IN THE COURT OF LD. PRINCIPAL JUDGE; FAMILY COURT; SOUTH WEST DIST., DWARKA COURT,

NEW DELHI.

H.M.A. CASE NO. _________ OF 2022.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXX : PETITIONER

VERSUS

XXXX : RESPONDENT

D.O.H.: 01.06.2024

INDEX

S.NO.	PARTICULARS	PAGE(S)
1.	REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE REPLY FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT.

DELHI PETITIONER

THROUGH

DATED

ADVOCATE

IN THE COURT OF LD. PRINCIPAL JUDGE; FAMILY COURT; SOUTH WEST DIST., DWARKA COURT,

NEW DELHI

H.M.A. CASE NO. ________OF 2022.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXXX : PETITIONER

VERSES

XXXXX : RESPONDENT

D.O.H.: 01.06.2024

REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE REPLY FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITION.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the present rejoinder is filed on behalf of the Petitioner in reply to Reply filed by answering Respondent. It is stated that the Respondent has made libelous and slanderous allegations in their reply against the Petitioner and the Respondent reserves the right to initiate the legal action as warranted under the law against the Respondent.

2. Without prejudice to the foregoing and without in any manner admitting any of the submissions, contentions and allegations made in the Reply by answering Respondent save and except those expressly admitted, the Petitioner are tendering its rejoinder to the reply as under:-

REPLY TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:-

1. That the contents of para 1 of the preliminary objections are wrong and denied. It is denied that the present petition is simply yet another tool to harass and commit cruelty upon the Respondent herein It is further denied that the Petitioner and his family, in particular, the mother of the Petitioner has throughout the course of the marriage harassed and abused the Respondent both mentally/emotionally and physically.

2. That the contents of para 2 of the preliminary objections are wrong and denied. It is denied that the entire petition filed herein is false, frivolous and completely concocted in order to defame and humiliate the Respondent herein. It is further denied that the petition does not contain a single instance of cruelty attributed to the Respondent and instead simply lists certain vague and misleading allegations without furnishing any details or substantiating the same.

3. That the contents of para 3 of the preliminary objections are wrong and denied. It is denied that at multiple instances in the Petition herein, the Petitioner has referenced true copies of certain documents such as receipts and medical information, yet these documents remain unattached and have not been annexed with the Petition. It is further denied that the averments of the Petitioner claiming to have annexed the same ought to be deemed perjuries in nature and an attempt to mislead this Hon'ble Court and the petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.

4. That the contents of para 4 of the preliminary objections are wrong and denied. It is denied that there are a slew of contradictions in the Petition herein where on one hand the Petitioner claims to have had his alleged love and affection reciprocated by the Respondent and on another is claiming cruelty. It is further denied that the Petition contains a most bizarre contradiction wherein the Petitioner has first claimed that the parties cohabited with each other, then later claims that the parties have not cohabited together and yet contains allegations of cruelty against the Petitioner which could not be possible without cohabitation. It is further denied that the contradictory stands of the Petitioner shed light upon the false claims of the Petitioner and lead to doubts on the veracity of such allegations against the Respondent.

5. That the contents of para 5 of the preliminary objections are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Petitioner has also concealed vital information from this Hon'ble Court about the events that had transpired between the parties during their marriage and cohabitation and has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands.

6. That the contents of para 6 of the preliminary objections are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Petitioner has also concealed from this Hon'ble Court that the Petitioner is an accused in a criminal case having FIR No.XXXX dated 24 02.2021 registered at XXXX and that his anticipatory bail was rejected by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and that the relief was only finally granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. That the contents of para 7 of the preliminary objections are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Petitioner herein has further concealed from this Hon'ble Court the fact that the mother of the Petitioner had filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) against the Respondent herein more than 3 years after the Respondent had left the matrimonial home, as proxy litigation on behalf of the Petitioner, in order to further harass the Respondent. It is further denied that the Petition and the complaint under the DV Act are nearly identical to each other with simply the parties having been interchanged between the Petitioner and his mother. It is further denied that the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is further denied that the entire proceedings were simply an attempt to harass the Respondent and the same is obvious by the fact that the complainant had never appeared before the Hon'ble Court to seek her reliefs or be cross examined despite making all sorts of baseless allegations.

8. That the contents of para 8 of the preliminary objections are wrong and denied. It is denied that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds that no act of cruelty has been committed by the Respondent against the Petitioner and no timeline, chronology, documents, telephonic records, messages, etc. have been annexed by the Petitioner in order to substantiate the allegations made therein.

REPLY TO PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:-

1. That the contents of para 1 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Petitioner and Respondent met in May, 2017 via their mutual friend, namely Mr. XXXX who was a close friend to the Petitioner and was a colleague of Respondent working in the company titled as Quatrro, at the time. It is further denied that subsequently the Respondent and Petitioner became friends and eventually the Petitioner began to court the Respondent leading to a relationship between the two.

2. That the contents of para 2 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that from the very initiation of the relationship, the mother of the Petitioner had an antagonistic attitude towards the Respondent, whom she assumed to only be a friend of the Petitioner at time, and was overly obsessed with the whereabouts of her son, the Petitioner as she would constantly call the Petitioner on every occasion when the parties met and disturb the quality time spent together by the parties.

3. That the contents of para 3 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that owing to the strict nature of the parents of the Petitioner, the Petitioner would bluntly lie to his mother that the Petitioner is preoccupied with work and hence is running late. It is further denied that the Petitioner had confided in the Respondent that he never had a healthy, loving, truthful and transparent relation with his mother or his father.

4. That the contents of para 4 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that during the courtship period of the parties, the Respondent herein, owing to the random and erratic behaviour of the Petitioner suspected that the Petitioner was consuming drugs and psychotropic substances. It is further denied that the Petitioner would brush these suspicions off stating that the medicines are prescribed for some ailment or the other. It is further denied that it was only much later, subsequent to the marriage of the parties, to the utter disappointment of the Respondent that the fact that the Petitioner would abuse drugs was found to be true.

5. That the contents of para 5 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the parties would try to meet as frequently as possible, however, due to the disapproving nature of the mother of the Petitioner, the parties would often have to meet at night around 10-11pm and only for a brief time without the knowledge of the parents of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the parties herein had engaged in pre-marital sexual relations with each other and enjoyed the company of one another. It is further denied that in order to escape the gaze and constant interruptions by the mother of the Petitioner, the parties would go on multiple trips together during their courtship period and on one such trip to Goa in December 2017, the Petitioner proposed to the Respondent which was accepted by the Respondent.

6. That the contents of para 6 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that despite the Petitioner not having informed his parents of his relationship much less the said proposal, the Petitioner began to pressurize the Respondent for marriage. It is further denied that the Respondent explicitly informed the Petitioner that since the sister of the Respondent, namely Ms. XXXX, had recently gotten married, the family of the Respondent needed to recoup their finances and only then the Respondent will be willing to consider getting married. It is further denied that the Respondent also insisted that the Petitioner reveal to his parents of their year long relationship.

7. That the contents of para 7 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the conversations the Respondent had with the Petitioner were all in vain since the Petitioner was not willing to reason with the Respondent herein and eventually the Petitioner began emotionally blackmailing and torturing the Respondent by presenting heart breaking scenarios before the Respondent. It is further denied that the Petitioner began to make statements regarding the old age of his parents and how they were ill and suffering from various medical conditions and claiming to be unsure about how long the mother of the Petitioner is going to be alive and how the parents of the Petitioner should see their son happily married before they pass away. It is further denied that owing to such emotional blackmail by the Petitioner, the Respondent agreed to have a conversation about her marriage with her parents who were to visit in September 2018.

8. That the contents of para 8 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that when the Petitioner informed his mother and his father of his relationship with the Respondent, it was met with disapproval and as per the information relayed by the Petitioner to the Respondent, the mother of the Petitioner was unwilling to get the parties married and only relented due to the insistence by the Petitioner.

9. That the contents of para 9 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the father of the Petitioner, quite possibly on the instructions of the mother of the Petitioner, began to act with great malice against the Respondent after the intention of the parties to marry had been expressed. It is further denied that the father of the Petitioner called the Respondent to his office located at XXXX and appeared to have been ready with a questionnaire for the Respondent including various intrusive questions. It is further denied that it was also during this meeting that the father of the Petitioner revealed that everyone in the family of the Petitioner including the Petitioner and his mother had severe anger issues. It is further denied that the casual mention of the same made the Respondent herein confused and tensed and afraid for her safety. It is further denied that the father of the Petitioner also insisted that the Respondent leave her job at Accenture, where she worked at the time, if she wished to get married to the Petitioner. It is further denied that owing to the love the Respondent had for the Petitioner, the Respondent subsequently left her job and continued with her plan to marry the Petitioner.

10. That the contents of para 10 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that pursuant to the aforementioned visit of the Respondent to the office of the father of the Petitioner, the parents of the Petitioner would often call the Respondent and enquire about each and everything related to the life of the Respondent including the lifestyle of Respondent, her eating habits, the clothes she preferred to wear, about her family and about everything and anything one can enquire which would make the Respondent highly uncomfortable It is further denied that the parents of the Petitioner had crossed all limits by coercing and emotionally blackmailing the Respondent to meet their religious leader, namely one Mr. XXXX whom they all used to refer to as the pandit ji. It is further denied that in the month of October, 2018, the mother and father of the Petitioner along with the Petitioner took the Respondent herein to meet the Pandit Ji and to seek his opinions and know his judgments regarding the match of parties. It is further denied that neither the mother of the Petitioner nor the father of the Petitioner had informed the Respondent regarding the Pandit Ji before nor had the parents of the Petitioner or the Petitioner himself given any idea to the Respondent regarding what to do or what to anticipate during this meeting. It is further denied that the Petitioner however, informed the Respondent that when being questioned by the Pandit Ji regarding the sexual relationship of the parties, the Respondent was supposed to say that the parties were not sexually involved, despite the same being untrue, and other than this, nothing was told or informed to the Respondent.

11. That the contents of para 11 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Pandit Ji asked umpteen number of questions from the Respondent, including her sleeping routine, details about the family of the Respondent, the finances of each and every individual of the family of the Respondent including herself. It is further denied that the Pandit Ji made the Respondent highly uncomfortable and awkward by enquiring not only about the sexual relations of the parties but also whether the Respondent herein was a virgin. It is further denied that post the long question-answer session held by the Pandit Ji, the Pandit Ji decided on a date for the engagement of the parties and directed that Petitioner and his family hold the engagement on a particular date. It is further denied that the date for the engagement, decided by the Pandit Ji, was one week from the day the Petitioner and his family visited the Pandit Ji along with the Respondent. It is further denied that the Respondent herein was taken by surprise and was hesitant to have the engagement being set just after a week for several reasons, including the fact that the family of the Respondent was not present there and they were not even consulted regarding the matter and the decision was taken by the Pandit Ji solely. It is further denied that the mother of the Petitioner insisted that the Respondent and her family abide the directions given by the Pandit Ji causing the Respondent and her family to remain mute spectators in the matter.

12. That the contents of para 12 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that that prior to the engagement ceremony of the parties, the mother of the Petitioner herein had handed the Respondent a list containing the names of the people related to herself to whom the Respondent and her family were to give cash envelopes on the date of the engagement ceremony It is further denied that despite giving such cash envelopes to the people related to the Petitioner and his family, the mother of the Petitioner made an unreasonable demand and asked the family of the Respondent to hand over 5 (five) extra cash envelopes to those including the grandparents of the Petitioner, all of whom were deceased prior to the engagement ceremony. It is further denied that to save face and to avoid any discussions or arguments on the occasion, the family of the Respondent agreed to the demands of the mother of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the Respondent was left dismayed as the Respondent realized that the occasion which was so auspicious for the Respondent and her family was nothing more than an opportunity for the Petitioner and his family to pressurize the family of the Respondent to recoup the expense incurred by them for the engagement ceremony, despite the fact that the father of the Respondent had also invested over Rs.50,000/- in organizing the engagement ceremony.

13. That the contents of para 13 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the money minded nature of the Petitioner and his parents had also become clear during the engagement ceremony when the pandit ji had asked what the budget of the wedding would be and the question was hurriedly answered by the parents of the Respondent as Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) to which the mother of the Petitioner gave a judgmental look and asked "Pacinch lakh budget poori shadi ka hai?" indicating that the mother of the Petitioner herein expected a lavish wedding, the costs of which were to be borne by the parents of the Respondent.

14. That the contents of para 14 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that pursuant to the engagement, the mother of the Petitioner handed yet another list, to the mother of the Respondent containing names of about 18-20 relatives of the Petitioner and demanded that during the wedding functions, the parents of the Respondent will have to gift clothing articles to all said people. It is further denied that the mother of the Respondent reluctantly agreed and had suggested sets of suit-salwaar for the ladies and sets of pant-shirts for the men. However, the mother of the Petitioner once again gave judgmental looks to the mother of the Respondent and bluntly asked the mother of the Respondent to raise the budget and gift Sarees to the ladies and cloth material for Suits to the men. It is further denied that the parents of the Respondent were thus coerced to purchase expensive sarees and also pay for the purchases made by the father of the Petitioner who had purchased clothes worth Rs.40,000/- and simply handed the bill to the parents of the Respondent. It is further denied that for the wedding, the mother of the Petitioner had also demanded that the Petitioner only wear clothes from Manyavar and in this regard the Respondent was coerced to pay nearly Rs.25,000/- for the same from her own proceeds.

15. That the contents of para 15 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that soon after the aforementioned engagement, the parents of the Petitioner approached the Pandit Ji without any prior notice to the Respondent or her family and fixed the date for the wedding of the parties herein to be in January of 2019 despite being aware that the marriage ceremony of the sister of the Respondent had taken place just a few months before and the parents of the Respondent who were expected to bear the costs of the wedding, would need some time to arrange the funds. It is further denied that the wedding date was fixed by the Petitioner, his parents and the Pandit Ji without any show of consideration and without paying any respect to the wishes and opinions of either the Respondent or her family. It is further denied that the request of the family of the Respondent to postpone the wedding fell on deaf ears. It is further denied that the parents of the Petitioner bluntly refused to adjust as per the comfort of the Respondent and her family and told the Respondent that they will act as per the directions given to them by their Pandit Ji. It is further denied that the same excuse would be used as a response by the mother of the Petitioner to refute any and all opinions and changes suggested by the family of the Respondent. It is further denied that any pleas made by the Respondent to the Petitioner to convince his parents otherwise fell on deaf ears as the Petitioner was much too afraid to confront his parents and stand up for his to-be wife, despite making far reaching claims of undying love for the Respondent.

16. That the contents of para 16 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Petitioner and his family expected the family of the Respondent to bear the cost of the wedding and the same was difficult for the father of the Respondent and the same was expressed to the family of the Petitioner. It is further denied that in addition to bearing part-cost of the wedding, the parents of the Petitioner also demanded that gifts be given to mother of the Petitioner and her relatives, which the father of the Respondent could barely afford but was forced to accede to in order to ensure the happy married life of the Respondent. It is further denied that the Respondent was coerced to take a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) and transferred Rs 4,25,000/- to the account of the father of the Petitioner and gave the remaining in cash. It is further denied that some of the bank transactions borne by the Respondent herein including receipt of loan availed by the Respondent and the transfer of money to the father of the Petitioner (Rs.4,25,000/-) and the pandit ji with respect to the matrimonial ceremonies of the parties.

17. That the contents of para 17 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that even on the date of the wedding the mother of the Petitioner herein expressed her disappointment with the gifts given by the family of the Respondent and demanded that more gifts and in particular jewelry be given by the parents of the Respondent to the family of the Petitioner, despite the fact that the family of the Respondent had given multiple gifts including but not limited to clothes, Sweets, Shagun and multiple items of jewelry including gold necklaces, gold kangan, nose ring, chains and earrings.

18. That the contents of para 18 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Respondent and her family herein were coerced to provide various gifts and dowry articles to the Petitioner and his family with respect to the wedding ceremonies in addition to the aforementioned loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- including money given for pooja to Guruji amounting to nearly Rs. 50,000, purchase of engagement ring amounting to Rs 21,000, Money given during the engagement (11 envelopes of Rs. 1100 and Rs.5000 given to the Petitioner) amounting to Rs.17,100/- Money given during the wedding to the relatives of the Petitioner (21 envelopes of Rs.2500) amounting to Rs.52,500, Money given to the Petitioner as Shagun amounting to Rs.51,000, Clothes given to the relatives of the Petitioner (sarees and pant suit) amounting to approximately Rs.80,000, 51 sweet boxes from Haldiram amounting to Rs.55,000 and 51 fruit baskets amounting to Rs.30,000 along with miscellaneous expenses of Rs.1,00,000 incurred by Respondent and her family.

19. That the contents of para 19 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the family of the Respondent had insisted that the Respondent leave her job and spend time doing house hold chores Abiding by the same, the Respondent was left solely dependent on the Petitioner and his family for all financial means and decisions without any financial protection.

20. That the contents of para 20 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that within the first two days post the marriage, the Respondent noticed that the Petitioner was excessively using the washroom and the Respondent eventually caught the Petitioner hiding a pouch under their bed, on being confronted and enquired regarding the same, the Respondent found that the particular pouch in question was filled with pharmaceutical psychotropic drugs and painkillers which the Petitioner was carrying to the washroom and consuming to get intoxicated. It is further denied that the Petitioner got defensive on being confronted and yelled mercilessly at the Respondent. It is further denied that the Respondent, not knowing what to do and how to calm the Petitioner down, called the parents of the Petitioner into the room and updated them regarding the deeds which led the Petitioner to behave in such a senseless manner, pursuant to which the mother of the Petitioner scolded the Petitioner without expressing any shock or surprise and stepped out of the room. It is further denied that the Respondent herein was astonished by how lightly the aforementioned scenario was taken by the parents of the Petitioner Little did the Respondent know that the Petitioner had been an addict since years and that the parents of the Petitioner had been aware of the same since years and that the Petitioner along with his parents hid the aforementioned fact regarding the drug addiction and the drug abuse issues of the Petitioner from the Respondent herein and her family.

21. That the contents of para 21 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Respondent became aware of the drug addiction of the Petitioner only after the marriage. It is further denied that the parents of the Petitioner along with the Petitioner cheated the Respondent and broke her trust by hiding such a crucial fact about the Petitioner before the marriage of the parties.

22. That the contents of para 22 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Petitioner did not stop consuming drugs and did nothing to even try and control himself. It is further denied that the Respondent caught the Petitioner consuming unprescribed and illegally prescribed medications numerous times. It is further denied that when confronted, the Petitioner would cry and apologize and promise to the Respondent that the Petitioner would not consume such medications anymore and yet, after a few days the Petitioner would fall back in his old habits and abuse drugs. It is further denied that eventually the mother of the Petitioner began taunting and scolding the Respondent and blaming the Respondent for the drug addiction of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the mother of the Petitioner, despite being aware of the long-standing drug abuse problem of the Petitioner began to blame the Respondent for the said drug addiction of the Petitioner causing grave mental trauma to the Respondent who was in fact trying to help the Petitioner not be dependent on drugs.

23. That the contents of para 23 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that sometime after the marriage of the parties, the Petitioner had some inexplicable medical condition due to which he suffered from vomiting of blood and seizures and as such was admitted in the UK Nursing Home wherein it was informed to the Respondent that the Petitioner suffers from ulcerative colitis and recommended that the Petitioner be moved to XXXXl where he was already undergoing treatment. It is further denied that this came as an utter shock to the Respondent as she was not aware of this debilitating condition of the Petitioner nor was she informed of the same prior to the marriage It is further denied that when the Petitioner was admitted at XXXX, the Respondent was shocked to see that many doctors at the knew the Petitioner and were well versed with his condition. It is further denied that the doctors even enquired the Petitioner regarding as to why the Petitioner consumed any drugs when the Petitioner was strictly asked not to do so since the Petitioner was already previously made aware of the consequences he would have to deal with if the Petitioner continued to consume drugs as it would aggravate his condition. It is further denied that it was then that the Respondent got clarity and realized that the treatment of the Petitioner for drug addiction had been going on since years and even the doctors were aware that the Petitioner was an addict and that his most recent medical incident was the result of consumption of drugs and other painkillers. It is further denied that that the copies of the medical documents pertaining to the Petitioner highlighting his drug abuse, pre-existing condition of depression and anxiety and ulcerative colitis owing to such drug abuse that were hidden from the Respondent prior to marriage.

24. That the contents of para 24 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that when the festival of Holi was approaching, the Respondent decided to visit her parents at her home town in XXXX+ and sought permission from the Petitioner and his parents for the same, which was granted. It is further denied that the father of the Petitioner on instructions of the mother of the Petitioner arrived at the parental home of the Respondent the very next day and demanded that Respondent to pack her bags and return with him to XXXX to the matrimonial home of the Respondent. It is further denied that with great difficulty, the Respondent convinced her father in law of the need for the Respondent to spend time with her parents, and the father of the Petitioner reluctantly left. It is further denied that upon the return of the Respondent to her matrimonial home, to the utter dismay and shock of the Respondent, she was invited into the Matrimonial House with taunts by the parents of the Petitioner and the Petitioner himself, wherein the mother of the Petitioner even stated "ye hammein pasand nahi karli iss hi liye tyohar ke samay apne ghar chali gayi." It is further denied that the Petitioner and his parents were all incredibly furious since the Respondent had refused to return to her Matrimonial House with the father of the Petitioner. It is further denied that Petitioner and his parents had completely forgotten that the ––--them had agreed and only then did the Respondent visit her Parental House. It is further denied that when this point was conveyed to the Petitioner and his parents, the Petitioner and the mother of the Petitioner began to yell at the Respondent leading to the first festival subsequent to the marriage being tainted in the mind of the Respondent.

25. That the contents of para 25 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the mother of the Petitioner did not let the Respondent ever have any semblance of privacy and ensured that no matter where the Respondent would go either the Petitioner or his mother would have to accompany the Respondent. It is further denied that the Respondent would also not be allowed to set foot outside the house post-sunset either alone or with the company of the Petitioner. It is further denied that when the Respondent confronted the mother of the Petitioner about the same, it was informed that that the Pandit Ji had told the mother of the Petitioner that the life of the Petitioner would be in risk if the Petitioner stepped out of the residence post sunset. It is further denied that the Respondent felt trapped inside her Matrimonial House owing to some superstitions that she was subjected to further, the claustrophobic environment was only exacerbated by the mother of the Petitioner never letting the Respondent be on her own and the parents of the Petitioner constantly taunting and blaming the Respondent for the issues and addictions of the Petitioner and the insufficient dowry brought by the Respondent.

26. That the contents of para 26 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the antagonistic attitude of the Petitioner and his parents was not only limited to the Respondent but also to their own relatives as they would have constant arguments with the chacha and chachi of the Petitioner. It is further denied that this became even more evident subsequent the marriage of the parties when the chachi of the Petitioner visited the home of the parties, and enquired about the wellbeing of the Respondent knowing that the Petitioner and his mother would have subjected the Respondent to some form of abuse and wished to talk to the Respondent separately but was prevented from doing so by the mother of the Petitioner.

27. That the contents of para 27 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the mother of the Petitioner herein had stopped the services of the maid at the matrimonial home after a few months subsequent to the wedding with no rhyme or reason. It is further denied that this put immense burden on the Respondent who was forced to perform all household chores including cleaning, laundry and cooking all by herself for the entire family with no assistance, causing great difficulty and stress to the Respondent. It is further denied that even though the Respondent would perform all these duties as to the best of her ability, the Petitioner and his parents would constantly criticize and taunt the Respondent and even go as far as to yell at the Respondent for minor incidents like extra salt in the food or poorly folded clothes. It is further denied that this attitude by the Petitioner and his family towards the Respondent in addition to be solely responsible for the house hold chores caused the Respondent to become severely depressed as the Respondent was being treated like a maid in her own matrimonial home.

28. That the contents of para 28 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the constant performance of household chores also left the Respondent tired and weak. It is further denied that the mother of the Petitioner had forced the Respondent to wear Chuda (wedding bangles) for months even though the same had caused an infection and resulted in profuse blood and puss. It is further denied that the mother of the Petitioner herein in her abject cruelty forbade the Respondent from removing the bangles as it had been instructed by the aforementioned pandit ji. It is further denied that those who visited the Respondent would also be shocked at the condition of the hands of the Respondent, and in that event, the mother of the Petitioner would lie to the guests and claim that it was the Respondent who insisted on wearing the bangles. It is further denied that these mental gymnastics done by the mother of the Petitioner and blatant lies being spread about the Respondent caused the Respondent to feel lonely and rejected in her own home as she received no support from her husband, being the Petitioner, who either remained mum to the cruelties committed upon the Respondent or would support and participate in the same. It is further denied that with respect to the Respondent's bangles having caused an infection, the Petitioner yelled at the Respondent when she expressed her desire to remove the same and demanded that the Respondent abide by all instructions of the mother of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the apathy of the Petitioner to the pain of the Respondent left the Respondent absolutely disappointed and dismayed.

29. That the contents of para 29 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that even during the times that the Respondent would fall ill, the mother of the Petitioner with tacit approval of the Petitioner, would demand that the Respondent wake up at 6 am every morning and do all the household chores, even though the Respondent was working full time and was managing her job alongside of taking care of the matrimonial home. It is further denied that the Respondent was constantly taunted and mentally tortured by the Petitioner and his parents for not carrying the household chores properly in addition to taunting the Respondent for the lack of dowry given to the family of the Petitioner. It is further denied that during one such occasion, the mother of the Petitioner revealed that she had discontinued the service of the house-help as the Respondent did not get enough and sufficient dowry to enjoy the luxury of having a house help and consequently the Respondent will now have to do all the household chores and compensate the insufficient dowry.

30. That the contents of para 30 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the mother of the Petitioner would also constantly taunt the Respondent for not getting pregnant. It is further denied that the mother of the Petitioner and the father of the Petitioner would often make the Respondent feel uncomfortable by asking questions regarding the sexual relations of the Respondent with the Petitioner and constantly asking the Respondent regarding why is she not getting pregnant. It is further denied that the parents of the Petitioner often got angry and asked the Respondent to move out of the house if the Respondent was not going to give them a grandchild. It is further denied that the aforementioned incidence happened time and time again and owing to the constant harassment, the Respondent requested that she and the Petitioner move out of the matrimonial home.

31. That the contents of para 31 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Petitioner herein, was a drug addict and the Petitioner did not let go of any opportunity to abuse drugs, it was only after the marriage of the parties that the Respondent herein caught the Petitioner abusing drugs and became aware of the drug addiction of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the drug addiction of the Petitioner reached new heights once the parties moved to a new accommodation as the Petitioner began to abuse drugs massively as he was no longer under the supervision of his parents. It is further denied that the Petitioner would oscillate between being in a constant daze or being irrationally irritable and angry and would be unable to perform his duties as a husband.

32. That the contents of para 32 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the cruelty of the parents of the Petitioner did not stop even after the parties shifted to a new home, on one such occasion, when the Petitioner suddenly became unreachable via call late at night subsequent to his work hours, the Respondent in a panic called the parents of the Petitioner. It is further denied that to the utter shock and dismay of the Respondent, the mother of the Petitioner began to blame the Respondent for the absence of the Petitioner. It is further denied that it was only at around 1 am that the Petitioner inexplicably returned, clearly intoxicated on drugs. It is further denied that on various occasions the parents of the Petitioner would threaten the Respondent on call by saying that if anything happens to Petitioner, implying that if the Petitioner overdosed on drugs, the parents of the Petitioner would riot let the Respondent remain alive and would ensure that if the Respondent is kept alive, it would only be behind bars. It is further denied that the father of the Petitioner went so far as to say that he would shoot the Respondent with a gun, this put great fear for the life and limb of the Respondent who was aware that she could not control the irresponsible actions of the Petitioner but would be blamed and possibly even killed for the said actions.

33. That the contents of para 33 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the woes of the Respondent owed to the drug addiction of the Petitioner only increased after moving into he rented accommodation at Vikas Pun During this time, the Petitioner had gone on work trip to Dehradun for a duration of 6 days and when the Petitioner returned, he was on a drug high and was completely out of his senses and acting up. It is further denied that the Petitioner, in the fit of intoxication caused by the excessive drug abuse, tried jumping out of the balcony of the rented accommodation and the same lead to the entire neighborhood witnessing the actions of the Petitioner including the landlord of the building. It is further denied that the Respondent somehow managed to calm down the Petitioner managed to get the Petitioner inside the room of the rented accommodation.

34. That the contents of para 34 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the erratic drug addled behavior of the Petitioner was becoming too much for the Respondent to bear and all attempts of the Respondent to help the Petitioner were failing due to the complete refusal of the Petitioner to resolve his addiction and stop abusing addictive substances.

35. That the contents of para 35 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that during this time when the parties lived in the rented accommodation, the Petitioner was once again admitted to XXXX due to aggravated condition owed to the drug abuse of the Petitioner. It is further denied that it was then and there that the Respondent had called the parents of the Petitioner and informed them about the condition and the whereabouts of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the Respondent, being the dutiful wife was there alongside the Petitioner and once the Petitioner was discharged, the parties decided to move in and reside with the parents of the Petitioner in their residence at Noida where they were staying at the time, because the Respondent was very afraid for the health of the Petitioner and the Respondent thought that it would be best for the Petitioner. It is further denied that the Respondent decided to return to the home of the parents of the Petitioner despite fearing for her own life and the cruelty that she would be subjected to at the hands of the Petitioner and his parents.

36. That the contents of para 36 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that as predicted, the cruelty and mental torture by the parents of the Petitioner and the Petitioner himself now emboldened in his parental home, the new matrimonial home, resumed with full effect and the Respondent would once again be subjected to cruel and insensitive taunts.

37. That the contents of para 37 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Respondent has been nothing but a supportive, loving, affectionate and dutiful wife towards the Petitioner. It is further denied that the Petitioner along with his parents, since the very beginning of the marital life of the parties herein, have made sure to torment the Respondent and ruin her mental peace by demanding dowry and then taunting and verbally abusing the Respondent post realizing that the ill demands of Petitioner and his parents will not be sufficiently fulfilled.

38. That the contents of para 38 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Respondent had thought that as it was the Diwah festival season that maybe the families could reconcile and move forward, however, all the hopes of the Respondent went down the drain when within a few days of shifting back with the parents of the Petitioner, the parents of the Petitioner began blaming the Respondent for the health and the situation of the Petitioner even though the Respondent was clearly worried for the Petitioner and was taking care of the health and well- being of the Petitioner. It is further denied that one fine day, sometime around the middle of November, 2019, the Respondent was in her room when she heard loud noises and realized that the Petitioner and his parents were arguing Pursuant to this, the Respondent stepped out of the room and rushed towards the heated argument with an intention to stop it and calm down the Petitioner and his parents. It is further denied that the Respondent was astonished and taken aback when the mother of the Petitioner, instead of listening to any logic and reason of the Respondent, slapped the Respondent and said "sir/ten wajah se XXXX aisa ho gaya hai aur ham dono se ladla hai." It is further denied that the Respondent did not utter even a single word and returned to her room. It is further denied that the Petitioner herein did not even bother to ask the Respondent regarding whether the Respondent was hurt or how the Respondent was feeling or if the Respondent was doing fine. It is further denied that this act by the mother of the Petitioner was of utter shock to the Respondent who has never had a hand raised against her in her lifetime and insulted the very dignity of the Respondent. Further, the complete apathy displayed by the Petitioner left the Respondent feeling alone in her matrimonial home with no support from even her husband.

39. That the contents of para 39 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that in December 2019, the Respondent took the Petitioner for his regular check-up at the XXXX where the Petitioner informed the Respondent that he is going to use the washroom, however, when the Petitioner did not return for quite some time and when the Respondent was unable to find or contact the Petitioner, the Respondent called father of the Petitioner and intimated him regarding the uncalled-for disappearance of the Petitioner. It is further denied that as usual, the father of the Petitioner turned the entire episode upside down and rather than being worried about the whereabouts of the Petitioner, the father of the Petitioner was focused on blaming the Respondent regarding how the Respondent is very irresponsible and careless and that the Respondent could not even take care of the Petitioner for even a couple of hours. It is further denied that the Respondent decided to return home and wait for the Petitioner at home Pursuant to the aforementioned, on the way back home, the Respondent found the Petitioner with a bag full of medicines in his hands and on being confronted, the Petitioner informed the Respondent that the Petitioner left the Hospital with the excuse of using the washroom and rather went to a medical store to purchase some medicines and painkillers just so that the Petitioner could have some kind of drugs in his system. It is further denied that it was then that the Respondent felt that she had no further hope of a happy future in her matrimonial home and was constrained to leave the company of the Petitioner and his parents on 20.12.2019 without carrying a single one of her belongings.

40. That the contents of para 40 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the belongings of the Respondent including the jewelry of the Respondent which the Respondent left behind when the Respondent left the company of the Petitioner and his parents, i.e., on 20.12.2019, including but not limited to one thick neck piece along with maang teeka, one big nose ring, 2 chains, 1 ring and other miscellaneous items such as wedding clothes, bags, shoes, accessories, watches and perfumes belonging to the Respondent worth several lakhs of rupees are still in the possession of the Petitioner and his parents.

41. That the contents of para 41 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Petitioner and his parents have tormented the Respondent continuously over the duration when the Respondent was in their company. It is further denied that the Petitioner along with his parents have caused immense mental trauma to the Respondent by constantly demanding dowry in either cash or kind from the Respondent and pursuant to realizing that their ill demands will not to fulfilled, the Petitioner and his parents used to taunt the Respondent for belonging to a not so financially capable background and also verbally abused the Respondent, day and night. It is further denied that the Petitioner and his parents herein manipulated and coerced the Respondent into taking a loan of Rs 5 lakhs and transferring the same to the father of the Petitioner and providing the rest in cash and the same was done by making the Respondent and the family of Respondent believe that the amount being transferred was a one-time contribution being made by the Respondent along with her family towards the wedding functions. It is further denied that later the Petitioner and his family refused to acknowledge the above mentioned transfer as the contribution of the Respondent and the family of Respondent towards the wedding functions and rather stated it to be a donation of sorts/dowry in addition to the many contributions, gifts and jewelry already having been given by the father of the Respondent.

42. That the contents of para 42 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that owing to the various acts of cruelty, torture, physical and mental abuse and by creating an extremely hostile environment for the Respondent by the Petitioner and his family, the Respondent herein was constrained to leave her matrimonial home and initiate proceedings against the Petitioner and his family by exercising her rights within the limits of the law.

43. That the contents of para 43 of the preliminary submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Respondent is a victim of abuse and cruelty and has been arrayed in the present petition as a means to further harass and traumatize the Respondent. It is further denied that the Respondent simply wants to live her life peacefully and without any further trauma.

REJOINDER TO THE PARAWISE REPLY:-

1. That the contents of para 1 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that contradictorily, the Petitioner in collusion with his mother, i.e. the mother in law of the Respondent, had also initiated a case against the Respondent u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act having MC/619/2022 titled "XXXX vs. XXXX" in order to harass the Respondent. That a marriage between the parties hereto was duly solemnized at XXXX, according to the Hindu Customs, Rites and ceremonies on 25.01.2019 without any exchange of dowry and it is important to mention here that the petition U/s 9 of HMA is pending before this Hon’ble Court and the Petitioner has filed the application for withdrawal of the same and the petitioner shall withdraw the same on or before 17.08.2022.

2. That the contents of para 2 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner herein has concealed from this Hon'ble Court that the Petitioner is an accused in FIR No.0029 dated 24.02.2021 registered at PS: Rail Bazar, Kanpur Nagar District, Uttar Pradesh and that his application seeking Bail U/s 438 CrPC was rejected by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and was only granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further denied that the acts of physical and mental cruelty by the Petitioner committed upon the Respondent not only deem the Petitioner to be in opposition to the very idea of peace but also contradict the claim of the Petitioner being law-abiding in any manner whatsoever. That petitioner is a law abiding citizen of India and has always, maintained peace and tranquility, given rapt attention to the discharge of social, moral obligation and liability in a fair way and up till now there is not any redressal of grievances against the petitioner at any forum.

3. That the contents of para 3 of the reply are matter of record and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct.

4. That the contents of para 4 of the reply are matter of record and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct.

5. That the contents of para 5 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent has taken every effort to maintain cordial matrimonial relations with the Petitioner and his family, however, the same was no reciprocated by the Petitioner or his family owing to great discord between the parties. It is further denied that the Petitioner herein and his family had not only demanded dowry from the Respondent but also coerced the Respondent to fulfil such demand and further harassed and taunted the Respondent for insufficiency of such dowry. That after the marriage, the parties lived as husband and wife and cohabited with each other. There is no child born out of the said wedlock. Respondent is currently staying at her parental home and never desired to discharge her matrimonial duties and the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized without any exchange of dowry and in a low profile manner.

6. That the contents of para 6 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent was constrained to leave the matrimonial home owing to the cruelty and harassment subjected upon her by the Petitioner and his family. It is further denied that the Respondent fearing for her life and wellbeing and in order to leave the hostile environment of the matrimonial home, left all her belongings at the matrimonial home including all her jewelry, valuables and istridhan. That the petitioner and his wife lived last together in her matrimonial home till 2019 she left the house of the petitioner with all her belonging and valuables which also includes jewellery from her matrimonial home.

7. That the contents of para 7 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that it is the Petitioner, who has a persistent drug abuse problem that would harass and intimidate the Respondent and went so far as to hurt the Respondent. It is further denied that assuming without admitting the allegations of the Petitioner, there would be no reason for the Petitioner to have filed a case u/s 9 of the HMA seeking the return of the Respondent to the matrimonial home. That since after the few days of their marriage, the respondent used to fight with the petitioner by throwing unnecessary tantrums and mental torture the petitioner by using harsh words on almost every conversation.

8. That the contents of para 8 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent was infact not granted any liberty as she was under the constant watch of her mother-in-law who would regularly taunt and abuse the Respondent. It is further denied that it was the mother-in-law who retained custody of the belongings of the household including the jewelry belonging to the Respondent while simultaneously denying the Respondent access to the same. It is submitted that the petitioner was always giving love and affection to the respondent. While petitioner away, everything in the home was under her custody and there was no one to stop her and taking the advantage of this liberty, Respondent went away with all articles.

9. That the contents of para 9 of the reply are reiterated and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. That the petitioner and the respondent had met each other in the year 2017 and the relationship which started as casual friend, changed to lovers and ultimately, they decided to marry each other.

10. That the contents of para 10 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the petitioner and the respondent met over the period of time and after couple of meetings became friend with each other and started liking each other's company, the mutual friend was who was a childhood friend to the Petitioner herein and was a colleague of the Respondent. It is further denied that assuming without admitting that the claims of the Petitioner were true, the lecherous character of the Petitioner becomes obvious as Petitioner is of such nature to enter into a relationship with his childhood friend's ex-girlfriend and to take advantage of a recently heartbroken woman. That the childhood friend XXXX had close relationship with the respondent and both of them were having an affair with each other and petitioner had met with the respondent at the birth day party of XXXX common friend in May, 2017 and there was just a formal introduction between each other and thereafter they had met with each other on couple of occasions. XXXX family members got to know about the relationship and they were against the said relationship, which resulted in breaking of relationship of XXXX and respondent and XXXX felt bad about breaking of relationship, however did not had courage of going against wishes of his family members and thereby requested petitioner to console respondent and given her company. The petitioner met respondent on couple of occasions after the said incident. The petitioner and the respondent over the period of time and after couple of meetings became friend with each other and started liking each other’s company.

11. That the contents of para 11 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that it was the Petitioner who had insisted that the relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent remain a secret as the Petitioner herein was afraid of his parents, his mother in particular and their disapproving nature. It is further denied that the parties would often have to meet at night around 10-11pm and only for a brief time without the knowledge of the mother of the Petitioner or her husband. It is further denied that in order to escape the gaze and constant interruptions by the mother of the Petitioner, the parties would go on multiple trips together during their courtship. That the petitioner fell in love with the respondent over the period of time and petitioner and respondent went to Rajaji National Park for a day on 14.08.2017 and ckecked out on 15.08.2017. Thereafter, petitioner and respondent went to VP Resorts ----------====-= together to be with each other and stayed from 01.10.2017 to 03.10.2017. The respondent’s cousin also came to the said premises along with his friends. The informant met her cousin but she did not introduce the petitioner with her cousin and stated that she has come along with many other friends and they are not alone and the petitioner was shocked that the respondent was not willing to introduce him to her family members and she was keeping their relationship a secret from her family and friends.

12. That the contents of para 12 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent herein had returned the cost incurred by the Petitioner for such booking in cash. It is further denied that the petitioner at Goa in full public glare proposed the Respondent and gave her ring as token of his love It is further denied that the respondent accepted his proposal. It is further denied that once again, the Petitioner had only taken the Respondent to Goa and sought her hand in marriage without the knowledge of his own parents further keeping the relationship of the parties a secret. That the petitioner and the respondent had decided to spend New Year together at Goa. The petitioner booked flight tickets and hotel bookings and they celebrated New Year in Goa from 28.12.2017 to 03.01.2018. The petitioner at Goa in full public glare proposed the respondent and gave her ring as token of his love. The respondent accepted his proposal.

13. That the contents of para 13 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner began to pressurize the Respondent for marriage as the Petitioner had not informed his parents of the relationship much less the proposal and an immediate date of marriage would make it easier for the Petitioner to admit the same to his parents. It is further denied that the Respondent explicitly informed the Petitioner that since the sister of the Respondent, namely ---------- had recently gotten married, the family of the Respondent needed to recoup their finances and only then the Respondent herein will be willing to consider getting married. It is further denied that the Respondent also insisted that the Petitioner reveal to his parents of their year long relationship. That the petitioner further asked the respondent, whether she would be able to inform her family members about their relationship, to which she said there was no urgency in informing her parents about relationship and she did not wish to get married any time soon. The petitioner on the other hand, wanted to get married to the respondent as the mother of the petitioner was medically unfit and has been suffering from numerous medical problems. The father of the petitioner was suffering from uncontrolled sugar, pulmonary edema (a condition caused by excess fluid in the lungs making it difficult to breathe), coronary artery disease (narrowing or blockage of the coronary arteries) and various other ailments and mostly confined to bed, wanted petitioner, being elder son to get married, as she had uncertain future due to medical complication.

14. That the contents of para 14 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent had accepted the proposal of the Petitioner, indicating her willingness to marry the Petitioner but simply sought some time for her parents to arrange for the funds for her wedding. It is further denied that the para under also makes the mentality of the Petitioner clear as the Petitioner himself admits that the said commitment would be a "baggage" and that marriage would result in the Respondent being "answerable" to someone, presumably the parents of the Petitioner. That the petitioner and thus wanted to respondent to marry, as their relationship could be taken to next stage. The respondent on the other hand, wanted her complete freedom, did not want to commit in relationship, she was happy to have relationship with no baggage of commitment, family pressure and not answerable to anyone and the respondent was staying at Delhi in PG stating that she was doing some post-graduation, but in fact she was not doing any post-graduation and doing job at night shift. Respondent on the pretext of post-graduation, was happy to stay away from her family and clutches of relationship.

15. That the contents of para 15 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the while the Petitioner has claimed that there are allegedly some receipts and email of such transfer, however, the Petitioner has failed to annex any such documents with his petition. It is further denied that the Respondent was coerced by the Petitioner has his family to take a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) and transferred Rs.4,25,000/- to the account of the father of the Petitioner and gave the remaining in cash. That the respondent used to regularly ask for money from the petitioner, which was either transferred by the petitioner or requested his brother to transfer funds to the account of the respondent, which is evident from the receipt / email for transferring the amount in the bank account of the respondent by the brother of the petitioner.

16. That the contents of para 16 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the after keeping the relationship and the proposal secret from his parents for so long, the Petitioner finally revealed to his parents the fact of the relationship only as a means to pressurize and harass the Respondent into marriage. It is further denied that despite the Respondent having told the Petitioner of her circumstances, the Petitioner unilaterally decided to tell his parents of the relationship and coerce the Respondent into speaking to her family about the marriage. That the family members of the petitioner came to know about his relationship with the respondent and the petitioner was questioned about his relationship. The petitioner has clearly told his parent that he will marry the respondent and no one else. The mother of the petitioner, had agreed and stated that if he is so much in love with her, there is no harm in getting them married. The parents of the petitioner had agreed for the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent belong to different caste as the family of the petitioner is Punjabi by caste and the respondent is Brahmin by caste.

17. That the contents of para 17 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner in order to pressurize the Respondent into marriage had coerced the Respondent into speaking to her family about arranging the wedding as the mother of the Petitioner was not approving of a long-term engagement. It is further denied that that the respondent and her mother visited the office of the father of the petitioner and her mother clearly stated that they do not have much of the money and thus they could not spend much on marriage and that the respondent's mother further told that they do not have any relations at Delhi who can arrange things at Delhi. It is further denied that the Respondent and her family members had contributed significantly to the wedding despite their financial difficulties. That the petitioner had discussed the issue with the respondent, who was unwilling to marry him but at the insistence of the petitioner, she had agreed to discuss the issue with her parents. Thereafter, the respondent and her mother visited the office of the father of the petitioner and her mother clearly stated that they do not have much of the money and thus they could not spend much on marriage. The respondent's mother further told that they do not have any relations at Delhi who can arrange things at Delhi, thus entire arrangements have to be made by the parents of the petitioner.

18. That the contents of para 18 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that prior to the engagement ceremony of the parties, the mother of the Petitioner had handed the Respondent a list containing the names of the people related to the mother of the Petitioner and her family to whom the mother of the petitioner wished for the Respondent and her family give cash to on the engagement ceremony. It is further denied that despite giving such cash envelopes to the people related to the Petitioner and his mother, the Petitioner and his mother made an unreasonable demand and asked the family of the Respondent to hand over 5 (five) extra cash envelopes including those named to the grandparents of the Petitioner, all of whom were deceased prior to the engagement ceremony. It is further denied that to save face and to avoid any discussions or arguments on the occasion, the family of the Respondent agreed to the demands of the Petitioner and his family, however, the Respondent was left dismayed as the Respondent realized that the occasion which was so auspicious for the Respondent and her family was nothing more than an opportunity for the Petitioner and his mother to pressurize the family of the Respondent to recoup the expense incurred by the Petitioner and his family for the engagement ceremony, despite the fact that the father of the Respondent had also invested over Rs.50,000/- in organizing the engagement ceremony. That the engagement between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 29.10.2018 at Janakpuri and entire arrangement for the engagement ceremony was made by the petitioner's parents and his family members, there was never any contribution from the respondent or her family members.

19. That the contents of para 19 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the family of the Petitioner did not show any enthusiasm towards the ceremonies except for the times they received cash envelopes. It is further denied that the money minded nature of the Petitioner and his family had also become clear during the engagement ceremony when the pandit ji had asked the what the budget of the wedding would be and the question was hurriedly answered by the parents of the Respondent as Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) to which the mother of the Petitioner gave a judgmental look and asked "Paanch lakh budget poori shadi ka hai?" indicating that the mother of the Petitioner herein expected a lavish wedding, the costs of which were to borne by the parents of the Respondent. That the petitioner and his family members were happy and showed their emotions of love and care towards the respondent and her family members, but on the other hand, the respondent and her family members showed no enthusiasm and emotions and were sitting in huddle without much cheer or expression on then faces.

20. That the contents of para 20 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that subsequent to the engagement of the patties, the cruel nature of the Petitioner herein began to rear its head and the Petitioner and his family began to harass the Respondent herein on a regular basis. It is further denied that the Petitioner herein would constantly reiterate how his family expected gifts and cash envelopes at the time of the wedding and would not heed to the pleas of the Respondent who attempted to make the Petitioner understand that the same may not be possible. That after engagement, the behavior of the respondent was completely changed towards the petitioner and she was not. allowing the Petitioner to spend much of time with her. However, the petitioner was not alerted by all this change of attitude and only subsequently he has realized that there was change m her attitude immediately after marriage.

21. That the contents of para 21 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that after the engagement, the mother of the Petitioner handed yet another list, to the mother of the Respondent containing names of about 18-20 relatives of the parents of the Petitioner and demanded that during the wedding functions, the parents of the Respondent will have to gift clothing articles to all said people. It is further denied that the mother of the Respondent reluctantly agreed and had suggested sets of suit-salwaar for the ladies and sets of pant- shirts for the men, however, the mother of the Petitioner once again gave judgmental looks to the mother of the Respondent and bluntly asked the mother of the Respondent to raise the budget and gift Sarees to the ladies and cloth material for Suits to the men. It is further denied that the parents of the Respondent were thus coerced to purchase expensive sarees and also pay for the purchases made by the father of the Petitioner who had purchased clothes worth Rs.40,000/- and simply handed the bill to the parents of the Respondent. It is further denied that for the wedding, the Petitioner's parents had also demanded that the Petitioner only wear clothes from Manyavar and in this regard the Respondent was coerced to pay nearly Rs.25,000/- for the same from her own proceeds. That the petitioner and his parents were so excited about marriage being first in their family, they took the respondent for shopping, purchased her lehnga, her bridal makeup, booked for venue of marriage, booked place for the respondent and her family members to stay, made arrangements for their guest etc.

22. That the contents of para 22 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that despite being aware of the financial condition of the Respondent's parents, the mother of the Petitioner and her husband expected the family of the Respondent to bear the cost of the wedding, in addition to bearing part-cost of the wedding, the mother of the Petitioner also demanded that gifts be given to her and her relatives, which the father of the Respondent could barely afford but was forced to accede to in order to ensure the happy married life of the Respondent In this regard, the Respondent herein was coerced to take a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) and transferred Rs.4,25,000/- to the account of the father of the Respondent and gave the remaining in cash. It is further denied that the Petitioner in his petition has taken contrary stands, at first claiming that the entire expenditure for the wedding was taken by the Petitioner and his family and then later claiming that "some" contribution was made by the Respondent family. It is further denied that the contradictory stands taken by the Petitioner shed light on the baseless and false averments made by the Petitioner in order to mislead this Hon'ble Court. That the petitioner and his family members made entire expenditure towards marriage and the respondent and her family members made very little contribution towards marriage expenses. As the family of the respondent had informed the petitioner that they will not be in a position to manage anything at Delhi so it was the petitioner and his family members who have to arrange everything.

23. That the contents of para 23 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the respondent had taken some personal loan for marriage. It is further denied that thought the Petitioner has claimed to have attached some receipts, no such receipts have been attached with the present petition and such averment has only been made with the sole purpose of misleading this Hon'ble Court and accordingly strict action should be taken against the Petitioner herein for the act of perjury. That the respondent family transferred some amount towards sharing of expenditure, however when they came to Delhi, they took cash from the petitioner and his family members for contribution or very little contribution from the end of respondent or her family members towards marriage. The respondent had taken some personal loan for marriage and the petitioner had paid the principal and interest amount towards the repayment of loan.

24. That the contents of para 24 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has acted with malafide intention in the submission of this Petition before this Hon'ble Court having claimed that the that a true copy of the bank statement is annexed herewith, however no such copy forms a part of the Petition, indicating that the Petitioner has provided false statement on oath. It is further denied that the alleged expense claimed by the Petitioner herein is suspiciously similar to the amount received by the Petitioner family as bank transfer from the Respondent as explained above further giving more veracity to the contentions of the Respondent. That the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 25.01.2019 at Hotel Radisson Blue, Dwarka, Delhi without, any exchange of dowry. The expenses in the marriage were borne by the petitioner.

25. That the contents of para 25 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the father of the Petitioner did not make any further expenses towards the marriage and the Petitioner has failed to provide any receipts or information with respect to the alleged expenses incurred. It is further denied that the leave sought by the Petitioner herein is patently a tactic to delay and mislead this Hon'ble Court as no such receipt has been furnished till date before this Hon'ble Court. It is further denied that it was the father of the Respondent who incurred greater expenses as explained in the preliminary submissions of the present Reply and the same are not being repeated for the sake of brevity. It is further denied that it does not shock the Respondent herein that the Petitioner, yet again, has not substantiated his claims and yet did not fail to proceed with baseless, bogus and unsubstantiated claims. That it is hereby submitted that the father of the petitioner has paid some amount in cash towards the rest of the payment in the marriage are being searched by the father of the petitioner and undertakes to file the same as soon as he finds the same.

26. That the contents of para 26 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner herein was a habitual drug user and the same affected his ability to consummate and fulfil his duties as a husband often resulting the parties being unable to share the company of each other. It is further denied that the parties were also often unable to share each other's company due to the constant intervention of the mother of the Petitioner who did not allow the parties to have any semblance of privacy. That after marriage, the respondent was completely reluctant from creating any physical relationship with the petitioner, though earlier they have enjoyed each other company, but now the respondent did not allow the petitioner to come close to her. The petitioner was not even once allowed to have any physical relationship with the respondent after marriage.

27. That the contents of para 27 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that since the inception of the marriage, the parents of the Petitioner held an antagonistic view against the Respondent herein and would taunt and humiliate the Respondent for alleged insufficient dowry on every opportunity. It is further denied that the mother of the Petitioner along with her Husband and the Petitioner often used to taunt and verbally abuse the Respondent for not getting enough dowry. It is further denied that the Petitioner herein alleges that the Respondent disrespected the family of the Petitioner on several occasions and that the Respondent was not willing to talk to them. In this regard, that no person, in their sound state of mind, would act completely normal and wish to engage and entertain their oppressors. It is further denied that the Respondent, pursuant to being tormented by the mother and father of the Petitioner for not getting enough dowry, did not wish to speak to them and rather chose to keep silent and preserve her mental peace. That the respondent further disrespected the parents of the petitioner on several occasions and she was never willing to talk to them. Respondent would sit in her room for long hours without trying to talk to them, parents of the petitioner treated her like their own daughter and bought things for which could appease her be it clothes, jewellery, food etc., however the respondent was least responsive.

28. That the contents of para 28 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that "the petitioner also showered all his love and affections, hut the same was reciprocated." It is further denied that the Petitioner is correct to state that any love that was showered upon the Respondent was indeed reciprocated. It is further denied that this averment by the Petitioner alone completely obliterates any allegation of the cruelty made by the Petitioner, thus leading to the present proceedings being devoid of any merit and consequently liable to be dismissed. That the petitioner also showered all his love and affections, but the same was reciprocated.

29. That the contents of para 29 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner herein is malafidely trying to assassinate the character of the Respondent and further the Petitioner has not provided any specific instance of cruelty committed by the Respondent and has instead levied vague and baseless allegations. That within few days of marriage, the respondent regularly picked up fight with the petitioner on each and every point of issue. Respondent was looking for an opportunity to fight with the petitioner. The respondent used to raise issue to fight on smallest of the issue and never made any effort to adjust to family life. The red will always be on her mobile and used to be awake at night chatting on phone etc.

30. That the contents of para 30 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has failed to substantiate his claims and has resorted to claiming that such alleged fights took place in the middle of the night without providing any specific dates or further details of the nature of such alleged fights. It is further denied that while it is natural for every relation to face a few difficulties and for the parties in the relationships to face a few hiccups, the relationship of the parties was particularly marred by the drug addiction of the Petitioner, a fact which was concealed from the Respondent by the Petitioner himself and his parents and was only discovered by the Respondent subsequent to the marriage. It is further denied that the Respondent was living under constant duress due to the constant ill demands for dowry, questions relating to potential pregnancy of the Respondent and constant taunts made by the mother of the Petitioner along with her Husband and the Petitioner himself owing to which the Respondent requested to live separately from the parents of the Petitioner. In the middle of night, the respondent started fighting with petitioner on meager issues and disturbed peace of the entire family. The mother of the petitioner was always on medication and any such disturbance would wake her up and she would not be in a position to sleep any further. The petitioner made all his effort to persuade the respondent but she on the other hand, had asked the petitioner that she did not want to reside with the parents of the petitioner and demanded a separate house for herself. That the petitioner had told the respondent that he can't leave his parent as both are suffering various ailments especially the mother of petitioner who was suffering from uncontrolled sugar, pulmonary edema, coronary artery disease etc. and need a constant care but the respondent had remained adamant to her demand.

31. That the contents of para 31 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent had only requested to live separately from the parents of the Petitioner solely due to the cruelty doled upon the Respondent herein by the Petitioner's parents and it was hoped by the Respondent that if the parties lived away from the negative gaze and attitude of the parents of the Petitioner, the matrimonial life of the parties might have a chance of succeeding. That the petitioner having left with no other option and for the sake of his matrimonial life, had agreed the demand of the respondent and thereafter he along with the respondent arranged the rented accommodation in Vikas Puri. The rent agreement was prepared in name of both the petitioner as well as the respondent, at the monthly rent of Rs. 13500/- per month.

32. That the contents of para 32 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner was also in agreement with the request of the Respondent to live separately from the parents of the Petitioner as the Petitioner wished to continue his habit of drug abuse without any intervention from his parents and in a more open and free manner with no shame. That the petitioner and the respondent had shifted to rental accommodation and started living separately from the father and mother of the petitioner as per the demand of the respondent.

33. That the contents of para 33 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the same was a result of a request by the Respondent due to the constant ill demands for dowry, uncomfortable questions relating to potential pregnancy of the Respondent and constant taunts made by the mother of the Petitioner herein along with her Husband and the treatment of the Respondent like a maid in the matrimonial home. That even shifting of parties to separate accommodation did no changed the attitude of the respondent and she kept on fighting with the petitioner, she was not even once loving, caring and emotional towards the petitioner.

34. That the contents of para 34 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that as per the averments of the present petition itself, the Respondent reciprocated all love that was shown to her. It is further denied that the Petitioner is now taking contrary stands with respect to the behaviour of the Petitioner due to the fact that there is no merit in the claims of the Petitioner and in attempt to further harass and humiliate the Respondent. That so much quarrel and fighting started taking toll over the petitioner on the petty issue and petitioner started suffering from depression.

35. That the contents of para 35 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has so far not been able to provide, explain or elucidate upon a single instance of alleged quarrels and fights. It is further denied that the Petitioner is a drug addict and the Petitioner did not let go of any opportunity to abuse drugs, it was only after the marriage of the parties that the Respondent caught the Petitioner abusing drugs and became aware of the drug addiction of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the drug addiction of the Petitioner reached new heights once the parties moved to a new accommodation as the Petitioner began to abuse drugs massively as he was no longer under the supervision of his parents. It is further denied that the Petitioner would oscillate between being in a constant daze or being irrationally irritable and angry and would be unable to perform his most basic duties as a husband. It is further denied that the alleged "depression" claimed by the Petitioner herein were a direct result of the drugs consumed so frequently by the Petitioner. That so much quarrel and fighting started taking toll over the petitioner on the petty issue and petitioner started suffering from depression.

36. That the contents of para 36 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that despite being heartbroken about the drug addicted nature of the Petitioner, the Respondent did her best to fulfil all her duties as a dutiful wife. It is further denied that during this time when the parties lived in the rented accommodation, the Petitioner was admitted to Gangaram Hospital due to aggravated condition owed to the drug addiction of the Petitioner. It is further denied that it was then and there that the Respondent had called the mother of the Petitioner and her husband and informed them about the condition and the whereabouts of the Petitioner and stayed with him as a dutiful wife. That the aforesaid mental condition of the Petitioner was easily understandable by the respondent but she did not care about the petitioner at all.

37. That the contents of para 37 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the drugs that were abused by the Petitioner had resulted in the erratic sleeping patterns of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the claims of the petitioner to have loved the Respondent ring hollow as the only love the Petitioner expressed was for his drugs and the addiction of the Petitioner had become unbearable. That the petitioner had lack of sleep and he used to be awake all the time at night, being disturbed by the entire situation. His love for the respondent was abundant, however he was not getting the same response from the respondent and that hurted him more.

38. That the contents of para 38 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. That one day, the father of the petitioner received a call from the landlord of the petitioner, who had informed him about the mental condition of the petitioner.

39. That the contents of para 39 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has concealed significant information in order to mislead this Hon'ble Court including the fact that the Respondent and the Petitioner had once again moved into the residence of the parent of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the reason for such concealment is only due to the fact that such inconvenient facts would be detrimental to the case of the Petitioner and show the Respondent in rightfully positive light.

It is further denied that when the Petitioner was once again admitted to Gangaram Hospital due to aggravated condition owed to the drug addiction of the Petitioner, the Respondent had immediately called the parents of the Petitioner and once the Petitioner was discharged, the parties decided to move in and reside with the parents of the Petitioner in their residence at Noida where they were staying at the time, because the Respondent herein was very afraid for the health of the Petitioner and the Respondent thought that it would be best for the Petitioner. It is further denied that the Respondent decided to return to the home of the parents of the Petitioner despite fearing for her own life and the cruelty that she would be subjected to at the hands of the mother of the Petitioner and her husband. It is further denied that in December 2019, when the Respondent took the Petitioner for his regular check-up at the Gangaram Hospital, the Petitioner informed the Respondent that the Petitioner is going to use the washroom, however, when the Petitioner did not return for quite some time and when the Respondent was unable to find or contact the Petitioner, the Respondent called the father of the Petitioner and intimated him regarding the uncalled for disappearance of the Petitioner herein. It is further denied that, as usual, the father of the Petitioner turned the entire episode upside down and rather than being worried about the whereabouts of the Petitioner, the father of the Petitioner was focused on blaming the Respondent herein regarding how the Respondent is very irresponsible and careless and that the Respondent could not even take care of the Petitioner for even a couple of hours. It is further denied that the Respondent decided to return home and wait for the Petitioner at home Pursuant to the aforementioned, on the way back home, the Respondent found the Petitioner with a bag full of medicines in his hands and on being confronted, the Petitioner informed the Respondent that the Petitioner left the Hospital with the excuse of using the washroom and rather went to a medical store to purchase some medicines and painkillers just so that the Petitioner could have some kind of drugs in his system It is further denied that it was then that the Respondent felt that she had no further hope of a happy future in her matrimonial home and was constrained to leave the company of the Petitioner along with leaving the company of the parents of the Petitioner on 20 12.2019 without carrying a single one of her belongings. That the father of the petitioner rushed to the house of the petitioner and found him in acute state of depression. The petitioner was in very bad condition and the father of the petitioner took him to hospital for treatment. On the other hand, the respondent showed no emotion, respect toward the petitioner and the month of December, 2019 she left the house.

40. That the contents of para 40 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the loving nature of the Respondent has been admitted to by the Petitioner in the petition itself and is further evidenced by the fact that the Respondent would take the Petitioner to the hospital in the times where the Petitioner would have a serious reaction to his drug abuse. It is further denied that the intention of a loving and respectful wife was also displayed by the Respondent when the Respondent agreed to move back in with the abusive parents of the Petitioner knowing that the Respondent would be subjected to cruelty at their hands, however, decided to endure it for the sake of the Petitioner. That the respondent while leaving from house took all the belongings and valuables along with her. The respondent being wife of petitioner, should have taken care of petitioner, but respondent never showed any love and respect and when he needed the respondent by her side, she was nowhere.

41. That the contents of para 41 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner herein has failed to substantiate his claims and further, if he had cared to resume his matrimonial relationship with the Respondent, the Petitioner would not have filed the instant case and instead would have attempted reconciliation. That the petitioner wrote numerous messages to respondent and wanted her to give some response, but the respondent showed no reciprocation and acted like hard stone. The petitioner shared their photographs of good time spent together, shared voice messages while crying and begging her to be at his side, to come back and be with him, but the respondent failed to do so.

42. That the contents of para 42 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has not clarified who the said "informant" is to whom such a mail has been sent. It is further denied that the contents of the alleged email as reproduced by the Petitioner herein also indicate the addictive nature of the Petitioner herein to psychotropic substances as the Petitioner herein freely admits that he suffered "withdrawal symptoms" and had become a "baggage " It is further denied that the enatic nature of the Petitioner is also evident from the alleged mail reproduced by the Petitioner as the Petitioner claims to love and care for the Respondent and then immediately accuses her of being selfish and then once again seeks reasons for the Respondent leaving his company. It is further denied that the Petitioner is not in control of his feelings and that the continued company of the Respondent with the Petitioner would have resulted in danger to the life and limb of the Respondent. That the petitioner sent mail to informant bringing his heart out and requesting respondent to come back, but the respondent again failed to respond. As on 27.01.2021, the petitioner sent e-mail to the respondent which is reproduced herein blow which clearly shows love of the petitioner for the respondent and his state of mental condition due to respondent leaving his company without any reason :-

"Turn mujse pyar nhi Karti thi tbi chali Gayi. Tumhe pta nhi tha ki mai kitna karta hu. Tumne avoid kia muje no reply nothing kisne brain wash kia tumhara. Life mein Problems Kitne Aati hai, main aane Wala tha par nhi tumhare jiju ne batmizi se bt ki mere dad se Meri ::;om se Up down chalte hain par ye nhi chhod do. Main baggage ban gya tha ki yr kya hogya hai or tumhe pta side effects or withdrawal symptoms hai par nhi tumhe life enjoy Kami thi right. Socho shaadi ke 6-7 saal health issue hote tumhe toh main chodh deta bolo. Tumhari mom ne tumharc dad ko chhod diya tha nhi na. Meri mom ko 30 ki age mein heart problem or diabetes hogyi chhodh diya tha mere dad ne. Tumhe freedom chahiye thi toh bol deti ki liven rahenge no shaaadi . Men galti hai mene pyr kia . Selfish ho turn or tumhara ex sharma sab selfish. Delhi mein reh ke b kahi or reh rhi ho PG mein. Reason dena please.

43. That the contents of para 43 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner were still in love with the Respondent, the Petitioner would not have filed the present petition not would the Petitioner have filed a case under the DV Act against the Respondent using his mother as a proxy. It is further denied that the Petitioner clearly has intention to harass and demoralize the Respondent who has been nothing but a loving and dutiful wife. It is further denied that the reasons for the Respondent having been constrained to leave the company of the Petitioner have been elucidated upon and are not repeated for the sake of brevity. That the petitioner is still madly in love with the respondent and wants her to be by his side. The respondent has left the petitioner in December, 2019 without any rhyme and reason and at time when he was unwell and under depression.

44. That the contents of para 44 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has failed to furnish any details regarding these alleged attempts. That all the sincere efforts of the petitioner and his family and friends, to bring the respondent back to matrimonial home to resume her matrimonial obligations have bore no fruit and the petitioner is being made to suffer.

45. That the contents of para 45 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the acts of the Respondent are due to the abusive and cruel nature of the Petitioner and his parents and owing to the excessive drug use of the Petitioner, all of which the Respondent could no longer bear. That the respondent has thus left the matrimonial home, withdrawn from the society of the petitioner and deserted the petitioner and the aforesaid acts of the respondent are without any just or reasonable cause and without the consent and against the wishes of the petitioner.

46. That the contents of para 46 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has concealed from this Hon'ble Court that the Petitioner has voluntarily withdrawn the said petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1956. That the petitioner thereafter having left with no other option, was forced to file a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 before the court of Ld. Principal Judge, Family Courts, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

47. That the contents of para 47 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has conveniently concealed the fact the Petitioner had filed anticipatory bail in this regard and that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court was also of the opinion that the offences were grave enough to deny the Petitioner the relief of anticipatory bail. That when the respondent came to know about the filing of the aforesaid petition, she thereafter in order to safeguard herself, has lodged the false and frivolous F.I.R. bearing Crime No.0029/2021 U/s 498A/323/504 of IPC r/w Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, with Police Station Rail Bazar District Kanpur Nagar, against the petitioner and his family members. The entire F.I.R. is based on assumption and does not say even a single word about the commission of any offence whatsoever.

48. That the contents of para 48 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that while the Petitioner claims to wax eloquent about the obligations of a wife, the Petitioner has blatantly ignored the obligations to be discharged by a husband foremost being not subjecting the wife/Respondent to cruelty. That the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and thus legally and morally bound to perform her marital obligations. It is thus incumbent upon her to fulfill her matrimonial obligations including cohabiting with the petitioner which obligations she has miserably failed in discharging without any just or reasonable cause.

49. That the contents of para 49 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that no details of such alleged act of physical cruelty have been furnished by the Petitioner. It is further denied that any such allegation of cruelty by the Respondent is a figment of the imagination of the Petitioner who seeks to harass the Respondent even further by levelling false allegations. That the respondent has also caused various acts of mental and physical cruelty against the petitioner and his family members and has also severally damaged his reputation and goodwill.

50. That the contents of para 50 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the present contention of the Petitioner has confused and confounded the Respondent as the said averment is simply a collection of incoherent words making vague allegations. It is further denied that the Petitioner herein has his own private business along with his father of selling medical equipment through two firms - Medical Equipment Incorporation (MEI) and Serve Solutions/ SS Healthcare/ One Stop Solution (1SS), so it is uncertain as to what alleged job prospects the Petitioner has suffered To the contrary, it is the Respondent that has suffered as the Petitioner and his family had insisted that the Respondent leave her job prior to the marriage leaving the Respondent solely dependent on the Petitioner. It is further denied that the Petitioner has also failed to substantiate in any manner what misadventures the Petitioner was allegedly forced to indulge. It is further denied that the said para has simply been added as a vague and misleading allegation in order to defame the Respondent and embolden the claims of the Petitioner, which the Petitioner has miserably failed to do. The respondent further with an intent of her travelling to new destinations out of India, has forced the petitioner to indulge in numerous misadventures, which has let the petitioner financially, mentally exhausted and the petitioner has also suffered immensely his job prospects and options.

51. That the contents of para 51 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that under paint a hilarious picture as the Petitioner claims that the Respondent had married the Petitioner for his money, however, in the earlier paragraphs of the Petition itself, the Petitioner claimed that the Respondent was unwilling and hesitant to marry the Petitioner. It is further denied that the contrary stands taken by the Petitioner make it evident that no act of cruelty was committed by the Respondent against the Petitioner and further, the Petitioner is himself confused as to what he desires - a divorce or reconciliation. It is further denied that taking into consideration without admitting the allegation of the Petitioner, it would serve the Respondent no purpose to have delayed the marriage if the alleged intention of the Respondent were to acquire money. It is further denied that in the hypothetical scenario that the Respondent did want money from the Petitioner, there would be no reason for the Respondent to have left the matrimonial home. It is further denied that the Petitioner is simply flailing at making allegations against the Respondent in hopes that some may stick. It is further denied that the Petitioner has himself pre-emptively denied any demand of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a car from the respondent. It is further denied that the need of the Petitioner to mention his financial capability and further mentioning the need to not demand dowry and a car is evidential of the assumptive and pre-emptive nature of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the mentioning of the present para was not only unnecessary but a futile attempt on the part of the Petitioner, to mislead this Hon'ble Court and to try and present a defence before this Hon'ble Court on the calculated assumption that the Respondent will speak her truth and present the real facts before this Hon'ble Court. That the petitioner has tried to fulfill all the demands of the respondent, with the sole hope of bring the happiness and togetherness of family, however the respondent has never bothered for any such issues and has deserted the petitioner without any rhyme or reasons and the respondent was never in love with the petitioner. Respondent used to pretend that she is in love with the petitioner in order to extract money from him. The respondent got married with the petitioner just because she was after his money and nothing else and it is also trite to mention here that the petitioner and his family are the financially quite capable having their own house and a car and as such there is no need to demand a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a car from the respondent and her family members.

52. That the contents of para 52 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has claimed to have attached a true copy of a document when no such document has been annexed herewith and every instance of such claim amounts to an act of perjury and an attempt to mislead this Hon'ble Court. It is further denied that the mental status of the Petitioner is due to his drug abuse clearly admitted to by the Petitioner in the reproduction of the alleged email in the present petition itself and the attempt to blame the same on the Respondent herein is yet another act of cruelty by the Petitioner who is habitual of committing such cruel acts against the Respondent. That the petitioner was suffering from depression due to the torture and harassment made by the respondent and was under treatment in the hospital for a long period of time. A true copy of the documents with regard to the medical treatment of the petitioner and the petitioner and his family fully cooperated with the financial condition of the respondent even than making false negations which shows that respondent wanted to exert pressure upon the petitioner and his family and to harass them to meet their illegal demands.

53. That the contents of para 53 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the present averment by the Petitioner is perplexing as the petitioner freely admits that the parties shared each other's company prior to marriage, yet surprisingly has alleged that the same was not done subsequent to the marriage. It is further denied that the same is a blatant falsehood claimed by the Petitioner in hopes to allege cruelty against the Respondent for denying conjugal relations. It is further denied that the contradictory nature of the claims of the Petitioner itself make such an allegation self-defeating. The marriage of petitioner was never consummated, as the respondent refused to have relationship and start family. Respondent didn't allow him to touch her. And even respondent has refused to have any relationship.

54. That the contents of para 54 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the family members including the cousins of the Respondent have met with and visited the matrimonial home of the Respondent. It is further denied that even after the Petitioner was discharged from the hospital and the parties moved to the Noida residence as aforementioned, the parents of the Respondent visited the Petitioner and his family at their home in Noida. It is submitted that no one from her family, her parents, her brother and sister, ever visited his home till date, to spend time with them as part of family. Her family was never keen to build a family-to-family bond. There was no regular communication except for occasional greetings on birthday/anniversary etc.

55. That the contents of para 55 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that if the Petitioner truly believed that marriages are made in heaven, then it posits the question as to why the Petitioner used his mother as a proxy to file a Complaint against the Respondent u/s 12 of the DV Act which would strain the relationships between the families and further filed the present case of divorce against the Respondent. The petitioner had adjusted with her rudeness, reckless attitude, ill-treatment and harassment all times, because petitioner's family believes in marriages are made in heaven, secondly petitioner did not want to trouble and disturb his parents further as already they are spending their life m very painful circumstances for the reason stated above. Petitioner took up issue related to her behavior, attitude etc with her family, petitioner was threatened that petitioner and his parents will be implicated in false cases of dowry and harassment and will be put behind bars petitioner had stopped visiting his in-laws place after that.

56. That the contents of para 56 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner along with his family tormented the Respondent continuously over the duration when the Respondent was in the company of Petitioner and his family. It is further denied that the Petitioner herein along with his family managed to do the same by constantly demanding dowry in either cash or kind from the Respondent and pursuant to realizing that their ill demands will not to fulfilled, the Petitioner and his family used to taunt the Respondent for belonging to a not so financially capable background and also verbally abused the Respondent day and night. It is further denied that the Petitioner along with his family manipulated and coerced the Respondent into taking a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) and transferring the same to the father of the Petitioner and providing the rest in cash and the same was done by making the Respondent and the family of Respondent believe that the amount being transferred was a one-time contribution being made by the Respondent along with her family towards the wedding functions. It is further denied that later on the Petitioner and his family refused to acknowledge the above-mentioned transfer as the contribution of the Respondent and the family of Respondent towards the wedding functions and rather stated it to be a donation of sorts/dowry in addition to the many contributions, gifts and jewelry already having been given by the father of the Respondent. That during the marriage, neither petitioner nor anyone from his family had asked anything from respondent /her family as gift/dowry etc. petitioner was having a good salary, so petitioner never expect and never think of demanding anything from respondent or her family. It is against the culture of petitioner family.

It is further denied that the Petitioner has made the present averment as a pre-emptive move so as to avoid the genuine allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty. It is further denied that the present para does not make any allegations against the Respondent and instead act as a preemptive defence prepared by the Petitioner, without realizing that it is evidential that this is a pre-emptive move was made keeping in mind that the Respondent would speak her truth in regards to the cruelties inflicted upon her by the Petitioner and his family.

57. That the contents of para 57 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has not annexed any documents regarding his medical condition during the time of marriage which would create a direct nexus between any alleged acts of the Respondent and the health of the Petitioner. It is further denied that the health of the Petitioner was in such condition owing to his addiction to and abuse of drugs and psychotropic substances which also resulted in the erratic behaviour of the Petitioner. That with time the respondent made these fights a routine affair and subjected the petitioner to a lot of mental agony and stress by creating a ruckus at their house, which also resulted in the petitioner falling sick frequently and also damaging his health in every way possible.

58. That the contents of para 58 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the present averment is so unimaginable and preposterous that is does not warrant any reply. That the petitioner being affectionate did ail acts to make the respondent feel comfortable and loved but in return the respondent just fought with the petitioner and made him sick because of the fights. That the respondent refused to help the petitioner with any household work and cribbed all the time, and also harassed the petitioner for not having enough money to fulfill the whims and fancies of the respondent. The respondent did not respond to the love showered by her husband in an ordinary way, rather she complained about the weak economic condition of the hardworking petitioner and the respondent started enjoying this inhuman habit of hers to fight and mentally torture the petitioner, and would get sadistic pleasures out of the sorry condition of the petitioner, like no mentally stable person would and the petitioner somehow managed to come out of this trauma given to him by the respondent and did not tell anyone about this habit of the respondent, not even his own family members, and also requested the respondent to avoid this kind of behavior so that the sanctity of marriage could be maintained.

59. That the contents of para 59 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that in these two months the petitioner tried to convince the respondent not to end the marriage, but the respondent always turned a deaf ear to his requests and fight on petty issues It is further denied that it is the Respondent who ought to have been shattered by the abusive nature of the Petitioner and his family and should ought to have immediately left when she discovered the drug addled nature of the Petitioner, however, owing to her upbringing, the Respondent remained a dutiful wife until the cruelty of the Petitioner and his family was more than what she could bear. It is further denied that no claim of the Petitioner has been substantiated and every allegation made by the Petitioner is vague and demonstrably false. That any sane spouse after getting to know of such dark and disturbing facts about the intentions of his partner would be mentally shattered. The petitioner went through the same ordeal and further suffered great deal of difficulty in thinking straight for a couple of months, In these two months the petitioner tried to convince the respondent not to end the marriage, but the respondent always turned a deaf ear to his requests and fight on petty issues.

60. That the contents of para 60 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that there was no demand by the Respondent for the transfer of any such property and nor has the same been substantiated by the Petitioner. It is further denied that the Respondent continues to not have any such demand and had left the matrimonial home only due to the unbearable cruelty of the Petitioner and his family. That the petitioner having tried everything possible to make the marriage work tried to find out about the whereabouts of the respondent. The failure of the respondent to revert back to the Petitioner made him lose all hope of leading a normal married life and for more than a year the petitioner tried to contact the respondent but eventually gave up hope of getting back with the respondent and the respondent had left the matrimonial home on her own volition as her nefarious demands, transfer the property in the name of the respondent, etc. had not been met with.

61. That the contents of para 61 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has once again made contradictory claims at first claiming to have cohabited with the Respondent in his parents' home and subsequently in a rental accommodation and yet is now claiming that the parties never cohabited together. It is further denied that assuming without admitting the parties never cohabited together, no such allegation of cruelty can be made against the Respondent as have been claimed by the Petitioner in the present petition. That thereafter, as there was no chance for re-conciliation between the parties as the Petitioner had categorically expressed her intention to separate from the Respondent and the respondent and petitioner were Hindu by religion at the time of solemnization of their marriage and they continue to profess the same religion till the date of filing the present petition. That after the marriage, the parties never lived as husband and wife and did not cohabit with each other. There is no issue out of the said wedlock. That the aforesaid series of incidents has resulted in the deterioration of the mental health of the Respondent and has seriously impaired his self-confidence and self esteem.

62. That the contents of para 62 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Petitioner has not provided a single detail of cruelty or furnish even an iota of proof for such alleged cruelty in the Petition. It is further denied that instead, the Petitioner has relied on vague and misleading allegations against the Respondent in order to question the character of the Respondent and protect himself and his family from the truth of the cruelties committed by them upon the Respondent. That it is trite to mention that the conduct and behavior of the respondent and the circumstances were intentionally created by the respondent against the petitioner and are such that the respondent has caused immense mental cruelties, torture and agony to the petitioner without any fault of his part. The petitioner suffered utmost cruelty and respondent has willfully deserted the Petitioner, therefore the petitioner is entitled to dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under section 13(l)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended by marriage laws up to date.

63. That the contents of para 63 of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct. It is denied that no allegation of cruelty by the Respondent has been detailed or substantiated by the Petitioner herein and any such attempt would simply be an afterthought.

64. That the contents of para 64 of the reply are reiterated and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct.

65. That the contents of para 65 of the reply are reiterated and those of the corresponding para of the petition are reiterated as correct.

It is denied that the prayer sought by the Petitioner is based on false, frivolous and maliciously presented facts and circumstances and as such the relief sought against Respondent is liable to be dismissed. It is further denied that the Respondent has not committed any acts cruelty against the Petitioner and the Petitioner herein has been unable to provide details of any instance or substantiate the same in the instant Petition. It is further denied that the present petition is simply an attempt by the Petitioner to avoid his responsibilities as a husband and further harass the Respondent.

Prayer clause paras of the reply are absolutely wrong and specifically denied. The Respondent is not entitled to the relief claimed for.

Any allegation made in the reply and are not specifically denied herein are absolutely wrong and specifically denied and its non-specifically denial shall not be taken as an admission on the part of the Petitioner.

PRAYER:-

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the relief may kindly be granted in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent as prayed in the main petition, in the interest of justice, equity and circumstances of the case.

Pass such further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

It is prayed accordingly.

DELHI PETITIONER

THROUGH

DATED

ADVOCATE

--------------------

IN THE COURT OF LD. PRINCIPAL JUDGE; FAMILY COURT; SOUTH WEST DIST., DWARKA COURT,

NEW DELHI.

H.M.A. CASE NO. ________OF 20XX.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

---------------- : PETITIONER

VERSUS

---------------- : RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Mr. _____________, S/o Sh. ----------- R/Or--------------------------------------,do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-

1. That I am the Petitioner in the captioned case and am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the contents of the accompanying rejoinder to the reply have been read over and explained to me in vernacular language and having understood the same I say that the facts stated therein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION :-

Verified at Delhi on this ____, day of May, 2024 that the facts stated in my above Affidavit are true to my knowledge and no part of the same is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXX : RESPONDENT

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXXX : PETITIONER

PRAYER:-

IN THE MATTER OF :-

AFFIDAVIT

DEPONENT

Pages

Other Pages

Quick Contact