In The Court of The Principle Judge, Family Court at Saket, New Delhi

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPLE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT
SAKET, NEW DELHI
Matrimonial Petition No of 2020
Mr. Abhilash Singh, aged 33 years, occupation- CA in Chandigarh
S/o Mr. Sohail Singh,
R/o 76/119, Sector 21, Chandigarh. Petitioner
Second Address:
Mr. Abhilash Singh R/o 56, Sector 27, Chandigarh
VERSUS
Mrs. Kanika Kipgen, aged 30 years, occupation- Lecturer in Delhi
W/o Mr. Abhilash Singh
D/o Mr. Thangmin Lal Kipgen
R/o H. no.7, Sector 7, Housing Board Colony, New Delhi Respondent
Petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1954.
The Petitioner states as follows :
1. That the petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The marriage between the
parties was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs after the commencement
of the Hindu Marriage Act on 14th day of February 1990, at New Delhi, in an
ordinary manner. An extract from the Hindu Marriage Register/Affidavit is filed
herewith (See Annexure 1).
2. That the status and place of residence of the parties to the marriage before the
marriage and at the time of filing this petition were as follows:
a. Before Marriage
i. Petitioner
1. Status: Unmarried
2. Age: 28
3. Place of Residence: Chandigarh
ii. Respondent
1. Status: Unmarried
2. Age: 25
3. Place of Residence: New Delhi
b. After Marriage
i. Petitioner
1. Status: Married
2. Age: 33
3. Place of Residence: Chandigarh
ii. Respondent
1. Status: Married
2. Age: 30
3. Place of Residence: New Delhi
3. That this petition has been filed due to the non-settlement of issues between the
petitioner and the respondent.
4. That the petitioner and the respondent became parents of a baby girl named
Zinnat on the 15th Day of February 1992. The stated child is aged 2 year and 11
months.
5. That the petitioner is Chartered Accountant by profession and working really very
hard to fulfill the needs of the family and to give every happiness to his beloved
wife staying back with her parents.
6. The the respondent is a lecturer by profession, it would be easy for her to shift
from one city to another as she can find similar job in Chandigarh also.
7. That the petitioner believes that Marriage consists of the rules and regulations
which define the rights, duties, and privileges of husband and wife, with respect to
each other, but respondent is not willing to perform her duties towards marriage.
8. That the child is currently in care and staying with the respondent.
9. That the petitioner has not been in any manner been accessory to or connived at or
condoned adultery.
10. That the petitioner has not in any manner condoned cruelty.
11. That the respondent works as a lecturer at Commerce College, Delhi.
12. That the respondent was non-cooperative and also didn’t want to stay with her in
laws and also she refused petitioner for physical intimacy because she didn’t want
to have second pregnancy.
13. That no specific discussions were done regarding the location of the matrimonial
home after the marriage, prior to the marriage.
14. That the petitioner's parents are retired from the job and are senior citizens. They
have to visit doctor for check up every weekend. The petitioner is the only son of
his parents to take care.
15. That no agreement was made regarding continuance of the respondent’s job after
the marriage.
16. That the respondent took a leave for four months from her job and stayed with the
petitioner and his parents at the residence of the petitioner in Chandigarh.
17. That the petitioner and the respondent have been visiting each other in vacations.
18. That the petitioner has been persuading the respondent since then to come and
stay at the matrimonial house in Chandigarh.
19. That the petitioner believes the respondent to be over sensitive.
20. That the respondent is unable to bear the idea of staying away from her parents
for too long.
21. That the respondent doesn’t wish to go for a second pregnancy.
22. That the petitioner believes the reason for the respondent not leaving her job, to
be the financial dependency of the respondent’s parents on the respondent.
23. That the living, education as well as the future of the child cannot be relied upon
in the custody of the respondent solely, the staying together of both the parents
and care of both the parents is indeed necessary for the betterment of the child.
24. That the petitioner is in great anxiety due to the lacking of personal care and
support to the child from the petitioner’s side due to the respondent and the child
staying at the respondent’s maternal home, whereas the petitioner desires to
provide the child with proper education, facilities, for which the restitution of
conjugal rights is indeed necessary.
25. That there is no collusion between the parties in respect of these proceedings.
26. That there has not been any unnecessary or improper delay in instituting the
proceedings.
27. That there has not been any previous proceeding with regard to the marriage by or
on behalf of the party.
28. That the petitioner submits that as the marriage was solemnized at New Delhi,
thereby this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition.
29. That there is no ground why relief should not be granted.
The Petitioner therefore prays
1)that he may be granted a decree for restitution of Conjugal Rights, further the respondent be
directed to shift along with the child from the maternal home to the matrimonial home and to
engage oneself to full time care of the child, as this Hon’ble court deems fit.
2) The costs of proceedings may be awarded.
3) any other order which court thinks fit.
Sd. _______.
Petitioner.

In The Court of The Principle Judge, Family Court at Saket, New Delhi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The Court of The Principle Judge, Family Court at Saket, New Delhi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The Court of The Principle Judge, Family Court at Saket, New Delhi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPLE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT

SAKET, NEW DELHI

Matrimonial Petition No of 2020

Mr. Abhilash Singh, aged 33 years, occupation- CA in Chandigarh

S/o Mr. Sohail Singh,

R/o 76/119, Sector 21, Chandigarh. Petitioner

Mr. Abhilash Singh R/o 56, Sector 27, Chandigarh

Mrs. Kanika Kipgen, aged 30 years, occupation- Lecturer in Delhi

W/o Mr. Abhilash Singh

D/o Mr. Thangmin Lal Kipgen

R/o H. no.7, Sector 7, Housing Board Colony, New Delhi Respondent

Petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1954.

The Petitioner states as follows :

The Petitioner therefore prays

2) The costs of proceedings may be awarded.

3) any other order which court thinks fit.

You might also like