IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT

FARIDABAD

PETITION NO. ______ OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Narender

…Petitioner

Versus

Neha

…Respondent

INDEX

S.No Particulars Page No.

1. Memo of Parties
2. Petition for Divorce u/s

3. Affidavit

4.

5. Vakalatnama

Petitioner

Through Counsel
Pankaj Parashar
Advocate
th
Chamber No. 447, 4 Floor, Lawyers Chamber building
Sector 12 Faridabad- 121007
Ph No.- +91 9990809984
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT
FARIDABAD

PETITION NO. ______ OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Narender …Petitioner

Versus

Neha …Respondent

MEMO OF PARTIES

Narender
Aged about____ years
S/o Sh. Surender
R/o Johadiya Mohalla
Village Anangpur, Faridabad
…Petitioner
VERSUS

Neha
Aged about ____ years
W/o Narender
D/o Sh. Omprakash
R/o Village Bhatola Sector 32
Faridabad
…Respondent
Date: _________
Place: Faridabad
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
FARIDABAD

Petition No. ……..of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Narender

…Petitioner

Versus

Neha

… Respondent

Petition under section 13 (I) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, for
dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and
desertion

Respectfully Showeth:

1. That the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was

solemnized on 22.11.2015 at Faridabad according to Hindu
rites, customs and ceremonies in the presence of family,
relatives and friends of both the parties along with friends,
relatives. Marriage Certificate is enclosed herewith as
ANNEXURE P1.

2. That after marriage, petitioner started residing with

respondent with his family at Village Anangpur Faridabad
and cohabited as such as husband and wife.
 3. That the status and the place of residences of the parties at the
time of marriage and at the time of filing this petition are as
under:-

Before Marriage:

Husband Wife

Status & Age Residence Status & Age Residence

Hindu Village Hindu Village bhatola

Unmarried Anangpur Sector 82
Faridabad Unmarried Faridabad
38 Years
27 Years

At the time of filing Petition:

Husband Wife

Status & Age Residence Status & Age Residence

Hindu Married Village Hindu Village bhatola

Anangpur Sector 82
48 Years Faridabad Married Faridabad
37 Years

4. That before the marriage, the parents of the petitioner were

assured by the parents of the respondent that the respondent is
a good girl with nice behaviour and manners conducive to
maintaining family harmony. It was also conveyed that she
 possessed qualities to uphold the respect of both families, i.e.,
the family of the petitioner and the respondent, in society.
Furthermore, it was expected that she would treat the
petitioner well and without any complaints, in line with his
status and means.

5. That the petitioner belongs to a simple and noble family and

the petitioner and his family is strictly against any sort of
dowry. They just wanted a good girl who can perform her
matrimonial duties under the Hindu customs. Therefore, they
didn’t verify anything about her education etc. and only
agreed for the marriage by thinking that the respondent being
a girl belonging to local culture and customs.

6. That once the marriage was fixed, the attitude and behaviour
of the Respondent towards the petitioner changed. The
Respondent consistently pressured the petitioner financially,
disregarding his limited means and insisting on extravagant
purchases. Despite the petitioner’s financial constraints, the
respondent resorted to emotional blackmail, threatening to
abandon the petitioner shortly after marriage unless her
demands were met.
7. That the respondent used to threaten the petitioner that if they
don’t fulfil her demands, she will commit suicide and then the
whole family will go to jail.

8. That Respondent publically humiliated the petitioner by

creating a scene outside the college gate tearing clothes of
petitioner and threw her engagement ring and her phone
which was gifted by petitioner to her, thereby causing
 embarrassment and disrespect publically. Respondent never
respected the petitioner.

9. That, the respondent consistently displayed hostile behaviour

towards the petitioner and his family members and even
towards children, showing no love and affection towards
them. She refused to engage in household tasks such as
cooking, leaving the petitioner's mother to handle these
responsibilities. Initially, the petitioner and his mother
assuming she was inexperienced in household matters and
would learn over time. However, the respondent's actions
proved otherwise. Instead of improving her behaviour, she
continued to cause disruptions on various occasions. Her
strained relationships with the petitioner's parents and other
family members led to a situation where nobody in the family
expected anything from her, and she led an independent
lifestyle. She frequently relied on ordering food online rather
than contributing to household chores. From this conduct of
respondent, it is not incorrect to say that she wilfully
neglected her matrimonial duties towards petitioner and his
family.

10. That respondent consistently failed to fulfil her marital

responsibilities, including basic household chores and
maintaining respect towards family members of petitioner.
Matrimonial misconduct without any reasonable excuse of
respondent amounts to cruelty on mind of petitioner.
11. That the respondent, with her adamant nature, neglected her
health and refused to eat and drink whenever her demands
were not met.

12. That despite accepting the respondent into their family, the
petitioner noticed a rapid change in her behaviour and
attitude. The respondent once told that her mother knows
"Kaala Jaadu" with the ability to manipulate others using
food and sweets. Both Respondent and her mother are
involved in these kinds of activities which causes mental
distress to petitioner.

13. That since starting of marriage respondent used to say that

she is there for a few months and after few months she will
move on to her on life with someone else and she will file a
complaint in Police against petitioner and his family.

14. That out of many temperamental differences between the

Petitioner and the Respondent the main cause of concern was
the doubtful, perplexing, suspicious, sceptical and
unpredictable nature of the Respondent who used to doubt the
Petitioner without any solid reason. The profession of the
Petitioner is of event management, dancing and Turban Tying
stalls at various social, cultural and political organizations
wherein he would have been surrounded with young girls and
artists who used to treat the Petitioner as their guru or big
brother but the Respondent was having unnecessary doubt
and after almost every event she used to taunt the Petitioner
for illicit relationship with girls. This has made the life of the
Petitioner very miserable as if he didn’t go outside the house
 for earning then the Respondent used to taunt the Petitioner
for not earning and going and when he would have gone
outside then after almost every function the Respondent
didn’t leave any chance to taunt the Petitioner. All such
suspicious and doubtful nature of the Respondent made the
life of the Petitioner a real hell and he used to cry all night but
the Respondent with very cruel heart and soul used to eat full-
fledged meal and sleep in front of the Petitioner without food.
It really made the life of the petitioner miserable as he was
forced to live life in a home prison.

15. That two children started growing and the grandparents

wanted to shower their love and affection but the respondent
and her mother always avoided and kept both children away
from them most of the time. She never liked Diksha and
Harishyam to go and play with their grandparents. The
petitioner tried to prevail upon the respondent many times but
the respondent was adamant in this matter too. Most of the
time the respondent and her mother proved the petitioner
wrong by doing such acts which were almost beyond
tolerance of anybody with a normal sense and mind. All such
acts tantamount to utmost cruelty against the petitioner by the
respondent and her family members. Their over indulgence
blighted the married life of the petitioner.

16. That later, the petitioner got to know about pregnancy of the
respondent. But before giving the said news to the petitioner
the respondent contacted her mother and without giving any
knowledge and without discussing anything with petitioner
shockingly the said pregnancy was illegally aborted by giving
 medicine by the brother of the respondent against the wishes
and desires of the petitioner and his family members. This is
the biggest mental cruelty to any husband when his child is
aborted without his knowledge and consent and such crucial
decisions are taken by the petitioner and her family members.
Respondent is a cruel women for petitioner, his children and
his family.

17. That it is pained to mention herein that the neither the

respondent not her parents had taken any consent of the
petitioner to illegally abort the child. Had it been known to
the petitioner he would not have allowed them to do such an
illegal act. The constant interference and ill advise of her
parents had wrecked the petitioner mentally, physically and
psychology. All such acts tantamount to utmost cruelty
against the petitioner by the respondent and her family
members. Their over indulgence blighted the married life of
the petitioner.

18. That the loss of life of the child even before his birth had left
the footprints of depression on the mind of the petitioner as
such he could not even look after his work properly for quite
some time. Time and again the respondent and her mother
proved that they were after the life, prestige and money of the
petitioner but certainly not to support the petitioner and to
perform the duty of a life partner.

19. That the respondent never tried to improve her habits and
behaviour. She remained busy with her own routine without
any concern about petitioner and even their children. The
 petitioner tried to prevail upon her but there was not even an
iota of change in her behaviour. It would be remarkable to
mention herein that the respondent had been treating the
parents of the petitioner in the worst manner possible and
slaughtered all their feelings and threatened to kill them or
even commit suicide which was a great cruelty on mind of
petition and his family.

20. That the respondent herself admitted in the FIR that she tried
to commit suicide by consuming cockroach killer medicine.

21. That it is further asserted that there was an unnecessary

interference of respondent’s family in household decisions of
petitioner. Her family members always instigated her against
father and mother of petitioner.

22. That needless to say, it has taken a big toll on the mind of the
petitioner and he started getting depressed and started feeling
dejected and disheartened. Thereafter, seeing their son
depressed, the parents of the petitioner arranged a meeting
with the parents and relatives of the respondents and
petitioner after couple of days without involving the parties.
The meeting was seemed to be fruitful and the parents of the
respondent admitted the mistake of their daughter and
apologised for her ill behaviour in front of respectable
members of the society and relatives. They further assured
that they will make their daughter understand the value of
family virtues. Eventually they dropped the respondent in her
matrimonial house in village Anangpur.
23. That respondent left her matrimonial home many times
without telling anyone in the home.

24. That the respondent took both the children and left the house
without telling anyone to trouble petitioner and his family by
using the children. Now, the person filing the petition and
Neha has been living separately since 05-03-2020. This
action of Respondent caused a huge emotional distress to the
petitioner and his family. The separation has been ongoing
for over two years, indicating irreconcilable differences.

25. That the respondent intentionally and wilfully deserted the

petitioner and her matrimonial home without any reasonable
or legal excuse for more than 2 years. Petitioner tried his best
to get the respondent back to her matrimonial home but she
stated now she would never return.

26. That many efforts of reconciliation were made from the side
of petitioner and his family members but she refused to
return.

27. That on 13.09.2020, in order to harass the petitioner and his

family, respondent with support of her family members gave
a complaint u/s 498-A, 506, 406, 323 IPC at Police Station
Women Central Faridabad upon which FIR No. 119 dated
13.09.2020 was registered against the petitioner. The copy of
FIR is enclosed herewith this petition as Annexure P2.

28. That it is pertinent to mention here that in the case registered

on aforementioned FIR is on the stage of Prosecution
Evidence since 02.09.2020 i.e. more than 1 year 7 months.
 This delay in Evidence indicates an abuse of the legal
processes and disrespect of complainant towards court and
law and raise doubts about the prosecution case. Also, this
delay shows that the complaint was filed with malicious
intent or as a means of harassment which has caused undue
prejudice to the petitioner, affecting his ability to lead a
normal and peaceful life. Now the case is fixed on 24-07-
2024 for prosecution evidence in the court of Ld. JMIC
Faridabad. The copies of orders dated 02-09-2022, 22-12-
2022, 24-05-2023, 26-09-2023 and 16-01-2024 are enclosed
with this petition as Annexure P3.

29. That respondent is a women of intemperate and volatile

nature who inflicted vast panoply of cruelties upon petitioner
and his whole family even including her relative Laxmi
(named as accused no.6 in the FIR) who is married to
Sandeep (brother of petitioner).

30. That such acts of respondent are the acts of mental cruelty to
which petitioner was subjected without any reason or
justification.

31. The petitioner's family paid for the entire wedding. The
petitioner and their family never requested any dowry, despite
the respondent's claim in the FIR. The respondent provided a
fake list of dowry items and told the Women's Central Police
Station that she doesn't have receipts for the items her parents
allegedly gave during the marriage, so she can't provide them.
This indicates that the list of dowry items is false. The fake
 list is attached as Annexure P4, and her statement is attached
as Annexure P5.

32. That respondent also gave a written statement, enclosed with

charge sheet in the above said FIR, stating that she don’t want
her belongings through police, she want to take her
belongings through court. This statement of respondent
shows she just want to mentally torture the petitioner and his
family by dragging the matter to court. The copy of her
written statement is enclosed herewith as Annexure P6

33. That at present, children are in the wrongful possession of the

respondent. Respondent do not allow the children to meet the
petitioner nor she is giving their custody to petitioner. For any
father who is not allowed to meet his children is the utmost
cruelty as it is not only emotional need but also a fundamental
and legal right for the legitimate father.

34. That preventing a father to meet his children is violation of

his fundamental right provided to him under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution. Being deprived of the opportunity to
meet his children not only affects personal well-being of
petitioner but also hampers the development and welfare of
the children, which is contrary to the spirit of Article 21 and
shows cruel nature of respondent towards petitioner and
children to mentally harass the petitioner.

35. That the Respondent's self-centred behaviour, as stated in this

petition, clearly indicates her lack of consideration for the
welfare of both the Petitioner and their children. This
disregard for the children's needs may constitute a violation
 of the legal obligation to prioritize their best interests. The
children are currently in the Respondent's custody, the
Petitioner is deeply distressed about their well-being, growth,
and overall development. This distress arises from concerns
regarding the environment and care provided by the
Respondent, which directly impacts the children's lives and
future.

36. That whenever the petitioner tried to bring such behaviour

and acts of the respondent into their knowledge then instead
of asking her to change her attitude they had always blamed
the petitioner for everything and defending her whenever
complained about her acts and conducts as they all were
having eyes on the property of the petitioner and they wanted
that the petitioner and his mother should leave the house so
that they all could live there alone. Many times the
respondent and her mother quarrelled and physically beaten
the Petitioner’s old aged mother. Whenever, the petitioner
raised his voice against this shameful act then the respondent
had given threat of filing false complaint in the police station
and gunda and non-social elements. In this regard a police
complaint was also filed at Police Commissioner, Sector-21-
C, Faridabad against the Petitioner and his family members
which is still pending and the investigation is going on.

37. That since the respondent had worsened her relations with her
in-laws day by day, therefore, they were feeling as if they
were living in a lonely planet without having any contact with
any of their family members. Most of the times when the
petitioner used to come home in the evening and demanded
 food he was greeted by taunting and unnecessary quarrels
without no reason and eventually had to sleep without food in
the night just to save his matrimonial and social life. The
petitioner also used to sleep alone in the room and the
respondent even being his legally wedded wife was not at all
worried to perform her matrimonial obligations towards him.
All such acts and deeds were a great cruelty upon the
petitioner.

38. That the respondent kept on harassing the petitioner on

almost daily basis. The petitioner kept on trying to save his
married life but couldn’t succeed in his mission as the
respondent was never willing to settle down the life
peacefully in her matrimonial home. She never did any
household job. Even she was not preparing meals for the little
kids Diksha and Harishyam and they were always taken care
of by the mother of the petitioner. Not only this but the
respondent and her mother are spoiling the tender minds of
both the children by telling them false and wrong stories
about the petitioner and his character. Needless to say, it is
the utmost cruelty to any human being when his own children
are feeded against him.

39. That in this way, although the respondent was brought back
many times to her matrimonial house yet she was not
concerned about the petitioner or his well-being. The
respondent was always busy with her friends and family
members on her mobile phone and the petitioner was leading
 a life of a stranger in his own house and under same roof with
utmost grief, threat and shock.

40. That the cruelty upon the petitioner touched another height
when after leaving the house the respondent has given several
life threats to the Petitioner. After deserting the Petitioner one
fine day the Respondent reached to the office of the Petitioner
at Noida and started investigating with the security guard and
finally approached the HR department and asked about the
Petitioner. Being a suspicious lady she asked them all about
the personal life of the Petitioner like at what time he comes,
at what time he leaves the office, with whom he has lunch,
who are the visitors for the Petitioner and whether the
Petitioner is having any relationship with his colleagues and
all. Needless to say such investigation, over indulgence,
suspicious nature in front of everyone especially the work
related people of the Petitioner has put the Petitioner under
surveillance and also put a big dent on his character. Most
people started talks about the Petitioner and petitioner lost his
prestige in the eyes of his friends, colleagues and officers at
his workplace; hence all such acts and conduct of the
respondent has taken a big toll on the mind of the petitioner
and he is living a “gumnam zindagi” without any life
purpose. All such acts and deeds are a great cruelty upon the
petitioner.
41. That despite various requests by the petitioner and efforts
made by close family friends, relatives and even neighbours
were proved futile and the respondent has never tried to join
the company of the petitioner as such the petitioner is left
with no other options and choice but to seek a decree of
divorce by way of filing this petition. The respondent is also
not allowing the petitioner to meet his children. Separate
proceedings for seeking custody of his children namely
Diksha and Harishyam shall be initiated under the
Guardianship and Wards Act 1980 in due course of time.

42. That following are the important observations of Supreme

Court in the favor of present petition:

In the case of Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey,

(2002) 2 SCC 73, this Court construing the question of
’cruelty’ as a ground of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of
the Act made the following observations :

"Treating the petitioner with cruelty is a ground for divorce

under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. Cruelty has not been
defined under the Act but in relation to matrimonial matters it
is contemplated as a conduct of such type which endangers
the living of the petitioner with the respondent. Cruelty
consists of acts which are dangerous to life, limb or health.
Cruelty for the purpose of the Act means where one spouse
has so treated the other and manifested such feelings towards
her or him as to have inflicted bodily injury, or to have
caused reasonable apprehension of bodily injury, suffering or
to have injured health. Cruelty may be physical or mental.
Mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which causes
mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other”

In the case of Bipinchandra Jai Singhbai Shah v.

Prabhavati, AIR 1957 SC 176, apex court explained the the
essential ingredients for proving the ground of desertion are
Factum deserdendi i.e. the factum of separation and Animus
deserendi i.e an intention to desert the respondent for a
permanent period. Additionally, the Desertion should have
been without any reasonable cause and for a period of more
than two years before filling of the petition.

In Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit, (2006) 3 SCC 778, the

Court said; “It is settled by a catena of decisions that mental
cruelty can cause even more serious injury than the physical
harm and create in the mind of the injured appellant such
apprehension as is contemplated in the section. It is to be
determined on whole facts of the case and the matrimonial
relations between the spouses. To amount to cruelty, there
must be such willful treatment of the party which caused
suffering in body or mind either as an actual fact or by way of
apprehension in such a manner as to render the continued
living together of spouses harmful or injurious having regard
to the circumstances of the case. The word “cruelty” has not
been defined and it has been used in relation to human
conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to
or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a
 course of conduct and one which is adversely affecting the
other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or
unintentional. There may be cases where the conduct
complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or
illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other
spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such
cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is
proved or admitted”.

43. That it is the respondent who has deserted the petitioner

without any reason and rhyme.

44. That all the efforts of the petitioner to bring the respondent
back in his matrimonial home, gone vested, Finding no
alternative the petitioner is approaching this Hon'ble Court
for taking a decree of Divorce; hence this petition.

45. That there has been no collision between the petitioner and
the respondent regarding this petition.

46. That there has not been any unnecessary or improper delay in
filing the present petition.

47. That there is no legal ground or impediment as to why the

relief asked for should not be granted.

48. That the marriage of the parties to the present petition

solemnized at Faridabad and the respondent is also residing at
District Faridabad at the above given address, which is
situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court and therefore, this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try
and entertain this petition.
 49. That the petitioner has affixed the requisite court fee stamp
on this petition for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee.

50. That there is no legal ground or impediment as to why the

relief asked for should not be granted.

51. The petitioner is entitled to a decree of Divorce.

PRAYER

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, the
Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
i. Pass a decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondent thereby dissolving the marriage of the
parties by a decree of divorce as provided under section
13(1) (i-a)(i-b) of HMA, 1955 as amended up to date by the
Marriage Law Amended Act, 1976;
ii. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the
present case.
PETITIONER
VERIFICATION
Verified at Faridabad on this….day of…………….2024 that the contents of
this petition are true to my own knowledge and nothing has been concealed
therein.

PETITIONER
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
FARIDABAD

Petition No. ……..of 2024

Narender …Petitioner

VERSUS

Neha …Respondent

AFFIDAVIT
I, Narender (aged about ………..years), R/o Johadiya Mohalla, Village
Anangpur, District Faridabad, Haryana., do hereby solemnly affirm and declare
as under:
1. That the deponent, has filed the accompanying Petition under section 13
(I) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, for dissolution of marriage by a decree
of divorce before the Hon’ble Court, and contents of which may kindly be read
as part and parcel of this Affidavit, as the same aren’t being
reproduced/repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

2. That, the contents of the same have been drafted by my Counsel but have
been narrated and explained to me in vernacular language and the contents
given there in the affidavit are true and are affirmed on oath.

3. That, the truthfulness of the contents of the Petition as well of this

Affidavit are confirmed and affirmed on oath.

Deponent
Verification:
Verified that the contents of the above Affidavit are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therein.

Verified at Faridabad on this …..day of …………….., 2024.

Deponent