THIS SAMPLE APPLICATION GIVES AN IDEA OF OPs WRONG MOVES TO COUNTER AND WITH REFERENCE JUDGMENTS.
IN THE COURT OF HONLBL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE OF XXXX (ACJM)
CLASS CASE
BETWEEN
1. XX.XXXXXXX (A1) / Petitioner
AGE 34 YEARS OCC/ ENGINEER R/O MUMBAI MAH
AND
1. XX.XXXXXXX
AGE 33 YEARS OCC/ ENGINEER R/O MUMBAI MAH
(ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT /Respondent
PETITION U/S 125 CrPC ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH,
ADD BASIC DETAILS OF PERSONAL / MARRIAGE AND SEPERTION, WHAT WHEN AND WHY THIS APPLICATION IS MADE.
1. Misrepresentation and Concealment of Facts:
The Respondent has misrepresented and concealed material facts regarding her financial status, including income, assets, and employment. As per the law, a party who comes to the court with unclean hands is not entitled to relief.
2. Desertion Without Reasonable Cause:
The Respondent has voluntarily deserted the Petitioner without any justifiable cause. The Hon’ble Courts have consistently held that a wife who leaves her matrimonial home without reasonable cause is not entitled to maintenance.
3. Self-Sufficiency:
The Respondent is earning a substantial income and is self-sufficient, thereby not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. The Courts have repeatedly held that maintenance is only granted to those who are unable to maintain themselves.
4. Non-Submission of Income Affidavit:
The Respondent has failed to submit her income affidavit despite several opportunities provided by the Hon’ble Court over the past 1.5 years. This non-compliance with court orders indicates a lack of genuine need for maintenance and should lead to the dismissal of the application.
5. False Allegations:
The Respondent has made false and unsubstantiated allegations of domestic violence and cruelty, which have not been proven in any court of law. Maintenance cannot be granted based on baseless accusations.
6. No Grounds for Cruelty:
The Respondent has not provided any concrete evidence to substantiate claims of cruelty or harassment by the Petitioner. Courts have dismissed maintenance applications where allegations of cruelty have been found to be baseless.
7. Collusion and Bad Faith:
The Respondent’s application for maintenance is made in collusion with her family members to harass the Petitioner and extort money. Such applications made in bad faith are liable to be dismissed.
8. Fraudulent Marriage:
The marriage was conducted based on fraudulent representations by the Respondent, who concealed critical information. Courts have held that maintenance cannot be claimed in cases where the marriage itself was based on fraud.
9. Contradictory Statements:
The Respondent has made contradictory statements in her application and other related proceedings, which cast doubt on the credibility of her claims. The Hon’ble Court should dismiss her application based on these inconsistencies.
10. Delay in Filing:
The Respondent has unduly delayed filing the maintenance application without any valid reason. Such delay reflects a lack of genuine need and should be grounds for dismissal.
PRAYER
In view of the aforementioned grounds, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly dismiss the Respondent’s maintenance application with costs.
References to Judgments:
1. Ravi Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 8054
– Maintenance denied due to the wife’s desertion without reasonable cause.
2. Anita Rani v. Balwan Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 1134
– Court dismissed maintenance when the wife was found to be self-sufficient.
3. Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199
– Maintenance was denied as the wife was earning and capable of maintaining herself.
4. Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715
– Dismissal of maintenance application due to wife’s sufficient income.
5. Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316
– Dismissal on grounds of wife’s desertion and sufficient income.
6. Meenakshi v. Ramesh, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 1608
– Application dismissed due to the wife’s non-submission of income affidavit.
7. Vimala (K) v. Veeraswamy (K), (1991) 2 SCC 375
– Maintenance was denied due to the wife’s own income.
8. Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324
– Emphasized the importance of submitting income affidavits in maintenance proceedings.
9. Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801
– Application dismissed as the wife was found to be economically independent.
10. Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6793
– Maintenance was denied due to non-disclosure of income by the wife