Written Statement

IN THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT OF A.D.J., Saran

PETITION NO. A- 0747 OF 2020.

Shri - Babui Panmato Kuer

Saran, Indian Inhabitant, aged 20 years ……(PETITIONER )

Versus

Shri - Ram Agya Singh

Saran, Indian Inhabitant, aged Above 60 years) … (RESPONDENT)

Under Order 8 Rule 1

The defendant most respectfully-

Sheweth:

1. That there is no cause of action of the plaint & the paint is liable to be set aside.

2. That the content of para 1of the petition are true and need no reply.

3. That the content of para 2 of the petition are true and need no reply.

4. That the contents of para 3 of the petition are true to some extent that the petitioner
might had overheard the conversation of father of the petitioner and the mother of the
petitioner having conversation about marriage of the petitioner. It is also not denied
that the conversation she heard was true, but in circumstances where the bride and
groom cannot meet before the marriage as per the norms of the village and the rural
social system. It is not denied by petitioner’s father, that he also did not meet with the
groom. It is also denied that the respondent was in affluent financial condition as it
was mentioned by the petitioner’s father.

5. That the content of Para 5 of the petition are true to some extent as there are
circumistances that do not allow both the respondent and the petitioner to meet but the
father of petitioner who knew the groom and told to the petitioner’s mother about the
respondent age and the money might have met him and from which he made some
assumption about age of the respondent. It is also stated that the petitioner has
consented through silence and she was not having any problem with the marriage.

6. That the contents of the Para 6 in the petition are true and need no reply.
7. That the contents of the Para 7 and 8 in the petition are true to some extent and at that
the respondent filed criminal case against her father. The father agreed to send his
daughter as the case against him was withdrawn. He sent his daughter back to the
petitioner’s house. It was an act that was done so that there was no kind of taint on the
image of the petitioner’s father and “family.

8. That the content of Para 9 are true to some extent that respondent is a man of very
ordinary means as she overheard something different from the father. The father who
took her to the respondent time was not seeing the defendant for the first time. As
stated by the petitioner that it was during night that she saw him first time which is
incorrect.

9. That the content of Para 10 are incorrect and false. The respondent did not cause any
kind of violence. The petitioner went back to the father’s house from where she was
chided and then she went to uncle’s house. Her father also of the opinion that the
petitioner should come back to the defendant. The information given by the
petitioner’s was incorrect but the father had the correct information and did not pass it
to the daughter. The content of the Para 10 that the petitioner is aged 60 is correct and
not denied. It is also denied that petitioner had no food for two days as food is
something we cannot survive without. It is true to some extent that she consumed or
had less food it can be due to homesickness or maybe because of other reasons.

10. That the content of the Para 11 are true and not denied as the petitioner left the
defendants house. It is further not denied that the father chided her and asked her to
back to the defendants’ house. As her father was aware that defendant has every right
to ask the petitioner to come to back.

11. That the content of the Para 12 are incorrect and false. The defendant did not cause
any harm to the petitioner and did not restrict and confined the petitioner to a room. It
is not denied that the defendant filed Criminal case under sec 498.

12. the content of the Par a13 are true and not denied.

13. That the contents of the Para 14 are true to some extent as the petitioner filed the
present petition for dissolution of marriage and it is denied that constent of the
petitioner under sec 12(1) (c) as the consent given by the guardian in the marriage of
 the petitioner obtained under sec 5 was not by fraud or by force. The petitioner merely
overheard the conversation. The consent given was by the petitioner by mere silence
and the information provided by the petitioners father indirectly. It is not denied that
the petitioner went to her Nanihal.

14. That the content of Para 15 are not true and are incorrect as the petitioner states that
there was no cohabitation but it is suggested that on 15th April when petitioner was
with the defendant. It is suggested that this statement is false.

15. That the petition is not maintainable under section 12 (1)(c) of Hindu marriage act.

It is humbly submitted that in order to constitute Fraud, there has to be false

16. The content of Para 16 are true adnneed no reply.

PRAYER

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the petition of the
petitioner, lacking any reasonable ground for judicial separation, be dismissed with
costs.
Place: …………….. (Signature of respondent)
Date: ……………... THROUGH
MANJOT SINGH
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
CHAMBERS, SARAN
 VERIFICATION
Ram Agya Singh, on this day of May 20, 2020, do hereby verify that the contents Para 1
to 18 of reply on merits are true and correct to the best of my knowledge as well as on the
basis of information received and believed to be true.

(Signature of the Respondent)