IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, DELHI

H.M.A PETITION NO. OF _______________2006

In the matter of :

SHRI AMIT SHARMA ….PETITIONER

Versus

SMT.BINDIA SHARMA …..Respondent

INDEX.
Sl.No. Particulars. Pages. C.Fees.

1. Urgent Application. A.

2. Memo of Parties. B.

3. Petition Under Section 13 (1) 01-23 Rs.13/-

(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955.

4. Affidavit in Support. 24-25

5. Application Under Section 14 26-38 Rs.1.25

of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955.

6. Affidavit in Support. 39-40

7. Power of Attorney. 41 Rs.1.25

Delhi Petitioner
Dated:25.02.2006
Through

Gurmit Singh Hans & Vishal Soni

Advocates
Chamber No.61FF, Western Wing,
 Hazari Courts, Delhi.
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, DELHI

H.M.A PETITION NO. OF _______________2006

In the matter of :
MEMO OF PARTIES.

SHRI AMIT SHARMA

SON OF SHRI LATE SH.KISHORI LAL SHARMA
R/O G-2/47, FIRST FLOOR,SEC.16,
ROHINI, DELHI-85 ….PETITIONER

Versus

SMT.BINDIA SHARMA
DAUGHTER OF SH. PURAN CHAND SHARMA
WIFE OF SHRI AMIT SHARMA
R/O 238/1, D-6, SEC.6, ROHINI, DELHI-85

Also at: ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRA STRUCTURE LTD.

7TH FLOOR, ANTARIKSH BHAWAN,
K.G. MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110001. …..Respondent

Delhi Petitioner
Dated:25.02.2006
Through

Gurmit Singh Hans & Vishal Soni

Advocates
Chamber No.61FF, Western Wing,
 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF DISTRICT

JUDGE, DELHI
H.M.A PETITION NO. OF _______________2006

In the matter of :

SHRI AMIT SHARMA

SON OF SHRI LATE SH.KISHORI LAL SHARMA
R/O G-2/47, FIRST FLOOR,SEC.16,
ROHINI, DELHI-85 ….PETITIONER

Versus

SMT.BINDIA SHARMA
DAUGHTER OF SH. PURAN CHAND SHARMA
WIFE OF SHRI AMIT SHARMA
R/O 238/1, D-6, SEC.6, ROHINI, DELHI-85

Also at: ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRA STRUCTURE LTD.

7TH FLOOR, ANTARIKSH BHAWAN,
K.G. MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110001. …..Respondent

PETITION UNDER SECTION 13 (i) (a) OF

OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955
 (AMENDED UPTO DATE) FOR THE
DECREE OF DIVORCE.

Most Respectfully Showeth :

1. That the marriage between the petitioner and the

respondent was solemnized on 27th November, 2005, at G-

2/47, First Floor, SEC.16, ROHINI, DELHI-85, according to

the Hindu rites and customs. Necessary affidavit to this effect

is filed herewith.

2. That the status, age and place of residence of the parties to

the marriage, before and at the time of filing this petition

were/are as under:

Before marriage

Husband Wife
Status & Age Place of residence Status Age Place of residence

Hindu Bachelor 27 G-2/30, Sec.16, Hindu Virgin 26 238/1, D-6, SEC.6,

Yrs. Rohini, Delhi. Rohini, Delhi.

At the time of filing of this petition

Husband Wife
Status & Age Place of residence Status Age Place of residence

Hindu Married 28 G-2/47, First Floor, Hindu Married 27 ---do----

Sec.16, Rohini, Delhi.
3. That after the marriage both the parties to the petition started

living together firstly at G-2/30, Ground Floor, SEC.16,

ROHINI, DELHI-85 as a husband and wife and the marriage

was duly consummated, and later shifted to G-2/47, First

Floor, Sec.16, Rohini, Delhi, after about 1 month. No issue

was born out of this wedlock till today.

4. That the Respondent was introduced to the Petitioner by his

brother in law and later the marriage between the Petitioner
and the Respondent was settled. The brother in law of the
Petitioner is also the distant relative of the mother of the
Respondent.
5. That the Petitioner was first time introduced by his aforesaid

brother in law with the Respondent in the first week of

February, 2005, at Japanese Park, Sec.11, Rohini, Delhi, and

there the Petitioner and the Respondent got sufficient time

and chance to talk and to understand each other.

6. That after the said meeting the Petitioner and the Respondent

started meeting with each other very frequently, and

therefore, they got sufficient opportunities to understand each

other. The first meeting between the Petitioner and the

Respondent without parents, could only be possible when the

 Respondent called the Petitioner on telephone after her office

hours in C.P. and after that the Petitioner and the Respondent

met several time.

7. That during the aforesaid meetings and interactions between

the Petitioner and the Respondent, the Respondent disclosed

her pre-marital relations with two boys namely Sanjeev and

Kakku and the same was even confirmed by the elder brother

of the Respondent namely Lalit Sharma @ Lucky, with

whom the Petitioner got many chances to meet and

discussed, but he always insisted the Petitioner to get marry

with the Respondent as early as possible and also assured that

the Respondent will stopped her all ill-activities.

8. That even after listening such a conduct of the Respondent,

the Petitioner always took the same at ease and took in a

broad way, but at the same time took the words of the

Respondent that she will neither come in contact of her pre-

marital relations nor shall think of them.

9. That after the second meeting, which was in C.P. the

Petitioner started meeting the Respondent after her office

hours and also continued to drop her near her residence and

the same was continued for a long period.

10. That during this period, which was between the first meeting

in Japanese Park, and the engagement, the Petitioner found

that the Respondent was not actually of his temperament, but

the brother of the Respondent always gave assurance that the

Respondent shall change her attitude and behaviour after her

matrimonial engagement and the Petitioner under the said

impression never thought to discontinue his relation with the

Respondent and at last the engagement ceremony was

performed in the last week of April, 2005.

11. That even after the engagement the Respondent never left

any chance to insult the Petitioner or his family and she

always came with new problem for the Petitioner and the

Petitioner never left any chance to settle the demands and the

desires of the Respondent in an utmost amicable manner.

12. That during this period once the Petitioner got fed-up with

the behaviour of the Respondent and when the Petitioner

tried to make the Respondent correct, the Respondent

stopped calling or listening to the Petitioner for a period of

approximately 15-20 days and the said silence could only

broke by the efforts of the Petitioner.

13. That in the first week of November, 2005, when the mother

of the Respondent requested the Petitioner to help them for

getting and deciding the place of marriage, the Petitioner

with a great efforts could manage a DDA Park, for the place

of solemnization of marriage, but in the last moment, the

mother and the brother of the Respondent changed the said

park without any rhyme and reasons and even without

disclosing the same to the Petitioner and his family.

14. That the aforesaid fact of changing the place of marriage by

the mother and the brother of the Respondent, was only come

to the knowledge of the Petitioner, when the Petitioner called

 the Respondent from the shop of Marriage Cards. The

Petitioner called the Respondent after purchasing the

marriage cards for the worth of Rs.3,000/-, and after getting

them printed, the telephonic call was made by the Petitioner

to the Respondent, and at that time only the aforesaid fact

was disclosed to the Petitioner, and when the Petitioner said

that he had printed his cards only after the final approval of

the place of marriage by the parents of the Respondent, the

Respondent without any console on the said wastage of

money, uttered in a filthy language that “AAG LAGAA

DO IN SHADI KE CARDO KO”

15. That the Petitioner was surprised to listen the aforesaid words

from the Respondent and also tried to cool the Respondent,

but the Respondent in a very hot and unrespected way

disclosed that she had burnt the Heena (Mehandi) on the gas

stove, which was given by the Petitioner, and also said that

the Lehnga which was gifted by the Petitioner to the

Respondent was not of her standard, and further advised the

Petitioner to give the same to his sister or mother. The

 aforesaid words of the Respondent caused great mental

harassment and agony to the Petitioner, but the Petitioner in

the interest of two families curb on his anger.

16. That the Petitioner went to the residence of the Respondent in

her absence and disclosed the aforesaid behaviour and

conduct of the Respondent to her parents, but the parents of

the Respondent took the said matter very lightly and further

the father of the Respondent said that his family has good

love and affection for the Petitioner as they have for their

children and two dogs.

17. That on listening this, the Petitioner was surprised and

astonished as he was compared with the dogs, and this was

the last limit of the Petitioner, therefore, he discussed all the

aforesaid behaviors of the Respondent and her family with

his mother and other relatives.

18. That the mother and the relatives of the Petitioner did not

believe on the version of the Petitioner, and therefore, called

 the parents of the Respondent for a meeting as the mother of

the Petitioner thought that such a differences before the

marriage would be injurious for the happy married life.

19. That in the meeting, the father of the Respondent admitted

that he had compared the Petitioner with his dogs and the

mother of the Respondent accepted the aforesaid behaviour

of the Respondent and also said that they are not interested in

the marriage of the Petitioner and the Respondent.

20. That no result could came out of the aforesaid meeting, and

the parents of the Respondent left the place of the Petitioner

without any settlement.

21. That when there was no contact between the Petitioner and

the Respondent and also between their families for more than

4 days, the Petitioner and his family decided to not to

continue with any relation with the Respondent and her

family.
22. That the Petitioner informed the father of the Respondent

about the aforesaid decision of him and his family and even

after that there was no telephonic call or massage from the

Respondent side.

23. That few days before the decided date of marriage i.e.

27.11.2005, the mother of the Respondent called the

Petitioner on his mobile phone that they want to marry their

daughter with the Petitioner, but the Respondent informed the

mother of the Respondent that he and his family had already

made their mind to not to continue the relationship with the

Respondent and her family members.

24. That when the date of marriage came more near, the

Respondent called the Petitioner to her office in Cannaught

Place, and emotionally blackmailed the Petitioner for the

marriage and also wrongfully stated her father has decided to

commit suicide if the marriage between the Petitioner and the

Respondent shall not be done.

25. That considering this fact the Petitioner tried to convinced his

mother or other family members, but no one was ready to

take part in such a marriage where the differences, tussle,

disputes, tensions, disrespect, harassment, tortures, and many

other problems came before the solemnization of marriage.

26. That at last all the family members of the Petitioner including

his mother decided to boycott the marriage of the Petitioner

and the Respondent and therefore, the marriage between the

Petitioner and the Respondent was solemnized in the absence

and without the consent of all the family members of the

Petitioner including his mother.

27. That even after the marriage neither the mother nor any

relatives of the Petitioner ever came in the family life of the

Petitioner and the Respondent. It is pertinent to mention here

that even the Respondent had never made any efforts to

reunite the Petitioner with his mother and other family

members, even after understanding the fact that the father of

the Petitioner was died when he was very young and he with
 the help of his mother could only settle the life of his family

and his sisters.

28. That on the first night while performing the sex the

Respondent gave a great tension to the Petitioner by

comparing his body, more specifically shoulders with her

colleague Shree Kant by saying “ SHREE KE TO

SHOULDERS BAHOOT STRONG HAI”. This gave a great

mental harassment and humiliation to the Petitioner.

29. That the Petitioner took the Respondent for the trip to

Veshno Mata and there also the Respondent did not leave any

chance to humiliate and insult the Petitioner.

30. That while coming back from Veshno Mata the Petitioner

again was surprised when the Respondent said that she is

tired and she wants to have a small amount of liquor and after

discussion the Petitioner came to know that the Respondent

was in a habit to have a liquor, but in the said trip the

drinking of liquor could not be possible.

31. That on 18.12.2005, when the Petitioner and the Respondent

came back to their residence, the Petitioner was feeling

tiredness, and once again the Respondent offered to have a

glass of bear to the Petitioner and when the Petitioner started

pouring bear in the glass, the Respondent interrupted the

Petitioner by saying that he does not know the actual

procedure of pouring bear in the glass and at the same time

the Respondent tried to teach the Petitioner about the same.

32. That after seeing such a behaviour of the Respondent, the

Petitioner discussed with the Respondent at a length and then

only the Petitioner came to know about the actual character

of the Respondent as she was not only the habitual drinking,

but the smoker too and this had given a great mental

harassment to the Petitioner.

33. That on 31.12.2005, when the Petitioner and the Respondent

came back in the evening from the market, the Petitioner

found two greeting Cards on the name of the Respondent and

 in the said cards the sender called himself by “I Love You,

Your’s & Only Your’s” (S). The Petitioner even after

seeing those cards tried to oversight the same only to save his

matrimonial relation, but in the night again at the time of

performing of sex, when the Respondent compared the body

of the Petitioner with her colleague Shree Kant, the Petitioner

could not control himself and decided to settle the matter by

this way or that way.

34. That in the same night the Petitioner started asking the

Respondent about her relations out of the matrimonial life

and during the said arguments again the Petitioner was

surprised when he heard the abusive and filthy language from

the Respondent, which even the low cluster people does not

use i.e. the abusive language related to mother and sister of

the Petitioner.

35. That when the Petitioner asked from the Respondent about

where she learnt the said language, the Respondent replied in

a cool manner that these things are very common now a days.
36. That from the said date the Respondent had started using the

aforesaid filthy language in a very ordinary way and very

frequently which has caused a great mental torture to the

Petitioner and the Petitioner has suffered an un-usual extent

from nervous anxiety about his domestic situation and the

same was continued till the last date when the Petitioner was

constrained to leave the matrimonial house as the Petitioner

had understood that if the aforesaid domestic situation shall

continue then it would led to serious injuries to his health.

37. That when the Respondent was not willing to mend herself

from her aforesaid behaviour, the Petitioner stopped talking

with the Respondent to teach her lesson, but even after a

week the Respondent did not change herself and even

become more cruel towards the Petitioner.

38. That on 12.01.2006, when the Petitioner came to his house,

after about 10:00 p.m., he found a lock on the main door of

his house, and then he called at his wife’s parent’s house,

 from there the Petitioner came to know that the Respondent

has decided to live at her parents house for a week, but for

that the Respondent never informed the Petitioner.

39. That the Respondent did not come back for about 10 days

and during this period the Petitioner tried his level best for

calling the Respondent, but the Respondent always avoided

to come back and at the same time threatened him that she

may not come forever and even can go for divorce.

40. That on 23.01.2006, the Respondent came back from her

parental house. It is pertinent to mention here that this time

the Respondent came with more confidence and intolerable

behaviour and under the said impression she put certain

conditions to live with her. Those were the washing of entire

clothes, washing of toilet trice in a week, washing of utensils

etc. when the Petitioner refused to accept her abovesaid

conditions then she threatened to call the police and further

admonished to entangle the Petitioner in a false and frivolous

dowry criminal case.

41. That the Petitioner under a great threat had beard the

abovesaid exceptional hardships, imposed on him time to

time, but on 11.02.2006, the Respondent crossed her all

limits when she called her mother at home and both the ladies

very clearly put different kind of condition that the Petitioner

shall give his entire salary i.e. Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the

Respondent and the Petitioner shall get only Rs.2,000/- p.m.

and Rs.500/- per week for the purpose of petrol and other

expenses.

42. That the Petitioner could not refuse for the aforesaid great

hardship on him as he had already spoiled his relation with

his mother and other relatives, but after seven days when the

Petitioner could not bear the aforesaid hardships and

behaviour of the Respondent, he decided to leave the

company of the Respondent, and therefore, left the

Respondent on 19.02.2006, but the Respondent found

another way to harass the Petitioner by calling in his office

 on telephone and by using abusive language with the

Petitioner and his colleagues. The Respondent had even

called on telephone to the boss of the Petitioner that she will

involve him and his entire office peoples in a criminal case, if

they will not help her to trap the Petitioner.

43. That now at this stage the Petitioner is living under a great

threat of his life, respect, and lousing his only job due to the

aforesaid conduct of the Respondent.

44. That since 19.02.2006, the Petitioner is not going even near

to the parental house of the Respondent as he is having a

great threat of the Respondent.

45. That the Respondent kept continued her aforesaid behavior

and the Petitioner had many times tried to persuade the

respondent to mend her ways and to maintain peace and

harmony in the family. However, the behavior of the

respondent became worse. The Respondent used to abuse the

 petitioner even in the presence of the neighbourers and some

relatives without any reasonable cause.

46. That the Petitioner has explained all his plights and all the

atrocities meted out to him during the short span and the

fraud committed to him by the Respondent; hence in the

interest of justice so that the Petitioner may live with repute

and with all mental satisfaction for rest of his life, the

Petitioner has presented the present petition before the expire

of one year from the date of marriage.

47. That the Petitioner had not condone the acts of cruelties

alleged in the present Petition against the Respondent.

48. That the present petition is not filed in collusion with the

respondent.

49. That there is no other previous proceedings between the

parties except the present one is pending.

50. That there is no unnecessary or improper delay in filing this

petition.

51. That there is no impediment in granting the relief as prayed

for in the petition.

52. That the marriage of the parties was solemnized at Delhi, the

parties to the petition also resided lastly within the

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court, hence this Hon’ble has got

jurisdiction to entertain and try this petition.

53. That the fixed court fee has been affixed on the petition.

PRAYER:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

court may very kindly be pleased to pass a decree of divorce in

favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

 Any other or further order/ relief which this Hon’ble court

deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be

passed / granted in favour of the petitioner.

Delhi Petitioner

Dated: 25th November, 2005.

Through

Gurmit Singh Hans & Vishal Soni

Advocates
Counsel for the Petitioner

VERIFICATION:

I ,the above named deponent do hereby on solemn affirmation

verify that the contents of the above petition from paras no.1 to

48 are true to my knowledge and those of paras no. 49 to 53 are

true on information received and believed to be true, while the

last para is prayer to this Hon’ble court.

Verified at Delhi on 25th day of February, 2006.

Petitioner
 IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, DELHI

H.M.A PETITION NO. OF _______________2006

In the matter of :

SHRI AMIT SHARMA ….PETITIONER

Versus

SMT.BINDIA SHARMA …..Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I, AMIT SHARMA SON OF SHRI LATE SH.KISHORI LAL

SHARMA R/O G-2/47, FIRST FLOOR,SEC.16, ROHINI,

DELHI-85, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That the marriage of the deponent was solemnized with the

respondent on 27th November, 2005 at Delhi, as per the
Hindu rites and customs.

2. That the Petitioner was constrained to leave the matrimonial

house on 20.02.2006, due to the cause and reasons already
explained in the accompanying petition.

3. That the attached petition u/s 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act has not been filed in collusion with the
Respondent.
4. That there is no legal impediment in granting the relief as
prayed for in the petition.

Deponent
Verification :-

I, the above named deponent on solemn affirmation verify that

the contents of the above affidavit from paras no.1 to 4 are true
to my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing is concealed
therefrom.

Verified at Delhi on 24th February, 2006.

Deponent
 IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, DELHI

H.M.A PETITION NO. OF _______________2006

In the matter of :

SHRI AMIT SHARMA ….APPLICANT

Versus

SMT.BINDIA SHARMA …..Respondent

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 14

OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,
1955, AS AMENDED UPTO DATE.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the Applicant has filed the petition under section 13 (1)

(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the Respondent

before this Hon'ble Court.

2. That the contents of the above petition are not repeated here

for the sake of brevity and the same may kindly be read as

part and parcel of the present application.

3. That after the engagement and before the marriage, the got

sufficient time to understand the Respondent and during that

period once the Applicant got fed-up with the behaviour of

the Respondent and when the Applicant tried to make the

Respondent correct, the Respondent stopped calling or

listening to the Applicant for a period of approximately 15-20

days and the said silence could only broke by the efforts of

the Applicant.

4. That in the first week of November, 2005, when the mother

of the Respondent requested the Applicant to help them for

getting and deciding the place of marriage, the Applicant

with a great efforts could manage a DDA Park, for the place

of solemnization of marriage, but in the last moment, the

mother and the brother of the Respondent changed the said

park without any rhyme and reasons and even without

disclosing the same to the Applicant and his family.

5. That the aforesaid fact of changing the place of marriage by

the mother and the brother of the Respondent, was only come
to the knowledge of the Applicant, when the Applicant called
the Respondent from the shop of Marriage Cards. The
 Applicant called the Respondent after purchasing the
marriage cards for the worth of Rs.3,000/-, and after getting
them printed, the telephonic call was made by the Applicant
to the Respondent, and at that time only the aforesaid fact
was disclosed to the Applicant, and when the Applicant said
that he had printed his cards only after the final approval of
the place of marriage by the parents of the Respondent, the
Respondent without any console on the said wastage of
money, uttered in a filthy language that “AAG LAGAA
DO IN SHADI KE CARDO KO”
6. That the Applicant was surprised to listen the aforesaid words

from the Respondent and also tried to cool the Respondent,

but the Respondent in a very hot and unrespected way

disclosed that she had burnt the Heena (Mehandi) on the gas

stove, which was given by the Applicant, and also said that

the Lehnga which was gifted by the Applicant to the

Respondent was not of her standard, and further advised the

Applicant to give the same to his sister or mother. The

aforesaid words of the Respondent caused great mental

harassment and agony to the Applicant, but the Applicant in

the interest of two families curb on his anger.

7. That the Applicant went to the residence of the Respondent

in her absence and disclosed the aforesaid behaviour and

 conduct of the Respondent to her parents, but the parents of

the Respondent took the said matter very lightly and further

the father of the Respondent said that his family has good

love and affection for the Applicant as they have for their

children and two dogs.

8. That on listening this, the Applicant was surprised and

astonished as he was compared with the dogs, and this was

the last limit of the Applicant, therefore, he discussed all the

aforesaid behaviors of the Respondent and her family with

his mother and other relatives.

9. That the mother and the relatives of the Applicant did not

believe on the version of the Applicant, and therefore, called

the parents of the Respondent for a meeting as the mother of

the Applicant thought that such a differences before the

marriage would be injurious for the happy married life.

10. That in the meeting, the father of the Respondent admitted

that he had compared the Applicant with his dogs and the

mother of the Respondent accepted the aforesaid behaviour

of the Respondent and also said that they are not interested in

the marriage of the Applicant and the Respondent.

11. That no result could came out of the aforesaid meeting, and

the parents of the Respondent left the place of the Applicant

without any settlement.

12. That when there was no contact between the Applicant and

the Respondent and also between their families for more than

4 days, the Applicant and his family decided to not to

continue with any relation with the Respondent and her

family.

13. That the Applicant informed the father of the Respondent

about the aforesaid decision of him and his family and even

after that there was no telephonic call or massage from the

Respondent side.

14. That few days before the decided date of marriage i.e.

27.11.2005, the mother of the Respondent called the

Applicant on his mobile phone that they want to marry their

daughter with the Applicant, but the Respondent informed

the mother of the Respondent that he and his family had

already made their mind to not to continue the relationship

with the Respondent and her family members.

15. That when the date of marriage came more near, the

Respondent called the Applicant to her office in Cannaught

Place, and emotionally blackmailed the Applicant for the

marriage and also wrongfully stated her father has decided to

commit suicide if the marriage between the Applicant and the

Respondent shall not be done.

16. That considering this fact the Applicant tried to convinced his

mother or other family members, but no one was ready to

take part in such a marriage where the differences, tussle,

disputes, tensions, disrespect, harassment, tortures, and many

other problems came before the solemnization of marriage.

17. That at last all the family members of the Applicant including

his mother decided to boycott the marriage of the Applicant

and the Respondent and therefore, the marriage between the

Applicant and the Respondent was solemnized in the absence

and without the consent of all the family members of the

Applicant including his mother.

18. That even after the marriage neither the mother nor any

relatives of the Applicant ever came in the family life of the

Applicant and the Respondent. It is pertinent to mention here

 that even the Respondent had never made any efforts to

reunite the Applicant with his mother and other family

members, even after understanding the fact that the father of

the Applicant was died when he was very young and he with

the help of his mother could only settle the life of his family

and his sisters.

19. That on the first night while performing the sex the

Respondent gave a great tension to the Applicant by

comparing his body, more specifically shoulders with her

colleague Shree Kant by saying “ SHREE KE TO

SHOULDERS BAHOOT STRONG HAI”. This gave a great

mental harassment and humiliation to the Applicant.

20. That the Applicant took the Respondent for the trip to

Veshno Mata and there also the Respondent did not leave any

chance to humiliate and insult the Applicant.

21. That while coming back from Veshno Mata the Applicant

again was surprised when the Respondent said that she is

tired and she wants to have a small amount of liquor and after

discussion the Applicant came to know that the Respondent

 was in a habit to have a liquor, but in the said trip the

drinking of liquor could not be possible.

22. That on 18.12.2005, when the Applicant and the Respondent

came back to their residence, the Applicant was feeling

tiredness, and once again the Respondent offered to have a

glass of bear to the Applicant and when the Applicant started

pouring bear in the glass, the Respondent interrupted the

Applicant by saying that he does not know the actual

procedure of pouring bear in the glass and at the same time

the Respondent tried to teach the Applicant about the same.

23. That after seeing such a behaviour of the Respondent, the

Applicant discussed with the Respondent at a length and then

only the Applicant came to know about the actual character

of the Respondent as she was not only the habitual drinking,

but the smoker too and this had given a great mental

harassment to the Applicant.

24. That on 31.12.2005, when the Applicant and the Respondent

came back in the evening from the market, the Applicant

found two greeting Cards on the name of the Respondent and

in the said cards the sender called himself by “I Love You,

 Your’s & Only Your’s” (S). The Applicant even after

seeing those cards tried to oversight the same only to save his

matrimonial relation, but in the night again at the time of

performing of sex, when the Respondent compared the body

of the Applicant with her colleague Shree Kant, the

Applicant could not control himself and decided to settle the

matter by this way or that way.

25. That in the same night the Applicant started asking the

Respondent about her relations out of the matrimonial life

and during the said arguments again the Applicant was

surprised when he heard the abusive and filthy language from

the Respondent, which even the low cluster people does not

use i.e. the abusive language related to mother and sister of

the Applicant.

26. That when the Applicant asked from the Respondent about

where she learnt the said language, the Respondent replied in

a cool manner that these things are very common now a days.

27. That from the said date the Respondent had started using the

aforesaid filthy language in a very ordinary way and very

frequently which has caused a great mental torture to the

 Applicant and the Applicant has suffered an un-usual extent

from nervous anxiety about his domestic situation and the

same was continued till the last date when the Applicant was

constrained to leave the matrimonial house as the Applicant

had understood that if the aforesaid domestic situation shall

continue then it would led to serious injuries to his health.

28. That when the Respondent was not willing to mend herself

from her aforesaid behaviour, the Applicant stopped talking

with the Respondent to teach her lesson, but even after a

week the Respondent did not change herself and even

become more cruel towards the Applicant.

29. That on 12.01.2006, when the Applicant came to his house,

after about 10:00 p.m., he found a lock on the main door of

his house, and then he called at his wife’s parent’s house,

from there the Applicant came to know that the Respondent

has decided to live at her parents house for a week, but for

that the Respondent never informed the Applicant.

30. That the Respondent did not come back for about 10 days

and during this period the Applicant tried his level best for

calling the Respondent, but the Respondent always avoided

 to come back and at the same time threatened him that she

may not come forever and even can go for divorce.

31. That on 23.01.2006, the Respondent came back from her

parental house. It is pertinent to mention here that this time

the Respondent came with more confidence and intolerable

behaviour and under the said impression she put certain

conditions to live with her. Those were the washing of entire

clothes, washing of toilet trice in a week, washing of utensils

etc. when the Applicant refused to accept her abovesaid

conditions then she threatened to call the police and further

admonished to entangle the Applicant in a false and frivolous

dowry criminal case.

32. That the Applicant under a great threat had beard the

abovesaid exceptional hardships, imposed on him time to

time, but on 11.02.2006, the Respondent crossed her all

limits when she called her mother at home and both the ladies

very clearly put different kind of condition that the Applicant

shall give his entire salary i.e. Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the

Respondent and the Applicant shall get only Rs.2,000/- p.m.

 and Rs.500/- per week for the purpose of petrol and other

expenses.

33. That the Applicant could not refuse for the aforesaid great

hardship on him as he had already spoiled his relation with

his mother and other relatives, but after seven days when the

Applicant could not bear the aforesaid hardships and

behaviour of the Respondent, he decided to leave the

company of the Respondent, and therefore, left the

Respondent on 19.02.2006, but the Respondent found

another way to harass the Applicant by calling in his office

on telephone and by using abusive language with the

Applicant and his colleagues. The Respondent had even

called on telephone to the boss of the Applicant that she will

involve him and his entire office peoples in a criminal case, if

they will not help her to trap the Applicant.

34. That now at this stage the Applicant is living under a great

threat of his life, respect, and lousing his only job due to the

aforesaid conduct of the Respondent.

35. That since 19.02.2006, the Applicant is not going even near

to the parental house of the Respondent as he is having a

great threat of the Respondent.

36. That the Applicant has explained all his plights and all the

atrocities meted out to him during the short span and the

fraud committed to him by the Respondent; hence in the

interest of justice so that the Applicant may live with repute

and with all mental satisfaction for rest of his life, the

Applicant has presented the present petition before the expire

of one year from the date of marriage.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the applicant

may kindly be permitted to present the Petition for grant of divorce
and may be granted because of the grave circumstances and
harassments, meted out to him during this short span of his
marriage(if at all it was) in accordance with law.
Any other or further order/ relief which this Hon’ble court
deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be
passed / granted in favour of the applicant.
Delhi Applicant.
Dated: 25th November, 2005.

Through

Gurmit Singh Hans & Vishal Soni

Advocates
Counsel for the Petitioner
 IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, DELHI

H.M.A PETITION NO. OF _______________2006

In the matter of :

SHRI AMIT SHARMA ….PETITIONER

Versus

SMT.BINDIA SHARMA …..Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I, AMIT SHARMA SON OF SHRI LATE SH.KISHORI LAL

SHARMA R/O G-2/47, FIRST FLOOR,SEC.16, ROHINI,
DELHI-85, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That the deponent is the Petitioner in the above noted case

and well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the

present affidavit.

2. That the marriage of the deponent was solemnized with the

respondent on 27th November, 2005 at Delhi, as per the

Hindu rites and customs.

5. That the contents of the accompanying application under

section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, have been
drafted under my instructions by my counsel and the contents
of the same have been read over and explained to me and I
 have understood the same. I affirm on oath that the facts
contained in the said reply are true to my knowledge.

Deponent
Verification :-
I, the above named deponent on solemn affirmation verify that

the contents of the above affidavit from paras no.1 to 3 are true

to my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing is concealed

therefrom.

Verified at Delhi on 25th February, 2006.

Deponent

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, DELHI

H.M.A PETITION NO. OF _______________2006

In the matter of :
SHRI AMIT SHARMA ….PETITIONER
Versus

SMT.BINDIA SHARMA …..Respondent

URGENT APPLICATION

That the present petition of the applicant may

kindly be considered as urgent as the facts

mentioned in the Petition are serious and urgent

nature.

Delhi Applicant.
Dated: 25th November, 2005.

Through

Gurmit Singh Hans & Vishal Soni

Advocates
Counsel for the Petitioner

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, DELHI

H.M.A PETITION NO. OF _______________2006

In the matter of :

SHRI DEVENDER KUMAR ARYA …PETITIONER

 VERSUS

SMT. SUNITA …RESPONDENT

INDEX.
Sl.No. Particulars. Pages. C.Fees.

1. Memo of Parties. B.

2. Petition Under Section 13 (1) 01- Rs.13/-

(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955.

3. Affidavit in Support.

4. Power of Attorney. Rs.1.25

Delhi Petitioner
Dated:28.O2.2006
Through

Gurmit Singh Hans & Vishal Soni

Advocates
Chamber No.61FF, Western Wing,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, DELHI

H.M.A PETITION NO. OF _______________2006

In the matter of :
 MEMO OF PARTIES

SHRI DEVENDER KUMAR ARYA

S/O SHRI NIRBHEY SINGH
R/O B-6/15, SEC.7,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085. ….PETITIONER

VERSUS

SMT. SUNITA
DAUGHTER OF SH. KAILASH CHAND NAGER
WIFE OF SHRI DEVENDER KUMAR ARYA
R/O 16/B, LIG FLATS, RAM PURA,
DELHI. …..Respondent

Delhi Petitioner
Dated:28.O2.2006
Through

Gurmit Singh Hans & Vishal Soni

Advocates
Chamber No.61FF, Western Wing,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF DISTRICT

JUDGE, DELHI
H.M.A PETITION NO. OF _______________2006

In the matter of :
SHRI DEVENDER KUMAR ARYA
S/O SHRI NIRBHEY SINGH
R/O B-6/15, SEC.7,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085. ….PETITIONER

VERSUS

SMT. SUNITA
DAUGHTER OF SH. KAILASH CHAND NAGAR
WIFE OF SHRI DEVENDER KUMAR ARYA
R/O 16/B, LIG FLATS, RAM PURA,
DELHI. …..Respondent

PETITION UNDER SECTION 13 (i) (a) OF

OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955
(AMENDED UPTO DATE) FOR THE
DECREE OF DIVORCE.

Most Respectfully Showeth :

1. That the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent

was solemnized on 21ST April, 2003, at 16/B, LIG Flats,

Rampura, Delhi, according to the Hindu rites and customs.

Necessary affidavit to this effect is filed herewith.

2. That the status, age and place of residence of the parties to

the marriage, before and at the time of filing this petition

were/are as under:

Before marriage
HUSBAND WIFE
Status Age Place of Residence. Status Age Place of Residence.
Hindu 32 D-12, Ved Mandir, Hindu 26 16/B, LIG Flats,
Married Yrs.. Sec. 8, Rohini, Married Yrs. Rampura, Delhi.
Delhi-85.

At the time of filing of this petition

HUSBAND WIFE
Status Age Place of Residence. Status Age Place of Residence.
Hindu 35 B-6/15, Sector-.7, Hindu 29 16/B, LIG Flats,
Married Yrs.. Rohini, Delhi-85. Married Yrs. Rampura, Delhi.

3. That after the marriage the Petitioner and the Respondent

lived together as husband and wife at B-6/15, Sector-.7,

Rohini, Delhi-85, and the marriage was duly cohabited, and

a baby girl namely, Sadhana was born out of this wedlock on

04.04.2005.

4. That the Petitioner belongs to a Pandit family and had

completed his graduation from Gurukul University,

Haridawar, Uttranchal, and after completing the same, he

came to Delhi and started living in Ved Mandir, Sec.8,

Rohini, Delhi.
5. That the Petitioner belongs to a very principled, well behaved

and well cultured Purohit family and also has a very good

reputation in his native place i.e. Village Jarwar, Post Mera

Pur, District Muzafarnagar, U.P.

6. That after coming in Delhi, the Petitioner started living in

Ved Mandir, at D-12, Sec.8, Rohini, Delhi, alone, and while

living in Mandir, the Petitioner did his further studies from

Delhi University and has done M.A. in Sanskrit and B.Ed.

and presently is doing research work for which the Petitioner

required a great concentration and soothing atmosphere in his

family.

7. That the aforesaid marriage was solemnized in a simple

manner and no dowry demand was made by the Petitioner or

his family members and therefore, the marriage was

solemnized with very less articles which are used to given by

the below middle class family.

8. That before the marriage with the Respondent, the Petitioner

was told about the family of the Respondent as highly

educated and reputed, but the truth started coming even from

the first night of the marriage, when the Respondent

disclosed to the Petitioner that her father has not legally

married to my mother.

9. That in the family of the Respondent, the Respondent has

only studied upto M.A., but i.e. also not from regular course.

10. That though the Respondent has qualification of M.A., but

her behaviour from the beginning of the marriage was very

un-becoming and the Respondent used to be of short

temperament and used to pick up quarrels with the Petitioner

on very petty matters. The Respondent has been shirking her

responsibilities towards the Petitioner and was not only

reluctant in undertaking the domestic affairs but was also

negligent. The Respondent was been in the habit of spending

the time in sleeping and gossiping and watching the

Television.
11. That on the second day of the marriage, the Petitioner got up

early in the morning and did his prayer and other activities,

but the Respondent did not get up till then and rather shouted

on the Petitioner and tried to interfere in the prayer of the

Petitioner. The Petitioner beard all the such activities of the

Respondent as he thought that the Respondent will mend her

behaviour with the passage of time.

12. That on the said date, the Respondent got at about 12:30 p.m.

and straight away started watching Television and when the

same was objected by the Petitioner, the Respondent got

furious and started using abusive and filthy language and also

said that “HAMARE GHAR MAI TO ASAISE HI CHALTA

THA”. The Petitioner even after listening such a language,

which he had never heard in his whole life, controlled

himself and went out of the home for purchasing.

13. That when the Petitioner came at home after about 2 hours,

he found that the Petitioner was sleeping and when the

Petitioner tried to know the reason for the same, the

Respondent said that she had no mood for cooking and also

said that if the Petitioner wants he can take lunch in the

Hotel. The Petitioner therefore went to the Hotel and brought

lunch for himself and the Respondent.

14. That in the night, when the Petitioner tried to co-habit with

the Respondent, the Respondent straight away refused for the

same and on that when the Petitioner tried to know the

reason, the Respondent started shouting and said that “AAP

TO MUJHE ISI KAM KE LIYE LAI HO” and during the

discussion with the Petitioner, the Respondent went in the

kitchen and put her hands on the burning gas stove, when the

Petitioner tried to stop her then the Respondent first time

disclosed that she was not interested to marry with the

Petitioner and therefore, wants to remove even the marks of

Mahendi (Heena). The aforesaid incidents of the Respondent

caused great mental harassment and agony to the Petitioner,

 but the Petitioner in the interest of two families curb on his

anger.

15. That after the said incidence, the Respondent had always

created a scene of quarrel for the reason of privacy and other

un-convinced reason in the life and under the garb of the

same left the matrimonial home many times and went to her

parental home without informing the Petitioner and the same

facts used to come in the knowledge of the Petitioner

whenever the Petitioner called at the parental home of the

Respondent, after conducting an enquiry.

16. That one day, a call was made by the father of the

Respondent to the Petitioner on his cell phone and asked him

why he does not bring the Respondent at his residence once

in a weak and when the Petitioner tried to conveyance about

his job and working condition and problem, the father of the

Respondent threatened the Petitioner that the same purpose

he can fulfill with the help of police as he has good relations

with the local police.

17. That the aforesaid conducts of the Respondent was continued

for more than 6 months and during this period the Petitioner

never lived peacefully and always lived in a threat-full

atmosphere created by the Respondent and her parents and

whenever, the Petitioner tried to know the reason from the

Respondent, he was abused by the Respondent.

18. That the Petitioner went to the residence of the Respondent in

her absence and disclosed the aforesaid behaviour and

conduct of the Respondent to her parents, but the parents of

the Respondent took the said matter very lightly and further

the father of the Respondent said that his family has good

love and affection for the Petitioner as he has for his children

and pet dog. The aforesaid comparison by the parents with

their pet dog, created great mental agony to the Petitioner.

19. That on 14.09.2004, the Respondent first time demanded the

entire salary of the Petitioner and when the Petitioner asked

for the reason and at the same time tried to convince the
 Respondent by saying that he has to manage many things

other than running the matrimonial home, like expenses on

research work, expenses to maintain his father and some

other expenses. The Petitioner at the same time also said

that he is ready to give a required amount for the purpose of

her personal expenses, but the Respondent took up a quarrel

on this reason and later, threatened the Petitioner and left the

matrimonial home and went to her parent house alongwith

the all the jewellery and valuable clothes.

20. That the Respondent did not return till 17.09.2004, and on

that date the father in law of the Petitioner called the

Petitioner at his residence for some discussions on the family

matters. When the Petitioner reached at the residence of the

Respondent, her father i.e. Shri Kailash Chander and to more

persons were sitting with him, and they stared talking

regarding the relations between the Petitioner and the

Respondent, but after some time, all the three persons

changed their temper and started shouting on the Petitioner

and then the Respondent and her mother also intervened in

 the matter, but after there entry the whole atmosphere

become very hot and all the persons including the

Respondent started abusing the Petitioner and at last when

the Petitioner tried to out of their home, the Respondent

closed the door and at that time the father of the Respondent

said that “ TERE KO HAM YAHI PAR JINDA JAMIN MAI

GAR DEGE TO TERE GHAR WALO KO PATA BHI

NAHI CHALE GA” and on listening this the Petitioner

started shouting to take the help of neighbouers, but on

seeing this the Respondent and the aforesaid persons left the

way of the Petitioner and the Petitioner got chance to save his

life and ran out of the parental house of the Respondent’s

house.

21. That the Petitioner was very scared on the aforesaid conduct

of the Respondent and her family, and therefore, did not went

to his aforesaid home and straight away gone to Vedic

Mandir, Rohini and lived there for more than a week due to

the aforesaid harassment and torture by the Respondent and

her family.
22. That out of the total days of matrimonial life between the

Petitioner and the Respondent, the Respondent had lived with

the Petitioner for not more than 17 months as she was having

the habit to go to her parental home without informing the

Petitioner and used to live there for more and more time and

days.

23. That during the continuation of the aforesaid atmosphere and

the circumstances in the matrimonial life of the Petitioner,

the Petitioner got many times chance to control the situations

and to make the relations cordial and the Petitioner never left

any chance to encash the same, but the Respondent never

respond in a healthy way which could make the matrimonial

life of the Petitioner and the Respondent very fruitful.

24. That the Respondent always avoided to get conceive as she

used to say that “MUJHE BACHA PAYDA KARKE

TUMARE SATH HAMESHA KE LIA NAHI BANDHNA”,

 and the Petitioner had not left any chance to convince the

Respondent to have a complete life with children.

25. That after a great efforts to mend the thinking of the

Respondent, at last on 04.4.2005, the baby Sadana was born

out of the abovesaid wedlock, but after the birth of the baby

the behaviour of the Respondent became more cruel towards

the Petitioner and the baby child.

26. That even after getting a very sweet God gift in the form of

baby Sadana, the Respondent never changed her behaviour

and was also cruel towards the Petitioner and the baby child.

27. That the Respondent crossed all her limits when she left the

matrimonial home on 03.06.2005 without the disclosing any

reason to the Petitioner, and when the Petitioner tried to

enquire about the same on telephone, the Respondent and her

mother abused the Petitioner and used such a filthy language

which the Petitioner had never heard in his life and

Respondent also said that she has no interest with the

 Petitioner and now she will start her new life after giving the

baby Sadana in orphanage.

28. That after the said incidence, the Petitioner had understood

that his matrimonial life is over and now nothing is left for

the future, and since then, the Petitioner is living in the

merciful hands of the Respondent.

29. That the Respondent is living a wild life as she has no

interest, control, feelings, affection, love, responsibilities,

care, duties towards the Petitioner and therefore, the

Petitioner has left with no other efficacious remedy except to

approach this Hon'ble Court.

30. That on 14.02.2006, when the Petitioner came to his home

from his job, he found a big lock on the main door of his

home and when the Petitioner tried to enquired about the

same, the neighbourers disclosed that the mother of the

Respondent, came at about 11:30 a.m. and after some time

 the Respondent alongwith the girl child went with her mother

to some place.

31. That the Petitioner enquired about the Respondent and his

baby child, but after the long efforts, the Petitioner could

know that the Respondent had left the company of the

Petitioner forever. This fact was disclosed and confirmed by

the Respondent on telephone and the Respondent in a very

harsh and abusive language threatened the Petitioner to not to

come even near to her parental home. Since the, the

Petitioner is living an alone life.

32. That the Petitioner has every apprehension that it is not safe

to live with the Respondent and hence filing this petition for

divorce, as there is no chance for reconciliation with

Respondent.

33. That the Respondent is in the habit of creating scene and

exaggerate the things as they are. She is very disrespectful,

non co-operative rude and offensive and used to call bad

 names to the Petitioner and also threatened him. She would

not hesitate to comment unnecessarily on the Petitioner and

his family members, but she has also acted upon. She refused

to perform the matrimonial obligations and denied for love

and affection with the husband which she should share with

the Petitioner. Marriage has become practically dead due to

the behaviour of the Respondent.

34. That the Petitioner has not in any manner being necessary to

or connived at or condoned the act of cruelty.

35. That now at this stage the Petitioner is living under a great

threat of his life, respect, and lousing his only job due to the

aforesaid conduct of the Respondent.

36. That the Respondent kept continued her aforesaid behavior

and the Petitioner had many times tried to persuade the

respondent to mend her ways and to maintain peace and

harmony in the family. However, the behavior of the

respondent became worse. The Respondent used to abuse the

 petitioner even in the presence of the neighbourers and some

relatives without any reasonable cause.

37. That the Petitioner had not condone the acts of cruelties

alleged in the present Petition against the Respondent.

38. That the present petition is not filed in collusion with the

respondent.

39. That there is no other previous proceedings between the

parties except the present one is pending.

40. That there is no unnecessary or improper delay in filing this

petition.

41. That there is no impediment in granting the relief as prayed

for in the petition.

42. That the marriage of the parties was solemnized at Delhi, the

parties to the petition also resided lastly within the

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court, hence this Hon’ble has got

jurisdiction to entertain and try this petition.

43. That the fixed court fee has been affixed on the petition.

PRAYER:
 It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

court may very kindly be pleased to pass a decree of divorce in

favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

Any other or further order/ relief which this Hon’ble court

deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be

passed / granted in favour of the petitioner.

Delhi Petitioner
Dated: 3rd March, 2006.

Through

Gurmit Singh Hans & Vishal Soni

Advocates
Counsel for the Petitioner
VERIFICATION:

I ,the above named deponent do hereby on solemn affirmation

verify that the contents of the above petition from paras no.1 to

__ are true to my knowledge and those of paras no. __ to __ are

true on information received and believed to be true, while the

last para is prayer to this Hon’ble court.

Verified at Delhi on 1st day of March, 2006.

Petitioner
 IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, DELHI

H.M.A PETITION NO. OF _______________2006

In the matter of :

SHRI DEVENDER KUMAR ARYA …PETITIONER

VERSUS

SMT. SUNITA …RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I, DEVENDER KUMAR ARYA S/O SHRI NIRBHEY SINGH

R/O B-6/15, SEC.7, ROHINI, DELHI-110085, do hereby solemnly

affirm and declare as under:

1. That the marriage of the deponent was solemnized with the

respondent on 21ST April, 2003 at Delhi, as per the Hindu rites
and customs.

2. That the Petitioner was constrained to leave the matrimonial

house on 07.02.2006, due to the cause and reasons already
explained in the accompanying petition.

3. That the attached petition u/s 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act has not been filed in collusion with the
Respondent.
4. That there is no legal impediment in granting the relief as
prayed for in the petition.

Deponent
Verification :-

I, the above named deponent on solemn affirmation verify that

the contents of the above affidavit from paras no.1 to 4 are true
to my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing is concealed
therefrom.

Verified at Delhi on 01st day of March, 2006.

Deponent
 AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Amrit Singh Ramgaria son of Sardar Ralha Singh,

aged 45 years, resident of B-131, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under;

1. That my son namely Master Tavender Singh Ramgaria is

studying in 8th class in Happy Model School, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi-
33.
2. That I am Ramgaria by caste which comes under the Other
Back Wards Class.

3. That it is my true statement.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:

Verified at Delhi on this 28th day of February, 2006, that the

contents of above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and nothing material has been concealed.

DEPONENT
SMS SENT BY THE
To,

The S.H.O.
Police Station Rohini,
Delhi-33.

Sub: COMPLAINT AGAINST SMT.BINDIA

SHARMA DAUGHTER OF SH. PURAN
CHAND SHARMA WIFE OF SHRI AMIT
SHARMA R/O 238/1, D-6, SEC.6, ROHINI,
DELHI-85, MOBILE NO.9910170901.

Sir,

With due respect, I, Amit Sharma Son of Late

Sh.Kishori Lal Sharma R/O G-2/47, First Floor,Sec.16, Rohini,
Delhi-85, got married with the Smt. Bindia, on 27.11.2005 at
Delhi.
Since the date of marriage my aforesaid wife Smt.
Bindia always also non co-operative and not understanding lady
and therefore, I could never enjoy the fruits of matrimonial life and
always lived in a very tense situation.

I had many things to say against my wife and I have list

of problems, created by her during my very small married life, but
here I am not mentioning the same, as I have already taken the
shelter of court of law, and it is pertinent to mention here that my
divorce case against my aforesaid wife is pending in the Hon'ble
Court of Smt. Sunita Gupta, ADJ, Rohini Court, Delhi.

Before going to the court, my wife made me

constrained to leave my home in three clothes on 19.2.2006 and
since then I am on the road.

When I left my home, my home was under my lock and

key, as my wife also went to her parental home.

Today in the morning when I went to my aforesaid

home I found that the lock on the door was changed and when I
enquired about the same from the neighbourers they informed that
your wife and her parents had break open the lock in the night
hours.
Sir, I had placed a second lock on the main door for the
safety purpose as I have come to know that my wife is living with
her parents.
Sir, I am in the great trouble and living out of my home
and also not taken a chance to break open the lock placed by my
wife, and therefore, my aforesaid action of placing second lock
may not be taken in a wrong way.
My all the household articles were lying in my
aforesaid home, when I left my home and the same in the
knowledge of my wife and I have a threat that my abundant house
can be misused by my wife.

Delhi Complainant.
Dated: 02.03.2006

Amit Sharma
S/o Late Sh.Kishori Lal Sharma
R/O G-2/47, First Floor,
Sec.16, Rohini, Delhi-85
To,
 IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF DISTRICT
JUDGE, DELHI
H.M.A PETITION NO. OF _______________2006

In the matter of :

SHRI JITENDER SHARMA

S/O SHRI MEHAR CHAND SHARMA
R/O D-540, GALI NO.13,
BHAJAN PURA, DELHI. ….Petitioner

VERSUS
SMT. ANITA
WIFE OF JITENDER SHARMA
DAUGHTER OF SHRI KASHTURI
R/O D-540, GALI NO.13,
BHAJAN PURA, DELHI. ..Respondent

PETITION UNDER SECTION 13 (i) (a) OF

OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955
(AMENDED UPTO DATE) FOR THE
DECREE OF DIVORCE.

Most Respectfully Showeth :

1. That the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent

was solemnized on 20th of April, 1996, at D-540, Gali no.13,

Bhajan Pura, Delhi, according to the Hindu rites and

customs. Necessary affidavit to this effect is filed herewith.

2. That the status, age and place of residence of the parties to

the marriage, before and at the time of filing this petition

were/are as under:

Before marriage

Husband Wife
Status & Age Place of residence Status Age Place of residence

Hindu Bachelor 23 D-540, Gali No.13, Hindu Virgin 22 Sarai Khoyaja,

Yrs. Bhajan Pura, Delhi. Faridabad, Haryna.

At the time of filing of this petition

Husband Wife
Status & Age Place of residence Status Age Place of residence

Hindu Married 32 ---Do--- Hindu Married 32 540, Gali No.13,

Bhajan Pura, Delhi.

3. That after the marriage both the parties to the petition

started living together at 540, Gali No.13, Bhajan Pura,

Delhi, as a husband and wife and the marriage was duly

consummated, out of this wed lock two children were born,

namely, Nidhi Sharma and Master Boby, on 06.10.1998 and

09.09.2000, respectively.

4. That the aforesaid marriage was solemnized in a simple

manner and no dowry demand was made by the Petitioner or

 his family members and therefore, the marriage was

solemnized with very less articles which are used to be given

by the below middle class family.

5. That on the second day of the marriage, the Petitioner got

up early in the morning and did his prayer and other

activities, but the Respondent did not get up till then and

rather shouted on the Petitioner and tried to interfere in the

prayer of the Petitioner. The Petitioner beard all the such

activities of the Respondent as he thought that the

Respondent will mend her behaviour with the passage of

time.

6. That the behaviour of the Respondent from the very

beginning of the marriage was very un-becoming and the

Respondent used to be of short temperament and used to pick

quarrels with the Petitioner on very petty matters. The

Respondent had been shirking her responsibilities towards

the Petitioner and was not only reluctant in undertaking the

domestic affairs but was also negligent. The Respondent was

 been in the habit of spending the time in sleeping and

gossiping and watching the Television.

7. That the Respondent was in habit to leave the matrimonial

home without informing the Petitioner and other family

members and used to go in her parental home and stayed

there for 10-15 days. After few days of marriage, the

Respondent consumed the poison and when the Petitioner

after a hard work could manage to get the Respondent vomit

8. then after vomiting the Respondent opened her eyes and

said that I was not interested for marriage, but only under the

pressure of my brothers I was agreed for the same. The

Petitioner informed the said incident on telephone to the

brothers of the Respondent and also called them. Both the

brothers Narender Sharma and Prem Sharma came at the

place of Petitioner and took the Respondent to Hindu Rao

Hospital, Delhi. I was disclosed by the brothers of the

Respondent that the Respondent is a nonsense girl, and

therefore she had done such a wrong act. There in the Hindu
 Rao Hospital, the aforesaid brother of the Respondent could

manage to remove the poison in the Respondent with the help

of doctors and later brought the Respondent back night itself

to avoid the police case.

9. That when the aforesaid incident was happened with the

Petitioner, the father of the Petitioner was posted in Tehri

Gadwal and when he came back from there, he went to the

parental home of the Respondent and there tried to sought out

the difficulties of the Respondent and also requested the

Respondent to save her matrimonial life. But even after the

said efforts of the father of the Petitioner, the Respondent

returned in the life of the Petitioner after a long period when

she came with her brother at the Bhajan Pura address of the

Petitioner.

10. That in the year 1997 one day on a very small dispute

between the Petitioner and the Respondent, the Respondent

started shouting on the Petitioner and when the Petitioner

tried to stop her, the Respondent broke her glass bangles and
 put scars on her hands, neck and other parts of her body, after

that the Respondent ran away in the street and started

shouting and crying and after some time called the police at

100 number. After this incidence and with the intervention of

police and other respectable members of the society, the

Petitioner was constrained to leave the house of his parents

and started living on rent in Khajuri, Delhi. It is pertinent to

mention here that while leaving the house in Bhajan Pura, the

Petitioner and the Respondent took their all valuable articles,

clothes, utensils and products with them which were received

by them in the marriage from both the sides.

11. That even after the aforesaid scarifies of the Petitioner, the

Respondent did not change her bahaviour towards the

Petitioner and continued to pick quarrels with the Petitioner

on very petty matters. The Respondent continued to maintain

her habit of spending the time in sleeping and gossiping and

watching the Television, more specifically the Respondent

made the life of the Petitioner as hell. It is pertinent to

mention here that the mother Kasturi and brother Rajender

 Sharma, Chander Parkash, Kishan Sharma and Prem Sharma

of the Respondent started interfering in the matrimonial life

of the parties and due to the said the Respondent used to take

the advantage, and get harass the Petitioner on one or other

reasons.

12. That the aforesaid brothers of the Respondent also started

threatening the Petitioner and putting pressure on the

Petitioner for living with them in Faridabad, which was not

accepted to the Petitioner. On this the Respondent left the

company of the Petitioner and started living in her parental

home. For putting pressure on the Petitioner, the brothers of

the Respondent also threatened the Petitioner to kill him and

also one time in the month of July, 1998 when the Petitioner

alongwith his brother was coming from his office and when

they were on foot in Hous Khas, the brother of the

Respondent namely Chander Parkash, Kishan Sharma and

one of their associates stopped the way of the Petitioner and

his brother on the road and also beaten them and during this

nozzle bone of the Petitioner was also broken by them. On

 seeing this incident, the people started gathering there and

after few minutes PCR Gypsy also came there, which took

the Petitioner and his brother to the Hospital.

13. That on the same night, the Respondent called on

telephone to the Petitioner and threatened the Petitioner by

this time he could be saved, by next time nobody will going

to save him. On the very next date the Petitioner was called

by the Police officials of P.S. Hauz Khas where the relatives

of the Respondent were already present, where with the

intervention and pressure of the police, the Petitioner was

constrained to withdraw his complaint against the brothers of

the Respondent. After the said incidence, the Respondent

joined the company of the Petitioner after a long period of

eight months when her brother left her with the Petitioner.

14. That after coming from her parental home, the Petitioner

made her daily routine of getting up at about 12:30 p.m. and

straight away started watching Television and when the same

was objected by the Petitioner, the Respondent got furious

and started using abusive and filthy language and also said
 that “HAMARE GHAR MAI TO ASAISE HI CHALTA

THA”. The Petitioner continuously listens and bears the said

language and behaviour of the Respondent for a long period,

which he had never heard and seen in his whole life.

15. That on 11.11.2001, the Respondent lodged a false

complaint of beating in Police Station with the help of

Constable Rakesh, where on the false report of ASI Ram

Gopal, the Petitioner and his father were sent to Tihar Jail

from where they got bail after five days. Even after that

constable Rakesh and Constable Leela continued to visit the

house of the Petitioner for one or the other reason and used to

threaten the Petitioner on the name of sending him in Tihar

Jail again and again.

16. That in year 2002, the visit of constable Leela, constable

Rakesh and the mother of the Respondent became very

frequent in the house of the Petitioner and all of them started

putting pressure on the Petitioner that the Petitioner has to

safe guard the future of the Respondent by transferring the

 rights of his parents house in the name of the Respondent.

When the Respondent refused for the same, the mother of

the Respondent and the constable Leela and Constable

Rakesh threatened the Petitioner that the said thing they can

do even without the consent of the Petitioner or his family.

The said behaviour of the Respondent, her mother and other

family members disturbed the Petitioner very much.

17. That after the said incidence, the Petitioner was so terrible

and frightened that he and his parents allowed the

Respondent to live in the half of the only property of the

parents of the Petitioner i.e. H.No.D-540, Gali No.13, Bhajan

Pura, Delhi-53 and till today the Respondent is enjoying the

half portion of the said property alongwith the children, with

them the Respondent never allowed the Petitioner to meet or

talk, without any disturbance or encumbrances from the

Petitioner’s side.

18. That the Petitioner had not left any stone un-turned to

meet or talk his children, but the Respondent is adamant that

 she will not allow the Petitioner to even see his children. The

said conduct of the Respondent has caused greave injuries to

the heart of the Petitioner about which the Petitioner is living

merciful life.

19. That when the aforesaid activities of harassment, cruelty,

torture and un-humanity was continued with the Petitioner in

the hands of Respondent, her mother, Constable Rakesh,

Constable Rakesh, Chander Parkash, Kishan Sharma,

Rajender Prasad and Prem Sharma, for a long period, the

Petitioner decided to finish his life and therefore, on

20.03.2005 the Petitioner stabbed a knife in his stomach for

5-6 times and later his life was managed to save after an

operation. After that incidence, constable Rakesh and

Constable Leela came to the Petitioner; when he was

admitted in the G.T.B. Hospital and was fighting with the

death and threatened the Petitioner that if he will disclosed

their name or the name of any one from the family of the

Respondent then the Petitioner will be in-tangle in false

criminal cases. Later with the conspiracy with the police, the
 Respondent could manage to register an FIR against the

Petitioner under section 309 of IPC on the basis of the

aforesaid incidence.

20. That even after the said incidence, the Respondent did not

change her behavior and continuously harassed the Petitioner

for one or other reason. It is pertinent to mention here that

when the Petitioner was in G.T.B. Hospital after the aforesaid

incidence and remained there at about 9 days, the Respondent

or her any family member did not come to see and meet him

not even a single time. The Petitioner was therefore

continuously remained in the Hospital on the mercy of the

Hospital. When after 9 days the Petitioner could come out of

the Hospital and was confined to bed as he was advised for

the same, the Respondent continuously harassed the

Petitioner by one way or the other and one day when the

Petitioner was sleeping and the Respondent went out for

some work at about 1:30 p.m. the Respondent came back and

started shouting on the Petitioner and when the Petitioner

tried to know the reason for the same, the Respondent started
 using abusive language and later jumped upon the Petitioner

and sat on him and also beaten the Petitioner. The Petitioner

was bearing all the aforesaid conduct and behavior of the

Petitioner as he was helpless due to his physical ailment. Due

to the aforesaid act, few stitches of the Petitioner were

broken and the Petitioner was constrained to admit in G.T.K.

Hospital for more than 45 days.

21. That on 05.03.2006, after a very small discussion with the

Petitioner the Respondent called the police on 100 number

and reported against the Petitioner and his younger brother

Kishan that they have beaten her after holding her from her

hairs. The said complaint was marked to ASI Vikram Singh

Bansal, who was honestly verifying all the facts and

circumstances of the said complaint, but when the

Respondent could manage for talk between the ASI Vikram

Singh Bansal and Constable Leela. The behaviour of Vikram

Singh Bansal got suddenly changed and he assured the

Respondent in the presence of the Petitioner and his younger

brother that he had talked with constable Anita; and

 therefore, everything will be done according to the wishes of

the Respondent. After talking the statement of the

Respondent, the Petitioner and his brother were sent to Jail.

22. That after the said incidence, on 21.03.2006, at about

10:00 p.m. the Respondent and constable Leela came to the

residence of the Petitioner who was living with his parents in

the remaining portion of H.No.D-540, Gali No.13, Bhajan

Pura, Delhi, and threatened to make registry on the name of

the Respondent for the portion where the Respondent is

living which is actually half of the only property earned by

the father of the Petitioner after serving more than 30 years

for the Government of India. That when the said proposal

was not agreeable to the parents of the Petitioner, the

Respondent and constable Leela threatened the Petitioner and

his family that for them it is very easy to tear their clothes

and to use them against the Petitioner or his family as an

ammunition.
23. That since then the Petitioner is living under the threat,

harassment, torture and pressure of the Respondent, her

associates and her all the well wishers those are helping her

for wrongful gains.

24. That during the continuation of the aforesaid atmosphere

and the circumstances in the matrimonial life of the

Petitioner, the Petitioner got many times chance to control

the situations and to make the relations cordial and the

Petitioner never left any chance to en-cash the same, but the

Respondent never respond in a healthy way which could

make the matrimonial life of the Petitioner and the

Respondent very fruitful.

25. That after the last incidence, the Petitioner had understood

that his matrimonial life is over and now nothing is left for

the future, and since then, the Petitioner is living in the

merciful hands of the Respondent.

26. That the Respondent is living a wild life as she has no

interest, control, feelings, affection, love, responsibilities,

care, duties towards the Petitioner and therefore, the

Petitioner has left with no other efficacious remedy except to

approach this Hon'ble Court.

27. That the Petitioner has every apprehension that it is not

safe to live with the Respondent and hence filing this petition

for divorce, as there is no chance for reconciliation with

Respondent.

28. That the Respondent is in the habit of creating scene and

exaggerate the things as they are. She is very disrespectful,

non co-operative rude and offensive and used to call bad

names to the Petitioner and also threatened him. She would

not hesitate to comment unnecessarily on the Petitioner and

his family members, but she has also acted upon. She refused

to perform the matrimonial obligations and denied for love

and affection with the husband which she should share with
 the Petitioner. Marriage has become practically dead due to

the behaviour of the Respondent.

29. That the Petitioner has not in any manner being necessary

to or connived at or condoned the act of cruelty.

30. That now at this stage the Petitioner is living under a great

threat of his life, respect, and lousing his only job due to the

aforesaid conduct of the Respondent.

31. That the Respondent kept continued her aforesaid

behavior and the Petitioner had many times tried to persuade

the respondent to mend her ways and to maintain peace and

harmony in the family. However, the behavior of the

respondent became worse. The Respondent used to abuse the

petitioner even in the presence of the neighbourers and some

relatives without any reasonable cause.

32. That the Petitioner had not condone the acts of cruelties

alleged in the present Petition against the Respondent.

33. That the present petition is not filed in collusion with the

respondent.

34. That there is no other previous proceedings between the

parties except the present one is pending.

35. That there is no unnecessary or improper delay in filing

this petition.

36. That there is no impediment in granting the relief as

prayed for in the petition.

37. That the marriage of the parties was solemnized at Delhi,

the parties to the petition also resided lastly within the

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court, hence this Hon’ble has got

jurisdiction to entertain and try this petition.

38. That the fixed court fee has been affixed on the petition.
PRAYER:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

court may very kindly be pleased to pass a decree of divorce in

favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

Any other or further order/ relief which this Hon’ble court

deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be

passed / granted in favour of the petitioner.

Delhi Petitioner
Dated:

Through
Gurmit Singh Hans & Vishal Soni
Advocates
Counsel for the Petitioner
VERIFICATION:

I ,the above named deponent do hereby on solemn affirmation

verify that the contents of the above petition from paras no.1 to

28 are true to my knowledge and those of paras no. 29 to 37 are

true on information received and believed to be true, while the

last para is prayer to this Hon’ble court.

Verified at Delhi on day of ____, 2006.

Petitioner
 IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE,
SHAHDARA, DELHI

H.M.A PETITION NO. OF _______________2006

In the matter of :

JITENDER SHARMA ..PETITIONER

VERSUS
ANITA SHARMA ..RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I, JITENDER SHARMA SON OF SHRI MEHER CHAND

SHARMA R/O HOUSE NO.540, GALI NO.13, BHAJAN PURA,

DELHI-53, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That the marriage of the deponent was solemnized with the

respondent on 20.04.1996 at Delhi, as per the Hindu rites and
customs.

2. That the Petitioner and the Respondent was living separately

on ________, due to the cause and reasons already explained in
the accompanying petition.

3. That the attached petition u/s 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act has not been filed in collusion with the
Respondent.
4. That there is no legal impediment in granting the relief as
prayed for in the petition.

Deponent
Verification :-

I, the above named deponent on solemn affirmation verify that

the contents of the above affidavit from paras no.1 to 4 are true
to my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing is concealed
therefrom.

Verified at Delhi on 17th day of March, 2006.

Deponent
 IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE,
SHAHDARA, DELHI

H.M.A PETITION NO. OF _______________2006

In the matter of :

JITENDER SHARMA ..PETITIONER

VERSUS
ANITA SHARMA ..RESPONDENT

INDEX.
Sl.No. Particulars. Pages. C.Fees.

1. Memo of Parties. A.

2. Petition Under Section 13 (1) 01-19 Rs.13/-

(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955.

3. Affidavit in Support. 20-21

4. List of Documents. 22-36

5. Power of Attorney. 37 Rs.1.25

Delhi Petitioner
Dated:17.03.2006
Through

Gurmit Singh Hans & Vishal Soni

Advocates
Chamber No.61FF, Western Wing,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
 IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE,
SHAHDARA, DELHI

H.M.A PETITION NO. OF _______________2006

In the matter of :

JITENDER SHARMA ..PETITIONER

VERSUS
ANITA SHARMA ..RESPONDENT

MEMO OF PARTIES

SHRI JITENDER SHARMA

S/O SHRI MAHER CHAND SHARMA
R/O D-540, GALI NO.13,
BHAJAN PURA, DELHI. ….Petitioner

VERSUS
SMT. ANITA
WIFE OF JITENDER SHARMA
DAUGHTER OF SHRI KASHTURI
R/O D-540, GALI NO.13,
BHAJAN PURA, DELHI. ..Respondent

Delhi Petitioner
Dated:17.03.2006
Through

Gurmit Singh Hans & Vishal Soni

Advocates
Chamber No.61FF, Western Wing,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
 IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE,
SHAHDARA, DELHI

H.M.A PETITION NO. OF _______________2006

In the matter of :

JITENDER SHARMA ..PETITIONER

VERSUS
ANITA SHARMA ..RESPONDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS.

Sl.No. Particulars. Pages.

1. Complaint dt. 03.04.2006 addressed to 23-24
Commissioner of Police.
2. Complaint dt 28.09.2005 addressed to 25-29
S.H.O. P.S. Bhajan Pura, Delhi.
3. Complaint dt 02.06.2005 addressed to 30-31
S.H.O. P.S. Bhajan Pura, Delhi.
4. Complaint dt 10.07.1998 addressed to 32-36
S.H.O. P.S. Bhajan Pura, Delhi,
alongwith medical record.

Delhi Petitioner
Dated:17.03.2006
Through

Gurmit Singh Hans & Vishal Soni

Advocates
Chamber No.61FF, Western Wing,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
 IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE,
SHAHDARA, DELHI

H.M.A PETITION NO. OF _______________2006

In the matter of :

JITENDER SHARMA ..PETITIONER

VERSUS
ANITA SHARMA ..RESPONDENT

1. Record Clerk Jaipur Golden Hospital, with the record of

death summary of Late Shri Jagdish Naghpal dated
22.05.2004 with reference JGH/MED/2004/182 and the
complete medical record of Late Shri Jagdish Nagpal from
the date of his admission i.e. 09.03.2004 to the date of death
i.e. 13.03.2004 including the treatment given under the
management of Dr.U.C.D. Nautial, Nephrologist.

2. Dr. U.C.D.Nautial, Nephrologist, Jaipur Golden Hospital

with the record of
1. Name of different type of work
2. In reply not mentioned the category (Daffar on the
Pass/Attendance Card)
3. Number of 150 employees in the year 1999.
4. Total number of cases against you under the Industrial
Dispute Act.
5. The number of machines 25 machines in the year 1999
and at list two persons are required to run the one
machine.
6. At list 12 helper are doing the misc. works.
7. 13 ladies to chatai, and 3-4 machiens to run the machine.
8. 4 mans to Dulai
9. 2 persons at Bandal Machine.
10. In 1988, 82-85 persons were working.
11. Register regarding the attendance and timing.
 12. Total number of shifts (2-3)
13. In the absence of machine man, the workman was running
the machine (for more than one month).
14. Suggestion Helper to Machine Man (Semi Skilled)
15. Where was your office.
16. Number of Factories. I say one in D-8 (Sell out), MBC
(Sealed by Excise Depatment), 72 (Currently running as
Rolling Mill), at Jahangir puri, Delhi, in the year 1989.
Divided A-62 Wazir Pur and installed one cutter machine
in year 1995.
17. Three brothers worked together till last knowledge 1999.
18. Any Manager (Suggestion Sharmaji)
19. Number of works:
a) Repairor of the Machine.
b) Machine Man (To run the Machine)
c) Daffer.
d) Helper
At about 9:00 reached to Factory, Firstly the worker set the
machine by dabing the Daaga in the Machine and then Machine
Man starts the Machine. Then the worker go to other machine
for daabing.

Daabing includes: to give oil, mesrol, grissing, to put the Daga

in Machine,

I, JITENDER SHARMA SON OF SHRI MEHER CHAND

SHARMA R/O HOUSE NO.540, GALI NO.13, BHAJAN PURA,

DELHI-53, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That the marriage of the deponent was solemnized with the

respondent on 20.04.1996 at Delhi, as per the Hindu rites and
customs.
2. That the Petitioner and the Respondent was living separately
on ________, due to the cause and reasons already explained in
the accompanying petition.

3. That the attached petition u/s 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act has not been filed in collusion with the
Respondent.

4. That there is no legal impediment in granting the relief as

prayed for in the petition.

Deponent
Verification :-

I, the above named deponent on solemn affirmation verify that

the contents of the above affidavit from paras no.1 to 4 are true
to my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing is concealed
therefrom.

Verified at Delhi on 17th day of March, 2006.

Deponent