the petitioner along with
supporting affidavit
Petitioner
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITAM SINGH, LD. JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT-01, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
C.S. No. 15/2024
In The Matter of:
ASHISH SINGH ...PLAINTIFFS..
NEHA KHANDELWAL ...DEFENDANT
NDH: 15.01.2025
REPLICATION TO WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY
THE DEFENDANT OR BY BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONER NAMELY-ASHISH SINGH
Most Respectfully Showeth:
Preliminary objections
I. That the content of Para no.1 of the written statement filed by
the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied that At
the outset, the Defendant denies, dispute, refute and repudiates
each and every unsubstantiated, malicious, fictitious and
fallacious allegation, contentions, statements, submissions,
representation, assertion and/or averments made by the Plaintiff
in the Plaint under consideration as if the same are set out
hereunder and traversed in seriatim. Save what are matter of
record and save what would strictly appear therefrom, the
contents of the Plaint under reply are denied in toto. Further, it
is humbly submitted that nothing herein ought to be construed
as admission by the Defendant merely in the absence of specific
response, rebuttal and/or denial to any of the fallacious,
malicious and fictitious statements, contentions, submissions,
representation and averments made by the Petitioner.
II. That the contents of Para no. II of the written statement filed by
the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied that That
Present suit is an abuse of the process of court. No defamation
was ever committed against plaintiff by respondent. The present
suit thus, needs to be dismissed in limine without any thing
further with compensatory costs.
III. That the contents of Para no. III of the written statement filed
by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied that
that it is respectfully submits that no cause of action has been
arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant ever,
as there was no act of defamation was ever committed against
plaintiff by defendant. It is pertinent to mention that plaintiff
has not filed .a single document or evidence alongwith plaint
which can substantiate his false and baseless averments.
IV. That the contents of Para no. IV of the written statement filed
by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied that
that through the present suit the plaintiff has misled the Hon’ble
court by making false assertions in the plaint. The plaintiff in
order to harass the defendant through present false suit has field
a false certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Under the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act
field by plaintiff along-with plaint falsely claimed that “emails
are identical to the soft copies maintained by me in my office
computer operated by me and I also confirm that the
contents of the hard copies of the above-mentioned emails
are identical to the soft copies maintained on the server of
the Ministry of Defence operated by me”. But the PCDA,
Ministry of Defence, New Delhi in response/reply to a RTI
dated 24.07.2024 filed by defendant categorically denied that
the plaintiff is not authorised to access the data stored in server
of PCDA, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
V. That the content of Para no. V of the written statement filed by
the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied that the
plaintiff by filing false certificate under Section 65B of Indian
Evidence Act has committed offence of perjury and liable to be
prosecuted for offence of furnishing false evidence and a
proceeding may issue under Section 340 of Code of Criminal
Procedure against the plaintiff.
VI. That the content of Para no. VI of the written statement filed by
the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied that it is
further respectfully submitted that the present suit is not only
vexatious but also reflects the vindictive nature of the Plaintiff.
The defendant categorically denies each and every
allegation/contention made by the Plaintiff in the present plaint.
It is also pertinent to mention that the present suit is
misconceived, baseless and crammed with misrepresentation
and concealment of facts. Furthermore, the suit is based on
mere conjectures and surmises and the same.is liable to be set
aside with exemplary costs in favour of the defendant.
Reply by and on behalf of petitioner to the Preliminary submissions.
1. That the content of Para no.1 of the Preliminary submissions under
written statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence
denied. It is denied that Since the Plaintiff has not placed the true
and correct facts before the Hon’ble Court and has not approached
the Hon’ble Court with clean hands, the Defendant wishes to place
on record true and correct facts for the just adjudication of the
issues in question sought to be raised by the Petitioner.
2. That the content of Para no.2 of the Preliminary submissions under
written statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence
denied. It is denied that the plaintiff is habitual in filing/pursuing
false litigation against the defendant. Earlier the plaintiff has filed a
suit for divorce bearing no. 535/2022 against the defendant which
is pending adjudication before Ld. Judge, Family Court Saket
Courts, and New Delhi. In the said petition for divorce the plaintiff
also furnished a false - affidavit in the form of supporting affidavit
alongwith the application to file additional documents. In the said
application dated 27.08.2023 the plaintiff has stated that he
obtained the copies of documents through RTI from his department
i.e., PCDA, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. However, the- said
PCDA, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi in response/reply to a RTI
dated6.03.2024 filed by defendant stated that “No RTI application
has been received from Sh. Ashish Singh, Sr. Auditor pursuant to
Emails sent by Neha under RTI, Act 2005 for the period of April
2021 to December 2023
3. That the content of Para no.3 of the Preliminary submissions under
written statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence
denied. It is denied that that in the said application dated
27.08.2053 filed by plaintiff in petition bearing no.535/2022?stated
that he obtained emails dated 8.07.2021, 9.07.2021,
09.7.2021,19.7.2021, 9.08.2021, 11.08.2021 through a RTI from
PCDA, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. But in the present suit the
plaintiff affirmed that above stated emails are maintained by
plaintiff in his office computer. Hence, the plaintiff misled the
Hon’ble court and committed offence of perjury.
4. That the content of Para no.4 of the Preliminary submissions under
written statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence
denied. It is denied that that the plaintiff is neither authorised to
access the server of Ministry of Defence nor the soft copies are
stored defendant’s office computer, but the defendant has stolen
from server of Ministry of Defence. Thus, the Plaintiff has
committed the offence of theft. The Plaintiff is incumbent upon to
drag defendant in multiple false cases in order to create mental
agony and harassment of the defendant and to create undue
pressureso that defendant give divorce to plaintiff. It is worth to
mention that the defendant is striving to save her married life.
5. That the content of Para no.5 of the Preliminary submissions under
written statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence
denied. It is denied that that the defendants has never sent or
circulate any defamatory, derogatory and unsustainable
emails/letters with an object to defame or malign the reputation of
plaintiff to any authority at any point of time. It is pertinent to
mention that the defendant was married with Plaintiff according to
Hindu rites, rituals and ceremonies at Radiance Motel, Banquet
Hall, Chhatarpur, New Delhi on 4th December, 2020. Before
marriage the Plaintiff alongwith his parents demanded defendant’s
father to' spend at least fifty lakhs rupees (Rs. 50, 00,000/-) in
marriage which included demand of a KIA Seltos car and cash
amount of (Rs.20, 00,000/) by way of dowery. The father of
defendant has incurred an expenditure of around 'Rupees Twenty
Five Lakhs (Rs.25, 00,000/-) in Organizing and solemnizing
marriage of his daughter (i.e.., defendant).
6. That the content of Para no.6 of the Preliminary submissions under
written statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence
denied. It is denied that That on morning of 9th April, 2021
plaintiff threatened defendant that he will cause defendant raped by
different boys and extort money from defendant in order to make
his dream of purchasing KIA Seltos car true. After this plaintiff
deserted the defendant at rented accommodation in Madangir, New
Delhi without informing her. The complainant waited for plaintiff
whole night of 9th and 10 of April, 2021, and made countless calls
to petitioner, but every time his phone number came switched off.
The defendant also tried to contact petitioner’s family, but they also
didn’t pick her calls. Thereafter, defendant visited her in-law’s
home in Civil Lines, Delhi, but petitioner’s parents didn’t allowed
her to enter into their house, and pushed defendant out of the
house. Thereafter, defendant came to her parental home at
Chhatarpur, New Delhi. After waiting for the plaintiff or two days
the complainant lodged a missing complaint in PS Ambedkar
Nagar. Further on 19.04.2021 the defendant lodged a complaint in
CAW cell, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
7. That the content of Para no.7 of the Preliminary submissions under
written statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence
denied. It is denied that that after being- deserted by the plaintiff
the defendant took resort to remedies available to her in law. The
defendant has not let any stone unturned to save her marital life.
After desertion the defendant faced lot of mental traumas and was
under severe depression as the plaintiff severed/abandoned all his
ties with defendant. The defendant approached and requested
lawful authorities to save her marriage. The defendant only pleaded
for justice.
8. That the content of Para no.8 of the Preliminary submissions under
written statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence
denied. It is denied that that the Plaintiff in his letter/reply dated
31.08.2021 sent to his department i.e., PCDA, Ministry of Defence,
New Delhi levelled false, malicious, defamatory, scandalous,
derogatory, baseless and unsustainable remarks against the
Defendant. In the said reply the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant
has demanded Rupees 25 lacs from plaintiff to marry her
boyfriend. Also, the Plaintiff and his family constantly defaming
the Defendant throughout among her society, relatives and known
persons. The Plaintiff and his family in order to create undue
pressure on defendant to obtained divorce by hook or crook
persistently defaming defendant among her society and relatives.
REPLY ON MERITS:
1. That the content of Para no.1 of the Reply on merits of written
statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied
that Contents of Para 1 is specifically denied to the extent that plaintiff is
a law-abiding citizen. It submitted that habitual in misleading the Hon’ble
court and filing false affidavits/furnishing false evidence before court of
law. Rest of contents need no reply.
2. That the content of Para no.2 of the Reply on merits of written
statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied
Contents of Para 2 needs no reply.
3. That the content of Para no.3 of the Reply on merits of written
statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied
Contents of Para 3 are matter of record to the extent of factum of
pendency of divorce petition bearing no. 535/2022 and lodging of FIR
bearing no. 22/2021, P.S. CAW Cell, Nanakpura. Rest of the contents of
para under reply are specifically denied being false, wrong and incorrect.
It is submitted that plaintiff wilfully deserted the defendant on 9th April,
2021. It is worth to mention that on morning of 9th April, 2021 plaintiff
threatened defendant that he will cause defendant raped by different boys
and extort money from defendant in order to make his dream of
purchasing KIA Seltos car true. After this plaintiff deserted the defendant
at rented accommodation in Madangir, New Delhi without informing her.
4 That the content of Para no.4 and 5 of the Reply on merits of written
statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied
Contents of Para 4 and 5 are specifically denied being false wrong and
incorrect. The Plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the same. It is
specifically denied that defendant has ever levelled false, scandalous
allegations against plaintiff or his family to malign plaintiffs reputation. It
is further submitted that the Defendant after being meted with cruelty,
physical, sexual and mental harassment from plaintiff, and after being
deserted by plaintiff resorted to legal remedies available to her in law.
The defendant only approached the law enforcement agencies and
concerned departments to seek| justice. The Plaintiff in his letter/reply
dated 31.08.2021 sent to his department i.e.., PCDA, Ministry of
Defence, New Delhi levelled, false, malicious, defamatory, scandalous,
derogatory, baseless and1 unsustainable remarks against the Defendant.
In the said reply the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant has demanded
Rupees 25 lacs from plaintiff to marry her boyfriend. Also, the Plaintiff
and his family constantly defaming the Defendant throughout among her
society, relatives and known persons. '
5. That the content of Para no.6 of the Reply on merits of written
statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied
Contents of para 6 are specifically denied being false, wrong and
incorrect. The Plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the same.
6. That the content of Para no.7 of the Reply on merits of written
statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied
the defendant was committed to her marriage and just tried to save her
marriage despite the cruelty and harassment she meted with from the
Plaintiff on numerous occasions. The Plaintiff may be put to strict proof
of the same.
7. That the content of Para no.8 of the Reply on merits of written
statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied
Contents of para 8 are specifically denied being false, wrong and
incorrect. The Plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the same.
8. That the content of Para no.9 of the Reply on merits of written
statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied
Contents of para 9 are specifically denied being false, wrong and
incorrect. The Plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the same.
9. That the content of Para no.10 of the Reply on merits of written
statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied
Contents of para 10 are specifically denied being false, wrong and
incorrect. The Plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the same.
10. That the content of Para no.11 of the Reply on merits of written
statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied
Contents of para 11 are specifically denied being false, wrong and
incorrect. The Plaintiff may be put to strict’ proof of the same. It is
submitted that the defendant only approached the law enforcement i
agencies and concerned departments to seek justice.
11. That the content of Para no.1 of the Reply on merits of written
statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied
Contents of para 12 are specifically denied being false, wrong and
incorrect. The Plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the same.
12. That the content of Para no.13 of the Reply on merits of written
statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied
Contents of para 13 are specifically denied being false, wrong and
incorrect. The Plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the same. It is
submitted that no cause of action ever arose in favour of plaintiff and
against the Defendant.
13. That the content of Para no.14 of the Reply on merits of written
statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied
Contents of Para 14 are specifically denied being false, wrong and
incorrect. The Plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the same. It is
submitted that no: prima facie case is made out in favour of plaintiff and
against the Defendant. '
14. That the content of Para no.15 of the Reply on merits of written
statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied
Contents of para 15' are specifically denied, being false, wrong and
incorrect. The Plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the same. It is
submitted that no injury was ever caused to plaintiff due to any act of
defendant. It is further submitted that the defendant only approached the
law enforcement agencies and; concerned departments to seek justice.
15. That the content of Para no.16 of the Reply on merits of written
statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied
Contents of para 16 are specifically denied being false, misleading, wrong
and incorrect. The Plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the same.It is
submitted that no prejudice is caused to plaintiff or his family ever sue to
acts of defendant.
16. That the content of Para no.17 of the Reply on merits of written
statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied
Contents of para 17 are specifically denied being false, misleading, wrong
and incorrect. The Plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the same. .
17. That the content of Para no.18 of the Reply on merits of written
statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied
Contents of para.18 are specifically denied being false, misleading, wrong
and incorrect. The Plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the same.
18. That the content of Para no.19 of the Reply on merits of written
statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied
Contents of para 19 are legal. 19.Contents of para 20 are legal.
20. That the content of Para no.21 of the Reply on merits of written
statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied
Contents of para 21 are specifically denied being false, misleading, wrong
and incorrect. The Plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the same.
21. That the content of Para no.22 of the Reply on merits of written
statement filed by the respondent is wrong and hence denied. It is denied
Contents of para 22 are specifically denied being false, misleading, wrong
and incorrect. The Plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the same.
Reply to Prayer Clause:
Relief so claimed is incapable of being granted as they are neither
based on true and correct facts nor supported by the documentary
proof or direct/admissible evidences.
Prayer:
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to dismiss the suit of the Plaintiff and direct the Plaintiff to pay
costs, of defending the same to the ahswering defendant.
DEFENDANT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at on this day: of October, 2024 that that the contents of paras 1
to 21 of the written statement on merits and those of para 1 to 7 of
preliminary submissions are true and correct to my knowledge and belief,
Para I to VI of preliminary objections and those of paras 18, 19, and 21 of
reply on merits are true to my information received by my counsel and
believed to be correct. Last para is a prayer to this Hon’ble Forum.
DEFENDANT
