Delhi Court-PWDVA misuse- Wild allegation by DIL is domestic violence against MIL SIL. Husband’s Women relatives equally protected under PWDVA (against Bahu)

IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS

JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST) ROHINI COURTS: DELHI

Crl. Revision No. 367/2010

1.  Santosh Kaur
W/o Sh. Mohan Lal Kashyap
R/o 6-D, Janta Flats, Satyawati Colony,
Behind Laxmi Bai College,
Ashok Vihar, Phase-III,
Delhi.
2. Ms. Ritu Kashyap
D/o Sh. Mohan Lal Kashyap
R/o 6-D, Janta Flats, Satyawati Colony,
Behind Laxmi Bai College,
Ashok Vihar, Phase-III,
Delhi.
3. Mrs. Sarika Mehta
W/o Sh. Kamal Mehta
R/o F-8, 2nd
Floor,
Kamla Nagar,
Delhi
............ Revisionists

Versus

Smt. Nidhi Kashyap
W/o Sh. Gaurav Kashyap
D/o Sh. K.C. Ahuja
R/o C-4/428, Lawrence Road,
Delhi – 110035
............ Respondent

Date of institution: 29.5.2010
Arguments heard on: 16.8.2010
Date of Decision: 28.8.2010

ORDER:

This revision has been filed against the summoning orders dated 24.2.2010, 25.3.2010 and 23.4.2010 passed by the Ld. Trial Court in the petition filed by the respondent Nidhi Kashyap under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The revisionist no.1 Smt.Santosh Kaur is the mother-in-law of the respondent whereas the revisionist no.2 Ms. Ritu Kashyap is her unmarried sister-in-law (Nanand) and respondent no.3 Mrs. Sarika Mehta is her married sister-in-law (Nanand).

Briefly the case of the respondent Nidhi Kashyap/ applicant before the Trial Court is that she was the class mate of revisionist no.2 Ritu Kashyap who is the real sister of Gaurav Kashyap (respondent no.1 before the Ld. Trial Court) and had friendly relations with him. According to Nidhi Kashyap, her father is a property dealer and mother is a bank employee and they have strong a financial background. It is pleaded that they are only two sisters and therefore as a part of well planned conspiracy, the revisionists before this court induced her to enter into a matrimonial relationship with Gaurav Kashyap despite the fact that both belonged to different communities. According to the respondent, her marriage with Gaurav Kashyap was solemnized secretly on 29.7.2008 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Birla Line, Kamla Nagar, Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies after which she left for her parental home as she was asked to disclose the factum of her marriage to them only after 45 days. It is further pleaded by Nidhi Kashyap that on 12.9.2008 when she entered into her matrimonial home at 6-D, Janta Flats, Satyawati Colony, behind Laxmi Bai College, Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi the revisionists before this court, under a well planned design conspiracy and in a pre planned manner, called her parents at their home and disclosed the factum of the marriage of their son with the present respondent (Nidhi Kashyap) on which her parents received a serious shock but finding no alternative they ultimately gave their consent and approval to the matrimonial ties and on 12.10.2008 as per the demands of her in-laws, her parents organized a joint reception where they gave a large amount of gold and jewellery and domestic articles and cash to her. According to Nidhi Kashyap, the respondent before this court court, the revisionists are in domestic relationship with her due to her matrimonial relationship with Gaurav Kashyap (respondent no. 1 before the Ld. Trial Court). She has alleged that on 13.10.2008 after she entered into her matrimonial home, her Nanand the revisionist no.2 Ritu Kashyap raised a demand of Hundai i10 car and it was made clear to her that in case if she wants to live peacefully she would have to ask her parents to satisfy their demands.  Again on 13.10.2008, her mother-in-law Smt. Santosh Kashyap the revisionist no.1 before this court took a sum of Rs.20,000/- from her purse against her will and consent and in the evening the revisionists no.2 and 3 took away entire gold and diamond jewelleries except one Mangal Sutra, one gold ring, nose pin and ear rings and thereafter did not return the same to her despite her repeated requests and demands. The present respondent Nidhi Kashyap has also mentioned numerous other occasions alleging that the revisionists before this court had been disclosing their intent and expectations for cash and other articles from time to time and she had been subjected to harassment, torture and violence on account of the repeated dowry demands made by the revisionists before this court including her married sister-in-law Sarika Mehta. According to Nidhi Kashyap, her entire jewellery is lying with her in-laws. A petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by Gaurav Kashyap the husband of the present respondent is also pending adjudication before the Ld. ADJ, Rohini. She has alleged that she has been compelled to make a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, Pitam Pura, Delhi on account of the callous conduct on the part of her in-laws including the present revisionists. She has further alleged that her husband Gaurav Kashyap is the owner of property bearing no. 6-D, Janta Flats, Satyawati Colony, Behind Laxmi Bai College, Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi and he and his parents are owning and possessing 100 sq. plot as Samaipur Badli, Delhi. Further, she has alleged that her husband Gaurav Kashyap and his parents are owning and possessing the HIG Flat in TDI Sonepat having a market value to the tune of Rs.22 lacs and are running a factory under the name and style of MCO Chemical, Samaypur, Delhi and are owning and possessing two godowns at Samaypur and Swaroop Nagar and her husband Gaurav Kashyap is having one house at Sri Nagar, Bharat Nagar, Delhi. It is also alleged by the respondent before this court that her husband and his parents are owning and possessing a Maruti 800 car bearing no. DL-6019 and are also owning a truck Tata-407 and two victor bikes. She has now demanded that her husband Gaurav Kashyap i.e. the respondent no.1 before the Ld. Trial Court is under a legal obligation to maintain her and she requires independent residential accommodation which is available at the rental value of Rs.10,000/- per month excluding the water and electricity charges and also requires Rs.30,000/- per month for her maintenance and Rs. 5 lacs on account of mental torture, pain and agony suffered by her. According to the present respondent she cannot remain dependent upon her parents for her shelter and therefore, her husband Gaurav Kashyap is required to make the arrangements for separate residential accommodation. In her petition, the present respondent Nidhi Kashyap has further demanded that her husband and her in-laws including the present revisionists should be restrained from entering into her parental home and from making any kind of communication to her and from committing any act of Domestic Violence and aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence. Further, she has demanded that they be restrained from alienating and parting with her istridhan articles and also from creating any third part interest and parting with the possession of the property bearing No. D-6, Janta Flats, Satyawati Colony, Behind Laxmi Bai College, Ashok Vihar, Delhi and property bearing no. 77, Bharat Nagar Delhi till her husband make the provisions for her independent residential accommodation. She has also claimed Rs.3,000/- from her in-laws including the present revisionists as litigation expenses.

Pursuant to the aforesaid petition, the Ld. Trial Court sought a Domestic Incident Report from the Protection Officer. The said report was duly filed which I have duly perused. The said report clearly reflects that Smt. Sarika Mehta the revisionist no.3 before this court is not a member of the shared household and is separately residing at her matrimonial home residing at F- 8, 2nd Floor, Kamla Nagar, Delhi with her husband Sh. Kamal Mehta whereas Smt. Santosh Kaur the mother-in-law and Ritu Kashyap the unmarried sister-in-law are all residing at 6-D, Janta Flats, Satyawati Colony, Behind Laxmi Bai College, Delhi. The report further shows that only one incident of domestic violence on 3.7.2009 by the husband has been reported on which day the present respondent was beaten by her husband and was asked to leave the house. The report further reflects that the only incident of verbal and emotional abuse are of insults for not having brought dowry, demeaning, humiliating, undermining, ridicule and name calling by her husband and her in-laws and preventing her from meeting a particular person. She has also alleged economic violence upon her by her husband by not providing her money, food, clothes, medicine etc. and forcing her out of the matrimonial house and has alleged that her in-laws including the present revisionists have disposed off her istridhan articles by selling or pawing the same without her consent and forcibly taken away her salary, income or wages etc.

The revisionists before this court have alleged that the orders of summoning are also bad as they have been passed without calling upon the respondent to furnish and establish the material facts necessitated for passing such orders. It is submitted that no domestic violence has ever been committed by the revisionists upon the respondent before this court (complainant before the Ld. Trial Court) and the petitioner under the Domestic Violence Act has been filed on false and frivolous grounds and the complaint filed by the present respondents against them before Crime Against Women Cell, Pitam Pura has been filed only to harass, humiliate and to extort money from them. The revisionists have pointed out that the marriage of Gaurav Kashyap with the present respondent was a simple one without any demand and was an outcome of the love affair. They have pointed out that the parents of the present respondent were against her marriage and therefore, they secretly got married without informing their family members at Arya Samaj Mandir which was a dowry less marriage and the respondent had come in wearing clothes and it is in this background that the parents of Gaurav Kashyap including the revisionists organized a reception on 12.10.2008 at Janak Vatika, Bharat Nagar. The revisionists have further pointed out that on 3.7.2009 the present respondent Nidhi Kashyap picked up a quarrel with her husband Gaurav Kashyap and called her father with 5-6 other people who beaten up Gaurav Kashyap and even shouted on road and use abusive language for Gaurav Kashyap. Thereafter the present respondent went to her parent's house by saying that she would not live nor would maintain any relations with them and Gaurav Kashyap made umpteen efforts to bring her back but she refused. According to the revisionists they are themselves aggrieved and victim of the violence inflicted upon them by the present respondent. It is further stated that all the properties mentioned by the present respondent does not belong to the husband of the respondent. The revisionists have placed their reliance on the following authorities:

1. S.R. Batra & Anr. vs. Smt. Taruna Batra reported in 1 (2007) SLT 1.
2. Shumita Didi Sandhu Vs. Sanjay Singh Sandhu reported in 2007 (96) DRJ 697.
3. Mohd. Maqeenuddin Ahmed & Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2008 (1) JCC 85.

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a special legislation in favour of women. It is the duty of the court to ensure that this special legislation reaches out to the effected lot but at the same time is not allowed to be misused by anyone.

Wikipedia defines domestic relationship between two individuals as a legal or personal relationship to live together or share one domestic life but are neither joined by marriage nor the civil union.

The Indian law i.e. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not define family but it defines Domestic Relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. Domestic relations are meant to cover sisters, widows, mothers and daughters and single women. The Indian law does not specify separate relationship and mentions members in a joint family.

The intent of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is to protect the value system and institution  of family and save it from destruction. This being so, the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 have to be so interpreted to ensure that the existing family system is preserved.  The misuse and abuse of the Act is a matter of serious concern for the courts who are required to be careful and ensure that a woman petitioner is not made a puppet or pawn in the hands of her male relatives so as to manipulate the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and use it for ulterior motives.

In the present case it is an admitted case of the parties before this court that the respondent Nidhi Kashyap who is the wife of Gaurav Kashyap (respondent no.1 before the Ld. Trial Court) has filed the complaint under special legislation (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005) wherein she has spared none and roped the entire family including the young unmarried sister-in-law who was her friend and class-mate even before her marriage and also her married sister-in-law who is residing separately with her own family. It is admitted that the marriage between the present respondent Nidhi Kashyap with Gaurav Kashyap was solemnized secretly and was an outcome of a love affair as Nidhi Kashyap was known to Gaurav Kashyap through the revisionist no.2 Ritu Kashyap who was the batch mate of Nidhi Kashyap and was studying with her. It is also an admitted case of the parties that on having come to know of marriage a reception had been organized after which the present respondent Nidhi Kashyap started staying with her husband and her in-laws. It appears that unfortunately the said marriage is not worked out resulting into spade of litigation between the parties and Gaurav Kashyap even filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage act which is still pending adjudication and the present respondent Nidhi Kashyap has filed a case in Crime Against Women Cell alleging dowry demands and harassment against one and all.  

The provisions of the Protection of Women from  Domestic Violence Act, 2005 have been invoked by the respondent Nidhi Kashyap not only against her husband Gaurav Kashyap but also against her aged father-in-law Mohan Lal Kashyap (respondent no.2 before the Ld. Trial Court), mother- in-law Smt. Santosh Kaur (present revisionist no.1 before this court), unmarried sister Ritu Kashyap (revisionist no.2 before this court with whom Nidhi Kashyap was previously studying and through whom she came to know Gaurav Kashyap and had a love affair), married sister Smt. Sarika Mehta and her husband Sh. Kamal Mehta who both are residing at F-8, 2nd Floor, Kala Nagar, Delhi.  

At the very outset I may observe that merely because the revisionist no.3 Smt. Sarika Mehta happen to be the real sister of the husband of present respondent would not ipso-facto imply a domestic relationship to the extent as contemplated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 as she is residing separately with her own husband and cannot be deemed to be a member of the shared household as a joint family. The revisionist no.2 Ritu Kashyap is a young girl of 22 years who had been the classmate of the present respondent and through whom the present respondent had came into contact with Gaurav Kashyap and had an affair culminating into the marriage. The revisionist no.1 is the aged mother-in-law. The allegations against her are general and non specific. 

Daughters married or unmarried cannot be terrorized into abandoning their parental family under the fear of their involvement into litigations connected with Domestic Violence. Married sisters residing in their own matrimonial houses are not a part of the shared household or joint family as contemplated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 but at the same time they have certain rights in their parental home which cannot be denied to them. Even an unmarried sister of the husband residing in the shared household with her parents has certain rights which cannot be taken away. Making wild allegations against an unmarried sister-in-law of a tender marriageable age by an estranged wife of brother tentamounts to inflicting violence upon her and it is the duty of the court to ensure that she is protected from the same. Violence can also be inflicted by an estranged wife or daughter-in-law or sister-in-law upon other members of the husband's family to gain and secure personal points and financial control or for separating her husband from his parents and other family members. In the zeal and endeavour to implement the rights of one woman (daughter-in-law) it is necessary for the courts to ensure that the rights of another woman (in her capacity as mother-in-law or sister-in-law married or unmarried) are not taken away or infringed in any manner. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 protects the mothers, sisters and daughters from any kind of physical and mental abuse or violence in as much as it does the daughter-in-law. The court as a protector and implementor of rights, is required to perform a balancing act. It is necessary to ensure that it does not get swayed by the astute legal drafting of the counsels and is equired to get at the truth of the allegations by examining the pleadings on the touch-stone of reasonableness and probabilities. Where a complaint appears to have been filed on filmsy grounds only to humiliate the family members, the same is required to be thrown out at the earliest opportunity. Mother-in-law or sister's- in-law (married or unmarried) cannot be permitted to be subjected to harassment only because they happen to be related to the estranged husband of the woman (complainant).

In the present case firstly I have considered the allegations reflected in the Domestic Incidence Report and the allegations so made by the complainant Nidhi Kashyap before the court which do not inspire confidence and appears to have been made in routine. The respondent has alleged that the present revisionists had forcibly taken away her salary and wages which allegations on the face of it are false and incorrect since it is an admitted case of the respondent before this court that she is not working. The question of her husband or in-laws taking away her salary, income, wages etc. under these circumstances does not arise.  

Secondly the report of the Protection Officer also show that the dowry related harassment pertains to the demand of car and cash of Rs.3 lacs. The respondent Nidhi Kashyap has also attached the list of Stridhan articles alongwith the petition to support and substantiate her allegations regarding misappropriation of her Stridhan articles which I have perused. I may observe that the said list so attached along with the petition is not a duly authenticated list signed by both the parties as required under the Dowry Prohibition Act. This is the list of articles which only the respondent Nidhi Kashyap claims were her stridhan which list does not bear the signatures of the respondent. Under the given circumstances as the list is not signed by both parties, it was necessary for the complainant Nidhi Kashyap to have attached alongwith her list the receipts/bills showing purchase of these articles which has not been done. Therefore, the above allegations also do not appear to be credible and truth-full particularly keeping in view the background that the marriage between the respondent and Gaurav Kashyap  was a secret, runaway marriage as an outcome of a love affair which marriage was kept secret for many days and ultimately when the same was disclosed to the parents of the respondent by her in- laws a joint reception was organized.

Thirdly the present respondent Nidhi Kashyap has not placed on record any document to show that her husband is the owner of any of the aforesaid properties or have any independent right over the same. The allegations are non specific and general. It is settled law that the claim for alternative accommodation can only be made by a women against her husband and not against in-laws or other relatives nor can she claim any right to stay in the said house (Ref: S.R. Batra & Anr. Vs. Smt. Taruna Batra reported in 1 (2007) SLT 1 and Shumita Didi Sandhu Vs. Sanjay Singh reported in 2007 (96) DRJ 697). The present respondent has not placed on record any document to show that the properties in the present case belonging to her husband Gaurav Kashyap and the complaint in Crime Against Women Cell.  

Lastly it is an admitted case of the parties including that of the complainant Nidhi Kashyap that her marriage with Gaurav Kashyap is an outcome of the long standing love affair between them. She was a classmate of the revisionist no.2 Ritu Kashyap through whom she was introduced to Gaurav Kashyap (her real brother) with whom she developed love affair culminating into a secret marriage which was disclosed to her parents much later. This being the background of the case, the allegations made by the complainant against one and all family members of her husband where none have been spared do not appear probable. It is apparent on the face of the pleadings that they have been so drafted so as to involved all the family members of the husband sparing none including the present revisionists who are the aged mother-in-law, unmarried sister-in- law of marriageable age and married sister-in-law residing separately. This, it appears has been done for the purpose of harassing the entire family of the husband with a sinister motive and design to harass and humiliate them. Given the background of the case, the allegations made against the Revisionists on the face of it do not appear to be truthful and probable warranting any interference from the court under this Special Legislation.  

In view of the above  background and in the interest of  justice, I hereby set aside the orders of dated 24.2.2010,
25.3.2010 and 23.4.2010 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby summoning the present revisionists i.e. Smt. Santosh Kaur, Ms. Ritu Kashyap and Smt. Sarika Mehta since there does not exist sufficient material on record to summon them and to proceed against them under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Revision is accordingly allowed. Trial court record be sent back along with the copy of this order. Revision file be
consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court             

(Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 28.8.2010              ASJ-II(NW): Rohini

Santosh Kaur   Vs.   Nidhi Kashyap
CR No. 367/2010 28.8.2010
Present: None for the Revisionists.
None for the respondent.
Vide my separate detailed order dictated and announced in the open court, I set aside the orders of dated
24.2.2010, 25.3.2010 and 23.4.2010 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby summoning the present revisionists i.e. Smt. Santosh Kaur, Ms. Ritu Kashyap and Smt. Sarika Mehta since there does not exist sufficient material on record to summon them and to proceed against them under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Revision is accordingly allowed.

Trial court record be sent back along with the copy of this order.

Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau)
ASJ-II (NW)/ 28.8.2010

Source - http://judis.nic.in/dist_judis/pdf_retrieval_main.asp

Delhi court –PWDVA-MIL SIL can file PWDVA on Bahu ?-'Mother, sisters protected equal to man's wife'

 

FULL TEXT @

http://legalmanthandivorce.blogspot.com/2010/09/delhi-court-pwdva-mil-sil-can-file.html

 

Delhi court –PWDVA-MIL SIL can file PWDVA on Bahu ?-'Mother, sisters protected equal to man's wife'

PTI

19 Sep 2010

NEW DELHI: The mother and sisters of a man are equally protected in a dispute with his wife under the Domestic Violence Act and they cannot be made accused without a scrutiny of charges against them, a Delhi court has said.

"The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 protects the mothers, sisters and daughters from any kind of physical and mental abuse or violence in as much as it does the daughter-in-law. The court as a protector and implementor of rights, is required to perform a balancing act," Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau.

The court said that raising allegations by a woman against her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law without any substance would rather cause violence to them.

"Making wild allegations against an unmarried sister-in-law of a tender marriageable age by an estranged wife of brother tantamounts to inflicting violence upon her and it is the duty of the court to ensure that she is protected from the same.

"Violence can also be inflicted by an estranged wife or daughter-in-law or sister-in-law upon other members of the husband's family to gain and secure personal points and financial control or for separating her husband from his parents and other family members," the court said.

It further said that mother-in-law or sisters-in-law (married or unmarried) cannot be permitted to be subjected to harassment only because they happen to be related to the estranged husband of the woman (complainant).

"It is necessary to ensure the court does not get swayed by astute legal drafting of the counsel and is required to get at the truth of the allegations by examining them on the touch-stone of reasonableness and probabilities. Where a complaint appears to have been filed on grounds only to humiliate the family members, the same is required to be thrown out at the earliest opportunity", the court said.

The court made these observations while setting aside an order to summon the mother, two sisters-in-law including the married one of a man on a complaint filed by his wife alleging harassment.

ASJ Lau pointed out that the complainant alleged that her in-law had forcibly taken away her salary and wages which is false and incorrect as she herself admitted that she was not working. The court also said that the allegations regarding harassment for dowry do not appear to be "credible and truthful" particularly in view of the background that the marriage between the sparring couple was a secret, runaway marriage as an outcome of a love affair between them.

The woman said that she had married the man in July, 2008 and had faced harassment and torture for dowry.

 

http://expressbuzz.com/nation/mother-sisters-protected-equal-to-mans-wife/208156.html

Del HC –s125 Crpc- dilatory tactics by wife – dismissed with costs

 

CRL. M.C. 1920/2010                

*        IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI

CRL. M.C. 1920/2010  Decided on 15.07.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :

SUJATA AGGARWAL                                  ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Hameed S. Shaikh, Advocate

      versus

RAVI SHANKAR AGGARWAL            ..... Respondent
        Through: Mr. V.S. Pandey, Advocate

CORAM 
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

    1.  Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?  No                  
    2.  To be referred to the Reporter or not?        No
    3.  Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?    No        

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 

1.    The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying  inter alia for quashing of orders dated 23.09.2008 and 24.02.2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate  in a petition filed by the petitioner under  Section 125 of the Cr.PC for maintenance.

2.    Vide order dated 23.09.2008, the application filed by the petitioner in September, 2008 praying inter alia for summoning of witnesses was dismissed, while granting liberty to the petitioner to lead evidence by way of affidavit.   Pertinently,  till date the petitioner has not taken any step to assail the  aforesaid  order  before a superior court.  Instead, trial in  the  matter is stated to have been completed  some months ago and as per the counsel for the respondent, it is listed for orders today. 

3.    By the second order dated 24.02.2010, the request of the counsel for the petitioner for staying the proceedings pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate on the ground that  proceedings in the  connected case filed by the daughter of the petitioner were stayed by the High Court vide order dated 22.02.2010 passed in Crl.M.C. No.1323/2009, was declined on the ground that there was no stay granted by the High Court in respect of the present proceeding and that the same was the main case.   

4.    Vide order dated 18.03.2008,  learned Metropolitan Magistrate, while deciding the application of the petitioner seeking interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.PC, had directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-  per month  to the petitioner from the date of filing of the application till the disposal of the petition.     Aggrieved by the  interim maintenance fixed under the  aforesaid order, the petitioner  sought enhancement of the amount and preferred a revision petition, registered as Crl.M.C. 2725/2008.  The said revision petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2008, concurring  with  the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.  The aforesaid order  was  taken in appeal by the petitioner to the Supreme Court, by preferring a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 2161/2009, which was disposed of  vide order dated 13.04.2009 with the following observations:

“Delay condoned.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
The trial Court in an application filed by the wife for
maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, by way of interim
measure, had directed the husband to pay
Rs.20,000/- per month.
Petitioner, being dissatisfied with the said interim
order, challenged the said order before the High
Court for enhancement of maintenance. The High
Court by the impugned order has dismissed the same.
We are informed that the said maintenance petition
under Section 125 of the Code is still pending before the concerned court.
In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to
exercise our discretion under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.  The Special Leave Petition is
dismissed.    However, the concerned court, before
which the petition under Section 125 of the Cr.PC, is
pending, is directed to dispose off the said petition in
accordance with law within a period of three months
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order, after affording an opportunity to both the
parties to lead evidence in the matter.”

5.    Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is trying to adopt dilatory tactics in the present case and despite the aforesaid specific orders of the Supreme Court,  directing that the petition  under Section 125 Cr.PC be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order after affording an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in the matter, the petitioner has chosen to prefer the present petition  and sought  an  adjournment on the last date of hearing before the Metropolitan Magistrate, on the ground of non-availability of her counsel.  Counsel for the petitioner states today that as the Supreme Court had granted liberty to both the parties to lead evidence in the matter, the  5 petitioner is entitled  to be granted the relief  as  sought by her  in  the application filed for producing additional evidence.  

6.    The records reflect  that on the date  when  the  order of the Supreme Court was passed, i.e., on 13.04.2009, no such application of the petitioner for adducing any additional evidence was pending. Nor did the petitioner file such an application on a later date.  Hence, the question of the Metropolitan Magistrate granting such an opportunity  to her does not arise.  It does not lie in the mouth of the  petitioner to allege today that an application for summoning of additional witnesses filed by her in September, 2008 and rejected vide order dated 23.09.2008 can be  assailed in the present proceedings  after  a lapse of  almost two years.  Even otherwise, counsel for the respondent states that  the stage of evidence is over, arguments have already been addressed in the matter and the same is listed for orders today.

7.    As far as the order dated 24.02.2010 is concerned, admittedly, the present petition under Section 125 of the Cr.PC was preferred by the petitioner prior in time to a petition filed by her daughter for the same relief of maintenance.  Counsel for the petitioner also concedes that the present case was treated as the main case.   In the light of the order of the Supreme Court, the petitioner cannot be heard to state that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ought to have waited for Crl.M.C. No. 1323/2009 to be decided first  merely because the proceedings in the said petition filed by the daughter of the petitioner were stayed.  The present petition is nothing but an attempt on the part of the petitioner to try and delay the pending proceedings under Section 125 Cr.PC.  Knowing very well that there is an order of the Supreme Court dated 13.04.2009 calling upon the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to dispose of the pending proceedings within three months, the petitioner has intentionally not mentioned passing of the said order  in the present petition.  It is counsel for the respondent, who has handed over a copy of the said order in the Court.  Leave alone the matter being decided in three months from 13.04.2009, even after over one year, it is stated to be pending and listed for orders today.   For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders dated 23.09.2008 and 24.02.2010. On merits also  the impugned orders do not suffer from any  irregularity, perversity or arbitrariness  to  deserve interference.  The petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- payable to the other side within one week.

                     (HIMA KOHLI)
JULY    15, 2010                      JUDGE  
rkb

http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/HK/judgement/20-07-2010/HK15072010CRLMM19202010.pdf

Del HC-Wife gets fined 50,000 for dilatory tactics in HMA proceedings

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserve: September 08, 2008

Date of Order : October 16, 2008

CM(M) 1146/2007 16.10.2008

Sujata Aggarwal ...Petitioner

Through: Mr. Manu Nayar with

Mr. Hameed S. Shaikh, Advs.

Versus

Ravi Shankar Agarwal ...Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Mittal and

Mr. V.S. Pandey, Adv.

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not ? Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest ? Yes.

JUDGMENT:

1. By this order, I shall dispose of this petition preferred by the wife against the orders dated 3rd March, 2007 and 23rd March, 2007 passed by learned ADJ.

2. The case was at the stage of wife's evidence. Wife had to file an affidavit in her examination-in-chief, as per directions of the Court, within 3 days of 21st November, 2006. She did not file the affidavit. Thereafter, again directions were given on 3.3.07 to the wife to file her affidavit within one week. The affidavit was still not filed. On 23rd March, 2007 when the case was fixed for evidence, a proxy counsel appeared and moved an application for adjournment and Court noticed the conduct of petitioner in not filing affidavit and not appearing in the Court. When objection was raised by the husband's counsel, proxy counsel for the wife told the Court that affidavit shall  be filed within half an hour and after half an hour an affidavit was produced, but copy of the same was still not given to the husband's side saying that the same was not ready. The wife was not there for her cross examination. Looking at the entire conduct of the wife that she was not appearing in the Court and even the previous cost imposed by the Court was not paid, the husband's counsel opposed the application for adjournment. The adjournment was sought by the proxy counsel on the ground that regular counsel could not come as his father was ill.The Court observed that it was the respondent who was to appear in the Court for her cross examination and she had been repeatedly avoiding to appear in the Court. Since there were no grounds given for her non-appearance, her defence was struck off by the Court.

3. The order dated 3rd March, 2007 is in respect of disposal of the application moved on behalf of the wife under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC, Order 18 Rule 3(a) CPC and Order 17 Rule 2 CPC whereby she wanted to summon the records of other Courts and to summon the witnesses who had made statements in other Courts and she wanted that parents of the husband, the Chartered Accountant of the husband should also be summoned in the Court as defence witnesses.

4. The Trial Court found that the case was fixed for respondent's evidence on 29th December, 2005. Thereafter, no respondent witness was ever present in the Court. Respondent did not examine even herself in her defence and only moved different applications. When the Court gave directions for wife to appear and examine her witnesses on 14th November, 2006, instead of examining herself she moved 4 applications. Those applications were dismissed with costs vide order dated 21st November, 2006. On next date when the matter was fixed for respondent's evidence and directions were given to file affidavit within 3 days, instead of appearing, she got moved 2 more applications.

5. On next date of hearing, the costs was not paid and the respondent/wife also did not appear. Another application under Section 151 CPC was moved for her exemption from cross examination. The Court found that the respondent/wife was only indulging in dilatory tactics. It was also observed that only 3 adjournments can be granted to a party for evidence and respondent was not entitled to any further adjournment. But the Court still gave one more opportunity.

6. The respondent/wife in her application had taken a plea that she was suffering from tuberculosis of Urinal track  and related gynecological problems due to which she was unable to bear any kind of stress and was unable to stand and move out of the house as her blood pressure shoots up and because of these health conditions she was not able to come to the Court. She should therefore be allowed to examine her other witnesses and she should be exempted from examining herself first. The husband denied that she was suffering from any disease as stated by her and stated that she had been seen moving around in shopping centres. The medical certificate filed by her only showed that she was under treatment since 25th May, 2006. The Trial Court found that although the respondent did not file her affidavit by way of evidence in the Court, but she filed several affidavits supporting various applications moved by her. That showed that she had been coming to the Court and executing other affidavits.Even her plea that she was not able to hold urine for more than 10 minutes, was not supported by her medical certificate. The medical certificate filed showed that she was undergoing treatment of Pyrexia of unknown origin.

7. The Trial Court also observed that her claim that she was not able to visit the Court stood belied from her repeated visits to the Court for filing affidavits supporting applications. The number of applications moved and number of affidavits filed by her showed that her plea of being not able to come to the Court was false. The Court also found that if she was not in a position to stand or move, as claimed by her, she would not have been able to come to Court even for moving various other applications. She made several applications on various dates running into numerous pages and with each application an affidavit was there. Thus, the Court dismissed the application of the wife under Order 18 Rule 3(a) with costs of Rs.2,500/- However, the Trial Court still gave the adjournment despite finding that the respondent was guilty of delaying the proceedings, imposing further costs of Rs.5,000/-. It was also made clear to the respondent that she would appear on next date of hearing and would also pay the entire costs including costs imposed on 3rd March failing which her defence would be struck off.

8. In order to consider the challenge to these orders, the Court will have to look at the conduct of the petitioner/wife and see whether her prayer had been sincere or she had been taking the Court for a ride because she had enough money power, on the basis of which she has been assailing every order of the lower Court before High Court.

9. The wife herein is facing a Divorce petition filed by the husband. The Divorce petition was filed in 1998 and appearance was put by her counsel on 15th January, 1999. A perusal of record of Trial Court shows that thereafter the effort of the wife had been to see to it that this case does not  proceed further. One leg of the wife had been in the High Court and almost every order passed by the leaned ADJ was challenged before this Court.

10. This Court in an earlier petition no. CM(M) 1742/2004 filed by the wife made following observations:- ?In the meanwhile, it appears that the respondent/husband has been under cross examination for the last three years and as many as 25 days of hearing have taken place. There has to be a finality to the cross examination of the respondent and it cannot be go on interminably. Consequently, other than the cross examination relating to the documents mentioned in Item Nos. 1 to 9 on pages 21 and 22, the cross examination of the respondent must be concluded positively on the next date of hearing, that is,23rd December, 2004?

11. Above order of this Court and the orders passed by Trial Court right from the start of case show the intentions of the respondent.

12. A perusal of the order sheets of the Trial Court would show that every kind of excuse available on the earth had been put forward for seeking adjournments and all tactics had been adopted to delay the proceedings. The issues in the case were framed on 1st June, 2000. The Court could record statement of the husband in examination-in-chief only on 30th January, 2001.Thereafter, the cross examination of husband was concluded on 22.11.2005 only,after this Court passed above stated order. In between respondent or her counsel did not appear in the Court on 27th August, 2001 even to receive the alimony paid by the husband. On 11th February, 2002, counsel for the respondent wanted the proceedings to be stayed on the ground that he had preferred a revision before the High Court, despite the fact that there was no stay granted. The Trial Court still adjourned the case for cross examination of the petitioner. On next date, on 20th March, 2002, none appeared for the respondent/wife neither his counsel appeared. The Court still did not proceed ex parte and re-listed the matter.

13. On 4th April, 2002, an adjournment was sought on the ground of her ailment. Several adjournments were sought on the ground that the matter may be settled. However, whenever the matter was fixed for cross examination of husband, instead of cross examining him the counsel for the wife had moved an application and sought adjournment on one or the other ground. Even when he cross examined, the cross examination was made in prolix manner to make it linger on. The counsel also sought adjournments on his personal grounds, sometime his brother-in-law was ailing, sometime he had to attend the school of his child, sometime on the ground that a relative had expired. The respondent had all along been not appearing in Court on one or the other ground.

14. The petitioner had filed number of petitions and appeals in this Court right from the beginning. Every petition filed in this Court was accompanied by the affidavits of the petitioner. Number of petitions along with affidavits filed by the petitioner as gathered from the record of this case are CM(M)1742/2004, CM(M)14/2007, CM(A)5724/07, CM(A)10747/07, RFA 230/07, CM(M)14428/07, CM(M)997/07 C.R.No.397/01 and CM(M)969/06.

15. It is evidently clear from the entire proceedings that the effort of the petitioner had been to see that divorce petition filed by husband does not proceed. The mandate of the legislature is that proceeding under Hindu Marriage Act should come to an end within six months.

16. The ground on which husband sought divorce is desertion. The petitioner/wife had an option to lead her evidence to show that she had not deserted and the fault lied on the side of the husband. Instead of leading evidence, appearing in the Court she had just seen to it that the case does not proceed.

17. The Supreme Court in M.R. Tyagi vs. Sri Devi Sahai Gautam Civil Appeal No. 3241/2006 decided on 2.8.2006 made following observations in respect of grant of repeated adjournments by Courts:

?............ at the same time we must impress upon the Courts that its approach, however liberal, must be in consonance with the interest of justice and fair to both the parties. Misplaced sympathy in favour of any of the parties results in injustice to the other party. The courts have the solemn duty to maintain a judicial balance. We must deprecate such irresponsible approach of Courts granting numerous and unnecessary adjournments in the strongest terms. The frequent grant of unnecessary adjournments has come in for very serious public criticism. It is not surprising that frequent adjournments are unnecessarily sought, but what is surprising is that Courts generously grant such adjournments, regardless of the fact that it results in delayed disposal of cases, involves loss of public time, increases the financial burden of the litigants, and tarnishes the image of the judiciary. It is high time Courts stop granting unnecessary adjournments. The High Courts must take serious note of adjournments freely granted, even if unnecessary, and as a follow up action call upon the judicial officers concerned, in appropriate cases, to justify the numerous and unnecessary adjournments granted.?

18. It is noteworthy that on her ground of illness while she sought adjournments, she did not move an application that she be examined on commission. Her plea that she was not in a position to come to the Court because she had urinary problem had been rightly disbelieved by Trial Court. The Trial Court also rightly struck off her defence on the ground that she was unwilling to appear in Court and unwilling to lead evidence.

19. I find that this petition is a frivolous petition and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-.

 

October 16, 2008

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. ak

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1426499/

Court service notices could be sent through e-mails: Delhi HC

Court service notices could be sent through e-mails: Delhi HC

link to the administrative Del HC notices

http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/Notifications/Notifications_Part175.PDF

http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/Notifications/Notifications_Part176.PDF

PTI | 09:09 PM,Sep 14,2010

New Delhi, Sep 14 (PTI) In a major effort to make litigations computer-friendly, the Delhi High Court has said notices to litigants could now be sent through e-mails as well.

In pursuance of the recent Supreme Court directives, the High Court said lawyers, who want their petitions to be heard on urgent basis, can get in touch with opposite parties through Internet.

In the case of filing of a fresh petition, the lawyers send the copy of the plea along with the court notices to the parties, to be sued, either by the registered post or by the court-approved couriers services.

"The Supreme Court... has directed that in commercial litigations and in those cases where the advocates seek urgent interim relief, service of the notices may be effected by e-mails, in addition to normal mode of service," the High Court said in an administrative order.

The High Court has asked the lawyers to provide soft copies of the petitions, in addition to the hard copy along with e-mail addresses of the parties at the time of filing the plea.

The copy of the order, issued by Rakesh Kapoor, Registrar General of the High Court, has been sent to various authorities including the nine district judges of the trial courts of the national capital.

http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/court-notices-could-be-sent-through-emails-delhi-hc/320320.html

DRAFTS for DIVORCE NULITY OF MARRIAGE AND JUDICIAL SEPARATION- Hindu Marriage Act

 

DIVORCE NULITY OF MARRIAGE AND JUDICIAL SEPARATION

AGREEMENT-FOR-MAINTENANCE-BETWEEN-HUSBAND-AND-WIFE

PETITION-BY-WIFE-FOR-JUDICIAL-SEPARATION-ON-THE-GROUNDS-OF-HER-HUSBAND-S-ADULTERY

PETITION-FOR-DECREE-OF-NULLITY-OF-MARRIAGE

PETITION-OF-DIVORCE

         PETITION-OF-WIFE-FOR-DECREE-OF-NULLITY-OF-MARRIAGE

SEPARATION-DEED-BETWEEN-HUSBAND-AND-WIFE-WITH-A-TRUSTEE

PETITION-BY-HUSBAND-FOR-ENDED-MARRIAGE-WITH-DAMAGES-AGAINST-CO-RESPONDENT-DUE-ADULTERY-IN-INDIAN-

PETITION-FOR-ALIMONY-PENDING-THE-SUIT

PETITION-FOR-JUDICIAL-SEPARATION

PETITION-OF-DIVORCE-BY-MUTUAL-CONSENT

SEPARATION-DEED-BETWEEN-HUSBAND-AND-WIFE

RULES OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS UNDER HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

RULES OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS UNDER HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 PART VII

6. DELHI HIGH COURT HINDU MARRIAGE RULES, 1979

1. Short title.—These rules may be called the Hindu Marriage Rules, 1979.

2. Commencement.—The rules shall come into force from the date of their publication in the Delhi Gazette.

3. Definitions.—In these rules unless there is anything repugnant in the subjct or context:

(a)   ‘Act’ means the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (No.25 of 1955) as amended from time to time.

(b)   ‘Code’ means the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as from time to time modified or amended.

(c)   ‘Court’ means the Court mentioned in Section 3(W of the Act.

(d)   ‘Form’ means a form appended to these rules.

(e)   ‘Section ‘ and sub-section mean respectively Section and sub-section of the Act.

(f)   All other terms and expressions used herein but not defined shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Act.

4. Petitions.—(a) Every petition under the Act shall be accompanied by either a certified extract from the Hindu Marriage Register maintained under Section 8 of the Act, where the marriage has been registered under the Act or in the absence of the same, an affidavit to the effect that the petitioner was married to the respondent (unless the certificate or affidavit is alreay on the record or is for sufficient cause dispensed with by the Court.)

(b) Every petition for divorce on any of the grounds mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1-A) of Section 13 of the Act shall be supported by a certified copy of the decree for judicial separation or for restitution of conjugal rights, as the case may be.

5. Forms of proceedings.—The following proceedings under the Act shall be initiated by petition :

(i)                 under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights;

(ii)               under sub-section (1) of Section 10 for judicial separation;

(iii)             under sub-section (2) of Section 10 for rescinding a decree for judicial

            separation;

         (iv) under Section 11 for declaring a marriage null and void;

         (v)  under Section 12 for annulment of marriage by a decree of nullity.

        (vi)  under Section 13 for divorce;

(vii)   under Section 13-B for divorce by mutual consent;

(viii)   under Section 14 for leave to present a petition for divorce before the expiration of one year from the date of marriage;

(ix)   under Section 26 for making, revoking, suspending or varying orders and provisions with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of minor children.

6. Petition by or against a person suffering from mental disorder.—A

person suffering from mental disorder will be treated in all respects as a person of unsound mind for the purpose of Order XXXII of the Code.

1. Vide No.262/Gazette OSD (R) Delhi, 16th October, 1979.

7. Contents of petition.—In addition to the particulars required to be given under Order VII, Rule I of the Code and Section 20 (1) of the Act, all petitions under Secs.9 to 13 shall state—

(a)   the place and date of marriage;

(b)   whether the petitioner and the respondent were Hindu by religion at the time of the marriage and whether they continue to be so up to the date of filing of the petition;

(c)   the name, status and domicile of the wife and the husband before the marriage and at the time of filing the petition;

(d)   the address where the parties of the marriage reside at the time of the presentation of the petition and last resided, together;

(e)   the names of children, if any, of the marriage, their sex and their dates of birth or ages;

(/)   if prior to the date of the petition there has been any proceeding under the Act between the parties to the petition, full particulars thereof;

(g)   the matrimonial offence or offences alleged or other ground, upon which the relief is sought, setting out with sufficient particularity the time and places of the acts alleged and other facts relied upon, but not the evidence by which they are intended to be proved , e.g.—

(i)   if the petition is for restitution of conjugal rights the-date on or from which and the circumstances under which the respondent withdraw from the society of the petitioner;

(ii)   if the petition is for a decree of nullity of marriage on the grounds specified in clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, the particulars of force or fraud and the circumstances in which force or fraud had been practised along with the time when the facts relied upon ~ were discovered and whether or not marital intercourse with the consent of the petitioner took place after the discovery of the said facts;

(iii)   in every petition for judicial separation/divorce by either the husband or the wife on the ground that the other party has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse, the petitioner shall state the name, occupation and place of residence of such person or persons so far as they can be ascertained, the specific acts of sexual intercourse and the occasion when and the place where such acts were committed.

(iv)   in the case of alleged desertion, the date and the circumstances in which it began, in the case of cruelty the specific acts of cruelty and the occasion when and the place where such acts were committed;

(v)   in the case of unsoundness of mind or mental disorder the time when such unsoundness of mind or mental disorder began to manifest itself and the nature and the period of the curative steps taken;

(vi)   in the case of virulent and incurable form of leprosy or venereal disease in communicable form, when such ailment began to manifest and the nature and the period of the curative steps taken;

(vii)   if the petition is on the ground specified in Section 13 (1), the date of renunciation and the particulars of the religious order which the respondent has entered into;

(viii)   if the petition is on the ground specified in Section 13 (1) (vii), the date and the place where “the respondent was last seen or heard of alive and the steps, if any, taken to  ascertain his or her whereabouts;

(ix)                               where the petition is founded on the ground of rape or sodomy, the

              occasion when, the place where and the names and the addresses of

           persons with whom, such acts were committed. In case of conviction

           for committing rape or sodomy, the particulars thereof;

(_x) where the petition is founded on the ground of bestiality,
the occasion when, the place where and the particulars, of
the beast with whom, the husband had been guilty of
bestiality;

(xi)  in the case of divorce under Section 13(2) (iii) of the Act, particulars of the decree under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 or of order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (or under the corresponding Section 488 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1998), together with an affidavit that since the passing of such decree, or order, cohabitation between the parties has not been resumed for one year or upwards;

(xii)   in the case of divorce under Section 13(2) the date and the place of birth of the wife together with the date and the place of reputation and its mode;

(h)   the property mentioned in Section 27 of the Act, if any;

(i)   the relief or reliefs, prayed for.

8. Affidavit of non-collusion.—Every petition excepting petitions under Section 11 shall be accompanied by an affidavit to the effect that it is not presented or prosecuted in collusion with the respondent. In the petition seeking judicial separation/divorce on the ground that the party has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse, it will also state that the petitioner has not, in any manner, been accessory to or connived at the acts complained of.

9. Affidavit of non-condonation.—Where the ground of the petition is the ground specified in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 or where the ground for the petition is cruelty, the petition shall be accompanied by an affidavit to the effect that the petitioner has not condoned the act or acts complained of or not in any manner condoned the cruelty.

10. Affidavit of non-cohabitation.—Every petition under Section 13 (1-A) (i) of the Act shall be accompanied by an affidavit made by the petitioner that there has been no resumption of cohabitation as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for judicial separation in a proceeding to which they were parties.

11. Affidavit of non-restitution of conjugal rights.—Every petition under Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of the Act shall be accompanied by an affidavit made by the petitioner of the fact that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties.

12. Necessary parties.—(a) In every petition for divorce/judicial separation on the ground that the respondent has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse, the petitioner shall make the alleged adulterer or adultress a co-respondent to the petition. The petitioner may, however, apply to the Court, on application supported by affidavit for leave to dispense with the joinder of such person as a co-respondent on any of the following grounds;

(i)   that the name of such person is unknown to the petitioner although he/she has made due efforts for discovery;

(ii)   that such person is dead;

(iii)   that the respondent being the wife is leading a life of a prostitute and that the petitioner knows of no person with whom voluntary sexual intercourse has been committed; or

(iv)   any other reason that the Court considers sufficient.

(b) In every petition under Section 13 (2) (i) of the Act the petitioner shall make the “other wife” mentioned in that Section a co-respondent.

(c) In every petition under Section 11 of the Act on the ground that the condition in Section 5 (i) is contravened the petitioner shall make the spouse alleged to be living at the time of the marriage a co-respondent.

13. Application for leave under Section 14 of the Act.—(1) In support of an application for leave under Section 14 of the Act there shall be filed an affidavit by the applicant stating the grounds on which the application is made, the particulars of the exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity alleged, whether there has been any previous application under the said Section , whether there are living any children of the marriage, if so, the names and dates of birth or ages of such children, their sex, where and with whom they are residing, whether any and, if so, what attempts at reconciliation have been made under any circumstances which may assist the Court to determine the question whether there is reasonable probability of a reconciliation between the parties.

(2) Notices of the application shall be given to the respondent who may contest the same by filing affidavit in opposition.

(3) In exceptional circumstances the Court may, if necessary, order a deponent to be cross-examined on his or her affidavit.

(4) The application shall be accompanied by the petition intended to be filed.

(5) When the Court grants leave, the petition shall be deemed to have been duly filed on the date of the said order, provided proper Court-fee thereon is paid within the time allowed by the Court.

14. Notices.—The Court shall issue notice in Form ‘A’ accompanied by a copy of petition to the respondent and the co-respondent, if any. The notice shall require, unless the Court otherwise directs the respondent or correspondent to file his or her written statement in Court on or before the date fixed in the notice.

15. Written statement in answer to petition.—Where a counter-claim is made in terms of Section 23-A, it shall comply with the Rules applicable to petitions on the like grounds.

16. Application for alimony and maintenance.—Every application for maintenance pendente lite, permanent alimony and maintenance, or for custody, maintenance and education expenses of minor children, shall be supported by an affidavit and shall state the average monthly income of the petitioner

and the respondent, the sources of their income, particulars, of other movable and immovable property owned by them jointly or severally, the details of their liabilities, if any, along with the number of their dependants, if any, and the names and ages of such dependants.

17. Supply of certified copy of the decree to the parties.—(1) In every cause where a marriage is dissolved by a decree of divorce, the Court passing the decree shall give a copy thereof free of cost to each of the parties. The copy so supplied shall be authenticated as ‘true copy’ by the Court passing the decree.

(2) The Court shall maintain a register where the particulars of the decree shall be incorporated and signatures of the parties or their Advocates or agents shall be obtained in token of their having received a copy of the decree.

18. Forms.—The forms given in the Appendix to these rules with such variations as the circumstances of each case may require, shall be used.

FORM A

In the District Court at. ………………

Matrimonial and Divorce Jurisdiction Case No. ………….

Date of institution. …………………

…………………………………………………………..                                  Petitioner

Versus

………………………………………………….                                             Respondent

………………………………………………,….                                       Co-respondent

To

Whereas. ……………….. .has presented a petition/application

against you for………………… .under section_,………… .of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (No.25 of 1955) (a copy of the said petition/ application is sent herewith), you a*re hereby summoned to appear in this Court on the. …………… at 10 o’clock in the forenoon to answer the

said petition/application on……………either in person or by recognized

agent duly instructed and able to answer all material questions relating to the case or who shall be accompanied by some other person able to answer all such questions or by an advocate, similarly instructed or accompanied and you are directed to produce on that day all documents upon which you intend to rely in support of your defence. You should file a written statement/ answer to the petition/application on the date mentioned above.

You are further informed that in default of your appearance on the ….    ,

. . day. ………… .and in the manner above-mentioned, the petition/.

application shall be heard and determined in your absence.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this…………….

day of………….. Two thousand and…………..

Dated. ……………..           District Judge at. ……………

FORM B

In the District Court at. ……………….

………………………………………………………………………………..Petitioner

Versus …………………………………………………………………………….Respondent

Petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (No.25 of 1955)

The petitioner prays as follows :

1. A marriage was solemnized between the parties according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on………………….at………………….The said marriage is

registered with the Registrar of Marriages. A certified copy of the relevant extract from the Hindu Marriage Register………………….is filed herewith and

an affidavit duly attested.

2. The status and place of residence of the parties to the marriage before the marriage and at the time of filing the petition were as follows :

————————————————————————————————————–

Husband                                               Wife

Status          
Age               Place of                      residence

Status        
Age          Place of reside ce 

(i)                 Before marriage

(ii)               (ii)    At the time of filing the petition

—————————————————————————————————————-

(Whether a party is a Hindu by religion or not is a part of his or her status).

3. (In this paragraph state the names of the children, if any, of the marriage together with their sex, dates of birth or ages.)

4. The respondent has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn, from the society of the petitioner with effect from………………….

(The circumstances under which  the respondent withdrew from  the society of the petitioner be stated).

5. The petition is not presented in collusion with the respondent.

6. There has not been any unnecessary or improper delay in filing the petition.

7. There is no other legal ground why the relief should not be granted.

8. There has not been any previous proceeding with regard to the marriage by or on behalf of any party.

Or,

There have been the following previous proceedings with regard to the marriage by or on behalf of the parties :

Result

Serial No.

Names of parties

Nature of proceedings with Section of the Act

Number and year of the case

Name and location of the Court

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

9. The marriage was solemnized at………………….The parties last resided

together at………………….The parties are now residing at………………….(within

the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court).

10. The petitioner submits that this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain this petition.

11. The petitioner prays for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent.

(Signature)

Verification

The above named petitioner states on solemn affirmation that paras 1 to………………….of the petition are true to the petitioner’s knowledge and

paras ………………….to ………………….are true to the petitioner’s information

received and believed to be true by him/her.

Verified………………….(place)

Dated………………….

Petitioner

FORM C

In the District Court at. ………………..

…………………………………………………………………………………………..Petitioner

Versus

………………………………………………………………………………………..Respondent

……………………………………………………………………………………Co-Respondent

Petition for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (No. 25 of 1955)

The petitioner prays as follows :

1. A marriage was solemnized between the parties/petitioner and ther respondent according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on………………….

at………………….The said marriage is registered with the Registrar of

Marriages. A certified copy of the relevant extract from the Hindu Marriage Register………………….is filed herewith.

An affidavit is duly attested.

2. The status and place of residence of the parties to the marriage before the marriage and at the time of filing the petition were as follows.

Husband                                                                Wife

Status       Age               Place of              Status         Age       Place of
                  residence                                            residence

(i)                 Before marriage

(ii)               At the time of filing the petition

(Whether a party is a Hindu by religion or not is a part of his or her status.)

3. (In this paragraph state the names of the children, if any, of the marriage together with their sex, dates of birth or ages.)

4. The respondent has………….(any one or more of the grounds available

under Section 10 may be pleaded here. The matrimonial offences charged should be set out in separate paragraphs with times and places of their alleged commission. The facts on which the claim to relief is founded should be stated in accordance with the Rules and as distinctly as the nature of the case permits).

5. Where the ground of petition is on the ground specified in clause (1) of Section 13(1), the petitioner has not in any manner been accessory to or connived at or condoned the acts complained of.

6. (Where the ground of petition is cruelty). The petitioner has not in any manner condoned the cruelty.

7. The petition is not presented in collusion with the respondent.

8. There has not been any unnecessary or improper delay in filing the petition.

9. There is no other legal ground why the relief should not be granted.

10. There have not been any previous proceedings with regard to the marriage by or on behalf of any party.

Or,

There have been the following previous proceedings with regard to the marriage by or on behalf of the parries.

Result

Serial No.

Names of parties

Nature of proceedings with Section of the Act

Number and year of the case

Name and location of the Court

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

11. The marriage was solemnised at………………..The parties last resided

together at………………..The parties are now residing at ………………..(within

the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court)

12. The petitioner submits that this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain this petition.

13. The petitioner, therefore, prays for a decree for judicial separation against the respondent.

Petitioner

Verification

The above-named petitioner states on solemn affirmation that paras 1 to……………………of the petition are true to the petitioner’s knowledge and

paras………………..to………………..are true to the petitioner’s information

received and believed to be true by him/her.

Verified at………………..(place)

Dated………………..

Petitioner

FORMD

In the District Court at. ……………….

……………………………………..                                                            Petitioner

Versus

…………………………………………                                                                 Respondent

Petition for a decree of nullity of marriage under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (No.25 of 1955).

The petitioner prays as follows^_______

1. A marriage was solemnized between the parties according to Hindu_ rites and ceremonies after the commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act on………………..at………………..A certified copy of the relevant extract from

the Hindu Marriage Register is filed.

An affidavit is duly attested herewith.

2.  The status and place of residence of the parties to the marriage before the marriage and at the time of filling the petition were as follows.

Husband                                               Wife

Status         
Age               Place of                      residence

Status        
Age          Place of reside ce 

(iii)             Before marriage

(iv)              At the time of filing the petition

——————————————————————————————————

(Whether a party is a Hindu by religion or not is a part of his or her

status).                                                                                                                  

3. (In this paragraph state the names of the children, if any, of the marriage together with their sex, dates of birth or ages.)

4. The respondent had a spouse living at the time of the marriage (give full particulars).

The parties are within the degrees of prohibited relationship and there is no custom or usage governing each of them which permits of a marriage between the two. (Specify the exact relationship between the parties).

The parties are sapindas of each other and there is no custom or usage governing each of them which permits of a marriage between the two. (Specify the exact relationship between the parties).

(One or more of the above grounds may be pleaded, and portions which are not applicable should be scored out. Facts on which the claim to relief is founded should be stated in compliance with the Rles and as distinctly as the nature of the case permits.)

5. There has not been any unnecessary or improper delay in filing the petition.

6. There is no other legal ground why relief should not be granted.

7. There have not been any previous proceedings with regard to the marriage by or on behalf of any party.

Or,

There have been the following previous proceedings with regard to the

marriage by or on behalf of the parties.

Serial No.
Names of
Nature oL
Number
Name and
Result 

parties- —
proceedings with Section
and year of the case
location of the Court 

of the Act 

(i)

(ii)

(iii)
- 

(iv)

8. The marriage was solemnized at………………..The parties last resided

together at………………..The parties are now residing at ………………..(within

the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court).

9. The petitioner submits that this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain this petition.

10. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the marriage solemnized between the parties being null and void may be so declared by the Court by a decree of nullity.

Verification

The above named petitioner states on solemn affirmation that paras 1 to………………..of the petition are true to the petitioner’s knowledge and

paras………………..to………………..are true to the petitioner’s information

received and believed to be true by him/her.

Verified at………………..(place)

Dated………………..

Petitioner

FORM E

In the District Court at. ……………….

………………………………………………..                                                 Petitioner

Versus

……………………………………………………..                                            Respondent

………………………………………………………                                            Co-respondent

Petition for a decree of nullity of marriage under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (No.25 of 1955).

The petitioner prays as follows :

1. A marriage was solemnized between the parties according to Hindu rites and ceremonies after the commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act on………………..at………………..A certified copy of the relevant extract from

the Hindu Marriage Register is filed herewith.

An affidavit is duly attested.

2. The status and place of residence of the parties to the marriage before the marriage and at the time of filling the petition were as follows.

Husband                                               Wife

Status         
Age               Place of                      residence

Status        
Age          Place of reside ce 

(v)                Before marriage

(vi)              At the time of filing the petition

——————————————————————————————————

(Whether a party is a Hindu by religion or not is a part of his or her ^: status).

3. (In this paragraph state the names of the children, if any, of the marriage together with their sex, dates of birth or ages.)

4. (One or more of the grounds as specified in Section 12 of the Act may be pleaded here. Facts on which the claim to relief is founded should be stated in accordance with the Rules and as distinctly as the nature of the case permits.)

5. The petition is not instituted in collusion with the respondent.

6. There has not been any unnecessary or improper delay in filing the petition.

7. There is no other legal ground why relief should not be granted.

8. There have not been any previous proceedings with regard to the marriage by or on behalf of any parties.

Or,

There have been the following previous, proceedings with regard to the marriage by or on behalf of the parties.

Serial No.
Names of
Nature of
Number
Name and
Result 

parties
proceedings with Section
and year of the case
location of the Court 

of the Act 

(i)

(ii)

(in)

(iv)

9. The marriage was solemnised at………………..The parties last resided

together at………………..The parties are now residing at ………………..(within

the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court).

10. The petitioner submits that this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain this petition.

11. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the marriage between the parties being voidable may be anulled by the Court by a decree of nullity.

Petitioner Verification

The above-named petitioner states on solemn affirmation that paras 1 to………………..of the petition are true to the petitioner’s knowledge and

paras………………..to……………….are true to the petitioner’s information

received and believed to be true by him/her.

Verified at………………..(place)

Dated………………..                                                            Petitioner

FORM F

In the District Court at. ……………….

……………………………………………………………………………Petitioner

Versus

……………………………………………………………………….Respondent

…………………………………………………………………..Co-respondent

Petition of dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (No.25 of 1955).

The petitioner prays as follows :

1. A marriage was solemnized between the parties according to Hindu rites and ceremonies after the commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on ……………….at……………….

A certified copy of the relevant extract from the Hindu Marriage Register is filed herewith.

An affidavit is duly attested.

2. The status and place of residence of the parties to the marriage before the marriage and at the time of filing the petition were as follows :

Husband                                               Wife

1 

1
1
1
1 

Status         Age
Place of
Status        Age       Place of 

residence
residence 

(i)   Before marriage (ii)   At the time of filing the petition

(Whether a party is a Hindu by religion or not is a part of his or her status.)

3. (In this paragraph state the names of the children, if any, of the marriage together with their sex, dates of birth or ages).

4. The respondent……………….(one or more of the grounds specified in

Section 13 may be pleaded here. The facts on which the claim to relief is founded should be stated in accordance with the Rules and as distinctly as the nature of the case permits. If the ground as specified in clause (i) of Section 13 (1) is pleaded, the petitioner should give particulars as nearly as he can, of facts of voluntary sexual intercourse alleged to have been committed. The matrimonial offence /of fences charged should be set out in separate paragraphs with the times and places of their alleged commission).

5. (Where the ground of petition is the ground specified-m clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 13, the petitioner has not in any manner been accessory to or connieved at or condoned the act (s) complained of.]

6. (Where the ground of petition is cruelty). The petitioner has not in any manner condoned the cruelty.

7. The petition is not presented in collusion with the respondent.

8. There has not been any unnecessary or improper delay in filing the petition.

9. There is no other legal ground why the relief should not be granted.

10. There have not been any previous proceedings with regard to the marriage by or on behalf of any party.

Or,

There have been the following previous proceedings with regard to the marriage by or on behalf of the parties :

Serial No.
Names of
Nature of
Number
Name and
Result 

parties
proceedings with Section
and year of the case
location of the Court 

of the Act 

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

11. The marriage was solemnized at………….. ….The parties last resided

together at………………….The parties are now residing at……………….(within

the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court).

12. The petitioner submits that this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition.

13. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent may be dissolved by a decree of divorce.

Petitioner Verification

The above-named petitioner states on solemn affirmation that paras 1 .of the petition are true to the petitioner’s knowledge and paras………………….to………………….are true to the petitioner’s information

received and believed to be true by him/her.

Verified at………………….(place)

Dated………………….

Petitioner

In the District Court at………………….

…………………………………………………………………………Petitioner No.l

…………………………………………………………….Petitoner No. 2

Petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (No.25 of 1955) as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976.

The petitioners prays as follows.

1. A marriage was solemnized between the parties according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on………………….at………………….A certified copy of the

relevant extract from the Hindu Marriage Register is filed herewith. An affidavit is duly attested.

2. The status and place of residence of the parties to the marriage before the marriage and at the time of filling the petition were as follows.

Husband                                               Wife

Status         
Age               Place of                      residence

Status        
Age          Place of reside ce 

(vii)            Before marriage

(viii)          At the time of filing the petition

——————————————————————————————————

(Whether a party is a Hindu by religion or not is a part of his or her status.)

3. (In this paragraph state the place where the parties to the marriage last resided together and the names of the children, if any, of the marriage together with their sex, dates of birth or ages.)

4. The parties to the petition have been living separately since………………….and have not been able to live together since then.

5. The parties to the petition have mutually agreed that their marriage should be dissolved.

6. The mutual consent has not been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence.

7. The petition is not presented in collusion with each other.

8. There has not been any unnecessary or improper delay in instituting the proceedings.

9. There is no other legal ground why relief should not be granted.

10. The petitioners submit that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition.

11. The petitioners, therefore, pray that the marriage between the parries may be dissolved by a decree of divorce.

Petitioners

Verification

The above-named petitioners state on solemn affirmation that paras 1 to………………….to the petition are true to petitioners knowledge and paras

………………….to………………….are true to the petitioners information received

and believed to be true by them.

Verified at………………….(place)

Dated………………….

Petitioners

FORM H

In the District Court at………………….

……………………………………………………………………………Petitioner

Versus

………………………………………………………………………….Respondent

Petition under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (No.25 of 1955) praying that a petition for divorce may be allowed to be presented within one year of the marriage.

The petitioner prays as under :

1. A marriage was solemnized between the parries according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on………………….at………………….

A certified copy of the relevant extract from the Hindu Marriage Register is filed herewith. An affidavit is duly attested.

2. The status and place of residence of the parties to the marriage before the marriage and at the time of filing the petition were as follows :

Husband                                               Wife

Status         
Age               Place of                      residence

Status        
Age          Place of reside ce 

(ix)              Before marriage

(x)                At the time of filing the petition

——————————————————————————————————

(Whether a party is a Hindu by religion or not is a part of his or her status).

3. (In this paragraph state the names of the children, if any, of the marriage together with their sex, dates of birth or ages.)

4. This is a case of exceptional hardship of the petitioner/exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent (state here in accordance with the Rules and as distinctly as the nature of the case permits all the particulars about the exceptional hardship or depravity, as the case may be).

5. The marriage was solemnized at………………….The parties last resided

together at………………….(within the local limits of the ordinary original

jurisdiction of this Court).

6. The petitioner submits that this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the application.

7. The petitioner, therefore, prays that he/she may be allowed to present a petition for divorce within one year of the marriage.

Petitioner

Verification

The above-named petitioner states on solemn affirmation that paras 1 to ………………….of the petition are true to the petitioner’s knowledge and

information received and believed to be true by him/her.

Verified at………………….(place).

Dated………………….

Petitioner

FORM I

In the District Court at……………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………………Petitioner

Versus

……………………………………………………………………………..Respondent

Petition for maintenance pendente lite and for expenses of proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act No.25 of 1955).

The petitioner prays as follows :

1. A proceeding for………………….under Section ………………….of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 is pending between the parties in this Court, .the next date of hearing whereof is………………….

2. The petitioner owns no other movable or immovable property and has no other source of income except the following………………….(give full

particulars of the petitioner’s property and income).

3. The petitioner has no independent income sufficient for his/her support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding. The respondent has not made any provision for the petitioner’s maintenance.

4. The respondent has sources of income and owns movable and immovable property mentioned below.

………………….(give full particulars of respondent’s income and property).

5. The only person dependent upon the respondent is the petitioner himself/herself and (give here the details, of the liabilities, if any, of the parties along with the details of the dependants, if any, and the names and ages of such dependants.)

6. The petitioner submits that having regard to the respondent’s own

-income and his/her property and having regard to the conduct of the

respondent and the petitioner, a sum of Rs…………………..per month as and

by way of maintenance and support is the just proper amount for the maintenance and support of the petitioner.

7. The petitioner prays that the respondent should be ordered to pay a sum of Rs…………………..as the petitioner’s expenses of the proceedings and a

sum of Rs………………….monthly for petitioner’s maintenance during the

proceedings.

Petitioner

Verification

The above-named petitioner states on solemn affirmation that paras 1 to………………….of the petition are true to the petitioner’s knowledge and

paras………………….to………………….are true to the petitioner’s information

received and believed to be true by him/her.

Verified at………………….(place)

Dated………………….

Petitioner

FORM J

In the District Court at. ………………

…………………………………………………………….                                   Petitioner

Versus

………………………………………………………………                                Respondent

Application for permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (No.25 of 1955).

The applicant prays as follows.

1. A proceeding between the parties for………………….under Section

………………….of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is pending in this Court, was

decided, particulars of which are given below :

(In case main proceedings give only the next date of hearing)

Remarks

Name and year of the case

Names of parties

Date of decision

2. The applicant owns no other movable or immovable property and has no other source of income except the following………………….(give full

particulars about applicant’s income and property).

3. The respondent has sources of income and owns movable and immovable property mentioned below.

………………….(give full particulars of respondents income and property).

4. The only person dependent upon the respondent is the applicant himself/ herself or the applicant and (give here the details of the liabilities, if any, of the parties along with the details of the dependants).

5. The respondent has not made any provision for the applicant’s maintenance.

6. The applicant has not remarried and has not been guilty of any conduct which would disentitle him/her to receive maintenance from the respondent.

7. The applicant submits that he/she is entitled to alimony for his/her maintenance and support in any amount sufficient to maintain the standard of life to which he/she is accustomed.

8. The applicant prays that having regard to the income of the parties, their conduct and other circumstances of the case, the respondent may be ordered to pay to the applicant for his/her maintenance and support until death or remarriage a gross/monthly/periodical sum of Rs…………………..(score

out portion not necessary) and such payment may be secured by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent.

Applicant

Verification

The above-named applicant states on solemn affirmation that paras 1 to………………….of the application are true to the applicant’s knowledge and

paras………………….to………………….are true to the applicants information

received and believed to be true by him/her.                                  

Verified at………………….(place)

Dated………………….

                                                                                      Applicant

http://www.divorcelawyerindia.com/updates/hindu-marriage-act-1955-delhi-law-house-part-vii.html