Reply To Application U/s 24 of H.M.A.: in The Court of Sh. S. K. Sharma, District Judge "Family Court" Faridabad

IN THE COURT OF SH. S. K.
SHARMA, DISTRICT JUDGE “FAMILY COURT” FARIDABAD
In Re :-
Rakesh Kumar Versus Nisha
Petition u/s 13 of H.M.A.
Reply to application U/s 24 of H.M.A.
Sir,
The following is submitted as under:-
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:-
1. That the instant application is a tool for making pressure upon the
petitioner-answering respondent to withdraw the petition by keeping
the applicant-Nisha in his company inspite of her misbehave etc. for
detail mentioned in main petition.
2. That the para No. 4 of application is mentioning several sources of
income i.e. totally not less than Rs. 3,15,000/- per month petitioner-
answering respondent by concealing the answering respondent is a
young boy of developing age and how, in what manners have arranged
two companies of transport by having 8-10 Eicher Canters from which
earning Rs. 2,50,000/- per month, constructed three shops by
purchasing the land underneath as alleged income of Rs. 15,000/- per
month, having been purchased a plot area 100 sq. yards at Nehar Par
Old Faridabad in which running Milk Dairy and from which earning Rs.
20,000/- per month, purchasing a plot 1000 sq. yards in which
constructed several quarters and from which earning Rs. 20,000/- per
month, having in his name three acres agricultural land in
Gautambudh Nagar and from which earning Rs. 10,000/- per month,
by the law if, any property ancestral inherited by father of the
answering respondent then cannot be partitioned in his lifetime and no
claim can be of ownership in lifetime of Karta i.e. father. As per
aforesaid and contents of para No. 4 of application, the answering
respondent is stated a capitalist person by having huge income per
month then why not residing in Urban Estate of City Faridabad. As a
matter of fact, the answering respondent was a victim of un-employee
then considering facing circumstances, the father purchased as first
one Eicher Canter with help of finance company and same was sold,
thereafter purchased other Eicher Canter bearing its No. HR-38-N-
5908, same failed due to not received orders of business, even failed
to pay the installment of finance company, hence, sold out to Sukhbir
as evident transferred on 30-06-2011 in the name of Sukhbir.

Therefore, now the answering respondent is at the mercy of his father
being a victim of again un-employee who is residing in an
unauthorized colony Nehar Par, Old Faridabad, which is stated Milk
Dairy, however, one Cow is kept for milk to the family and no other
Cow and buffaloes etc.
3. That the all income sources to the answering respondent as alleged in
para No. 4 of the application are totally made-up, false, fabricated and
on the other hand the applicant is a qualified educated lady upto
M.Com & is earning more than Rs. 12,000/- per month as employee in
a office at Noida, however, this proof of an employee could not be
obtained as refused by the employer at the instance of applicant. The
applicant has concealed the material facts from this Hon’ble court,
hence, is not entitled for discretionary and equitable relief in the
instant application.
4. That the income sources are without any proof & evidence with
application, even the other material facts of FIR No. 6 dated 12-01-
2011, U/s 498-A, 406, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S. Bhupani by involving the
answering respondent, relatives and family members, for detail
therein, further arresting and releasing on bail by the Hon’ble court
and taken all dowry articles, ornaments, furniture, car, utensils etc. by
the applicant, have been concealed from this Hon’ble court.

From the aforesaid submissions, the application in question is
liable to be dismissed, in the interest of justice.
REPLY PARAWISE:-
1- That the contents & averments of para No. 1 of the application are
matter of record, hence, needs no reply.
vehemently and specifically wrong and denied in respect of
petitioner-answering respondent is guilty of committing matrimonial
offences, deserting the applicant, made the life a virtual hell for
want of dowry and inflicted atrocities, harassed and turned out on
7-10-2010 with minor baby.
wrong and denied in respect of the parents of applicant are poor
persons, for evident presented Car at the time of performing
marriage of applicant with petitioner-answering respondent. It is
vehemently denied that the applicant has no source of income and
unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter.
4- That the contents and averments of para No. 4 of the application
are vehemently and specifically wrong and denied in respect of
running transport, having 8-10 Eicher Canter and from earning Rs.
2,50,000/- per month, earning rental income Rs. 15,000/- p.m.
from three shops, running milk dairy at Nehar Par Faridabad and
earning Rs. 20,000/- per month from that, earning Rs. 20,000/- per
month from quarters at Kot Laholi, Dadri, District-Gautambudh
Nagar, having three acres agricultural land and from which earning
Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is vehemently denied that father of
petitioner-answering respondent is getting handsome salary of Rs.
40,000/- per month from Escorts Company and has no liability. It is
vehemently denied that the petitioner-answering respondent has
refused to provide maintenance to the applicant and thrown out as
alleged. The contents of preliminary objections may kindly be read
as part and parcel as part of this para.
REPLY TO PRAYER PARA:-
That each and every contents of prayer para of application are
vehemently wrong and denied for the reasons and submissions
mentioned in preliminary objections and reply parawise on merit of
this reply AND the applicant is not entitled to the relief sought or
any relief, in any manner whatsoever, hence, the application
deserves dismissal on merit.
It is, therefore, prayed that the application of the applicant may

kindly be dismissed, in the interest of justice.
Petitioner-respondent
Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ranbir
Bhati, R/o Gali No. 5, New Indira
Complex, Nehar Par, Kheri Road,
Old Faridabad, District-Faridabad
(Haryana).
Through Counsel:-
V.L. Sharma & Shiv Sharma
Advocates, Faridabad
VERIFICATION:-
Verified that the contents & averments of this reply has

been read over and explained to me by my engaged counsel in
Hindi, same have been understood by me and are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief. Nothing has been
concealed therein.
Verified at Faridabad on 26-11-2011
Petitioner-Respondent

Reply To Application U/s 24 of H.M.A.: in The Court of Sh. S. K. Sharma, District Judge "Family Court" Faridabad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reply To Application U/s 24 of H.M.A.: in The Court of Sh. S. K. Sharma, District Judge "Family Court" Faridabad

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Reply To Application U/s 24 of H.M.A.: in The Court of Sh. S. K. Sharma, District Judge "Family Court" Faridabad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF SH. S. K.

SHARMA, DISTRICT JUDGE “FAMILY COURT” FARIDABAD

Rakesh Kumar Versus Nisha

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

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

The following is submitted as under:-

petitioner-answering respondent to withdraw the petition by keeping

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

detail mentioned in main petition.

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

answering respondent by concealing the answering respondent is a

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

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

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

month, having in his name three acres agricultural land in

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

answering respondent then cannot be partitioned in his lifetime and no

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

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

respondent is stated a capitalist person by having huge income per

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

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

then considering facing circumstances, the father purchased as first

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

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

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

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

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

Cow and buffaloes etc.

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

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

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

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

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

answering respondent, relatives and family members, for detail

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

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

liable to be dismissed, in the interest of justice.

matter of record, hence, needs no reply.

vehemently and specifically wrong and denied in respect of

petitioner-answering respondent is guilty of committing matrimonial

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

7-10-2010 with minor baby.

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

persons, for evident presented Car at the time of performing

marriage of applicant with petitioner-answering respondent. It is

vehemently denied that the applicant has no source of income and

unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter.

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

are vehemently and specifically wrong and denied in respect of

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

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

petitioner-answering respondent is getting handsome salary of Rs.

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

vehemently denied that the petitioner-answering respondent has

refused to provide maintenance to the applicant and thrown out as

alleged. The contents of preliminary objections may kindly be read

as part and parcel as part of this para.

REPLY TO PRAYER PARA:-