IN THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE ,FAMILY COURT.

LUCKNOW

R.S NO –
U/S- 13(1) of H.M.A
P.S-
Distt. - Lucknow

Hariharan Nagmani Iyer, Aged about 47 years, S/O Laxmi

Nagmani, Permanently Residing at House No-J-164, Sector
J, Asiyana Lucknow-226012
……..……Petitioner
VERSUS

Kajal Hariharan Iyer, Aged about 45 years, W/O

Hariharan Nagmani Iyer, R/O B-602, Building No 47, P.O
Pantnagar, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai 400086

…………Opposite Party/Respondent

PETITION U/S 13(1) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,

1955 (AS AMENDED UPTO DATE) FOR DECREE OF
DIVORCE / DISSOLUTION OF THE MARRIAGE
BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

THE HUMBLE PETITIONER NAMED ABOVE MOST

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS HEREIN UNDER:-

1. That at all material times and at present, the parties

to the proceeding were and are Hindu by their
religion, so ruled by Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
2. That the petitioner declares that he has not filed any
other petition for the same cause of action involved in
the present petition before any court of law.

3. That it is not disputed that the marriage of the

petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on
22.06.2000 in accordance to Hindu customs and
rituals as well as without dowry in front of all the
relatives of both the parties at. The said marriage was
consummated thereafter and the parties co-habited as
husband and wife at their matrimonial home. As such
respondent is legally wedded wife of the petitioner.
The XEROX COPY MARRIAGE CARD/MARRIAGE
PHOTOGRAPH CONFIRMING THE SAID
AVERMENTS IS BEING FILED WITH THIS
PETITION AS ANNEXURE NO 1.

4. That the marriage of the parties was solemnized in a

traditional and simple way without the dowry, nothing
was given by the respondent’s parents in cash or kind
to the petitioner or his family except some household
items or gifts by the family members and relatives and
some other things in accordance to customs/rituals
during the whole ceremony of marriage.

5. That it is very substantial to mention here that the

respondent and her family member camouflaged the
basic things which are requisite in every matrimonial
relationship, despite of that the petitioner and his
family member condoned this term hoping for a better
matrimonial relationship.

6. That it is further stated that the respondent had

idiosyncrasy of visiting her parental home off & on
and used to stay back for about 2-3 months for no
rhyme or reason and upon great insistence and
persuasion of the petitioner and his family members,
she would only return to matrimonial home.
7. That it is pertinent to mention here that the parties to
the marriage were blessed with their first child named
Kartik on dated 17.11.2001 and at present the child
is living with the respondent.

8. That it is very imperative to mention here that the

respondent has already taken away her entire
STRIDHAN, given to the Respondent by both, the
Petitioner’s side and/ or the Respondent’s side,
including jewellery, of gold and/ or silver, as also the
artificial ones, dresses, sarees. She has kept her entire
stridhan items at her present resident address which
is afore-stated. It may however be added and clarified
herein that neither petitioner’s side nor the
respondent’s side had given much of gold or silver
jewellery. The jewellery was meagre/ small items like.
All the Jewellery and valuables are with the
Respondent as on the date of filing of this petition.

9. That it is further stated by the petitioner that

respondent is a lady of very high ambitions and
always tried to live a lavish life without compromising
even in the bad days.

10. That the marital relations between the parties have

not been very pleasant and compatible since the day
of marriage till the date filing of this Petition. The
reasons for disharmony and non-compatibility are
squarely attributable to the Respondent.

11. That the petitioner tried to give all the amenities to her
wife but she was never satisfied with the petitioner
and she always indulges herself without even thinking
about the future consequences along with the
reputation of petitioner’s family.

12. That it is pertinent to mention here that the behaviour

of the respondent towards her in laws was always
 rude and abnormal. Right from the day-one of the
marriage the behaviour/ attitude of the respondent
towards the petitioner, his mother, father, other family
members and relatives has been very insulting/
disrespectful, quarrelsome, non-co-operative,
suspicious, rude, insulting, adamant, dominating,
high tempered, aggressive, violent and suicidal. The
respondent has given the petitioner lots and lot of
mental tension almost every day, by her acts of
commission and omission, refusing to perform any of
her matrimonial obligations. She has treated the
petitioner with cruelty, by every possible way

13. That it is also important to mention here that the

respondent had a habit of discussing the
complainant’s personal discussions with the other
family members also the respondent penchants to
pass on secret information about one person to
another.

14. That the Respondent was very whimsical. She used to

break house hold items at the drop of hat and without
any provocation.

15. That the Respondent used to dominate the Petitioner

in every house hold affair, be it small or big, thereby
not at all giving him any space, clearly leaving him
with no other choice but to suffer and sustain mental
torture in silence.

16. That the respondent was also found to be of blaming

attitude unnecessarily by saying that if the petitioner
or any of the family member even think of putting any
restriction in the absolute freedom and life style of the
respondent, she would implicate the petitioner and his
other family members in false cases of harassment.

17. That after some time of the marriage the behaviour of

respondent has been totally changed towards the
 petitioner. She did not fulfil any matrimonial
obligations instead of that she always tried to conquer
and dominate the petitioner making his life worse and
sometimes petitioner tried to step outside his shoes
but it resulted in threats of registering false
cases/applications by the respondent.

18. That the Respondent was thoroughly non-co-

operative. She refused to perform her matrimonial
obligations making every trivial household thing an
issue. However, the Petitioner continued to be
supportive and co-operative, discharging all his
matrimonial obligations, thinking that good sense will
prevail upon the Respondent sooner than later.

19. That the respondent has not been performing any of

her matrimonial obligation much prior to since the
parties formally separated. That before the separation
the respondent has been consistently refusing to have
physical relationship with the petitioner. She has also
been refusing to do any house hold chorus. She has
not been preparing meals, breakfast, lunch, dinner,
for the petitioner.

20. That just as if what is averred hereinabove was not

enough, the Respondent also used to torture, harass
and humiliate the Petitioner privately and publicly by
alleging that he had numerous affairs with other
women. The Respondent used to level this allegation
despite the fact that she knew it very well that the
Petitioner had no such relation, the Petitioner being
person of principles and morals.

21. That the petitioner never quelled the respondent

financially and tried to fulfil every legitimate demands
of the respondent.
22. That the opposite party used to make fun of the
petitioner in front of her relatives therefore petitioner
felt a lack in emotional support which is very much
required in a healthy matrimonial life.

23. That the cause of action to file the present petition

accrued to the petitioner many times when the
respondent abuses the petitioner and his parents in
filthy language mercilessly and many more atrocities
which were done by the respondent described above.
The cause of action also accrued in the year 2007-
2008 when the respondent left the petitioner for no
reason and from that time a permanent stain emerged
in the matrimonial relation between parties to this
present petition. The main cause of action arose in
the month of July 2017 when the respondent turned
out/left the petitioner and clearly refused to live with
the petitioner and also on each and every date when
the internal mediations were convened but were
denied by the respondent for reason.

24. That even though the petitioner realised

that the respondent being under the heavy
influence of her parents has not been
much interested in a happy domesticity
and may flout the sacrosanct ties of the
marriage, the petitioner always hoped that
perhaps there may be a new day bringing
some light in the life of this petitioner and
the respondent, for the petitioner is such a
man who devoutly and fervently believes
that every day is a new life to a wise man as
well as a woman.

25. That the Respondent has committed the above said

acts of cruelty on the Petitioner knowingly,
 intentionally, wilfully and deliberately.

26. That the respondent is doing the cruelty of trying to

pry petitioner away from his “pious obligation” to live
with his aged mother and provide shelter to her and
when it is objected by the petitioner, she threatens
him by saying that she will lodge the false F.I.R along
with other cases.

27. That the marital relation of the parties has been

damaged beyond repair. There is no chance of any
patch up between them. Consequently, the marriage
between the parties is irretrievably broken.

28. That in view of the facts and circumstances, as

narrated here-in above, the Petitioner has been left
with no other alternative but to seek the remedy
through the Court of law. Hence this Petition.

29. That this petition is not being presented in collision

with the Respondent.

30. That the petitioner is presently living in the

aforementioned address therefore this Hon’ble Court
does have the jurisdiction in the matter to adjudicate
upon and decide the same.

31. That the Petitioner, seeks from this Hon’ble Court the
dissolution of his marriage with the Respondent on
the following grounds amongst others: -
(a) BECAUSE the Respondent has since solemnization
of the marriage of the parties treated Petitioner with
cruelty.
(b) BECAUSE there is a complete breakdown of the
marriage between the parties. There is no chance of
any patch up between them.
 P R A Y E R

WHEREFORE, on the facts and grounds stated above,

it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be

graciously pleased

(i) To pass a decree of divorce, ordering / directing

dissolution of the marriage between the parties

(ii) Any other relief or reliefs which the court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
present case be also passed in favour of the petitioner.

Lucknow (VIKAS VERMA )

Dated: Advocate
(Counsels for the petitioner)

V E R I F I C A T I O N
I, the above named petitioner, do hereby verify that
the contents of Paras 1 to 31 of this petition are true to my
personal Knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing
material has been concealed.
Signed and verified this on on family
court compound.

Lucknow.
Dated: , 2019 Petitioner
 IN THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE ,FAMILY COURT.
LUCKNOW

R.S NO –
U/S- 13(1) of H.M.A
P.S-
Distt. - Lucknow

Hariharan Nagmani Iyer, Aged about 47 years, S/O Laxmi

Nagmani, Permanently Residing at House No-J-164, Sector
J, Asiyana Lucknow-226012
……..……Petitioner
VERSUS

Kajal Hariharan Iyer, Aged about 45 years, W/O

Hariharan Nagmani Iyer, R/O B-602, Building No 47, P.O
Pantnagar, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai 400086

…………Opposite Party/Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I Hariharan Nagmani Iyer, Aged about 47 years, S/O

Laxmi Nagmani, Permanently Residing at House No-J-164,
Sector J, Asiyana Lucknow-226012 the deponent do hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as under: -

1. That the petitioner is himself the deponent in the

present petition and would himself be doing pairivi in
this petition.

2. That the contents of paras 1 to 31 of the complaint are

true to my personal knowledge and are believed to be
true on the basis of information gathered from records
and those of and are based on legal advice.
3. That the Annexure filed along with the complaint are
true/Photostat of its respective original, which has
been compared by the deponent to be true.

Lucknow.

Dated: , 2019 Deponent

V E R I F I C A T I O N
I, the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the
contents of paras 1 to 3 of this affidavit are true to my
personal Knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing
material has been concealed.
So, help me God.

Lucknow.
Dated: , 2019
Deponent

I, identify the above named deponent on the basis of

records, who has signed before me.

Lucknow [ VIKAS VERMA]

Dated: ,2019 Advocate
(Counsel for the Complainant)

Solemnly affirmed before me on at A.M./P.M by

the deponent who is identified by Shri VIKAS VERMA,
Advocate, Lucknow.
I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent,
that he understands the contents of this affidavit, which
have been read over and explained to him by me.
 IN THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE ,FAMILY COURT.
LUCKNOW

R.S NO –
U/S- 13 of H.M.A

REGISTERED ADDRESS OF THE PARTY

Hariharan Nagmani Iyer, Aged about 47 years, S/O Laxmi

Nagmani, Permanently Residing at House No-J-164, Sector
J, Asiyana Lucknow-226012

Lucknow [ VIKAS VERMA]

Dated: 2019 Advocate
(Counsel for the Complainant)
 IN THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE ,FAMILY COURT.
LUCKNOW

R.S NO –
U/S- 13(1) of H.M.A
P.S-
Distt. - Lucknow

Hariharan Nagmani Iyer, Aged about 47 years, S/O Laxmi

Nagmani, Permanently Residing at House No-J-164, Sector
J, Asiyana Lucknow-226012
……..……Petitioner
VERSUS

Kajal Hariharan Iyer, Aged about 45 years, W/O

Hariharan Nagmani Iyer, R/O B-602, Building No 47, P.O
Pantnagar, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai 400086

…………Opposite Party/Respondent

APPLICATION FOR TAKING VAKALTNAMA ON RECORD

The humble applicant most respectfully begs to state as

under

1. That the applicant is petitioner in the above

mentioned petition and is fully conversant with the
facts herein above.

2. That the applicant wants to appoint Vikas Verma

Advocate Enr- as his legal Counsel for the rest of
his case.
Therefore it is requested to
take vakalatnama /power on record

Lucknow (Applicant)

Dated