1

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT BANDRA, MUMBAI

PETITION NO. A - OF 2023
In the matter of Section 13
(1)(ia), Section 25 and 26 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and
Amendments or Modifications
thereto being the Marriage
(Law Amendments) Act, 68 of
1976.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF
BHAIRAVEE PRASHANT
ARYA

BHAIRAVEE PRASHANT ARYA )

NEE BHAIRAVEE RAJENDRAKUMAR OZA)
Adult, Indian Inhabitant )
Aged: 28 Years, Occ: Product Manager )
Residing at: 6C, Kanchanjunga, )
Anushaktinagar, Mumbai – 400094 )
Contact No: 9969113498 )
Email Id: bhairaveeoza@gmail.com )
…PETITIONER
V/S
PRASHANT RATAN ARYA )
Adult, Indian Inhabitant )
Aged: 30 Years, Occ: Staff Engineer )
 2

Currently Residing at Arya Niwas, )

Near Delhivery Office, Mansarovar Colony )
Najibabad, District Bijnor )
Uttar Pradesh - 246763 )
Contact No. 9723804013 )
Email Id: prary2@gmail.com )

…RESPONDENT

TO,
THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE AND
OTHER HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE
FAMILY COURT, MUMBAI.
THE HUMBLE PETITION

OF THE PETITIONER

ABOVENAMED: -

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

I, BHAIRAVEE PRASHANT ARYA, Nee

“BHAIRAVEE RAJENDRAKUMAR OZA” the

Petitioner hereby states and submits on solemn affirmation

as under:
 3

1. The Petitioner states that the Petitioner now aged 28

years, then a spinster named “BHAIRAVEE

RAJENDRAKUMAR OZA” married the

Respondent, then a bachelor named “PRASHANT

RATAN ARYA” at Shakuntalam, Anushaktinagar,

Mumbai- 400094 on 16th February, 2021 as per the

Hindu rites and rituals i.e, as per provisions of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The said marriage is

registered. The Petitioner states that the Respondent

is in the possession of the original registration

certificate. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit

“A Colly” is the Copy of the Marriage Registration

Certificate and the Original Marriage photograph.

Both the Petitioners are citizens of India. The

Petitioner is domiciled in Maharashtra whereas the

Respondent is domiciled in the state of Uttar

Pradesh. The Petitioner and the Respondent are

governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and

Amendments or Modifications thereto being the

Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, Act-68 of 1976,

 4

hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”. The

Petitioner and the Respondent are Hindus and both

do not belong to Schedule Tribes; hence section 2(2)

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not apply.

2. The Petitioner states that there is one issue born out

of the said wedlock by the name of “Atharva Arya

Oza” born on 30th October 2022. The Petitioner

states that the said son is in the custody of the mother

i.e the Petitioner. Attached herewith and marked as

Exhibit “B” is the copy of the birth certificate of the

child.

3. The Petitioner states that the marriage between the

Petitioner and the Respondent is a love marriage. The

Petitioner and the Respondent first met each other on

23rd July 2012, on their first day of college wherein

both the parties were pursuing BTech in Computer

Engineering from National Institute of Technology,

Surat. The Petitioner and the Respondent started

dating each other from January 2015 and

 5

subsequently decided to get married. The Petitioner

states that all the expenses of the marriage in

Mumbai were borne by the Petitioner and her family

which went up to approximately Rs. 25,00,000

(Rupees Twenty-five lakhs only) while the expenses

of the reception in Najibabad were borne by the

Respondent. The Petitioner states that both of them

were working at the time of the marriage and were

earning nearly equal salaries. The Petitioner states

that she has resigned currently after working with

Oyo rooms till 4th July 2023 having exhausted her

maternity leave and without pay leaves to further take

care of her child. The Respondent works as a staff

engineer in Coindcx and is also a practicing

acupressurist.

4. The Petitioner states that she belongs to a nuclear

family based in Mumbai and the Respondent belongs

to a joint family with a small business in the small

town of Najibabad, Uttar Pradesh. The Petitioner

 6

states that on 29th November 2020, a week before

their Roka ceremony, the Petitioner and the

Respondent had a mutual discussion where it was

agreed upon between both of them that since the

Petitioner was living in Mumbai her whole life, and

the Respondent was living in Bangalore since the last

five years, they would build their own home in

Bangalore or Haridwar and live alone while

maintaining healthy relationship with their parents.

The Respondent had agreed on this considering it as

a fair point and this topic was resolved between them.

5. The Petitioner states that their Roka ceremony took

place on 05th December 2020. The Petitioner states

that the Respondent had even told her parents that

he himself had practically become a resident of

Bangalore and that it is decided between the

Petitioner and the Respondent that after marriage

they would be either moving out to live separately in

Bangalore or Haridwar/Dehradun in case their

 7

offices did not summon them back to Bangalore

because of COVID.

6. The Petitioner states that however after the marriage,

the Respondent forced her to stay and adjust in

Najibabad. The Petitioner states that she confronted

the Respondent about the same however the

Respondent turned blind ears to her. The Petitioner

states that they used to live in a two-storey house in

Najibabad where on the bottom floor, the

Respondent, his mother, his brother, his brother’s

wife and sister used to live and on the top floor, the

Respondent’s father’s elder brother and his family

used to stay. The Respondent’s father’s younger

brother and his family stayed in a nearby house.

7. The Petitioner states that the day after the marriage,

she was already mentally and physically exhausted

from a four-day marriage function followed by an

exhausting 21-hour train and bus journey. The

Petitioner states that she had to take a bath in a

 8

bathroom situated in the living room where everyone

was present and the bathroom only had an old paint

container and a very bad tumbler. The Petitioner

states that she couldn’t find a geyser as they used a

heating rod to warm water. The Petitioner states that

while the Petitioner was taking a bath, the heating

rod caught fire from a short circuit and a heavy

smoke started coming out. The Petitioner was

covered in soap and she shouted and tried to call the

people sitting outside but they couldn’t hear her,

therefore she had to open the bathroom door slightly

and call the Respondent for help. The Petitioner

states that this incident left her embarrassed and in

shock but the Respondent and his family described it

as an accident saying that this could happen in any

household. The Petitioner states that on that day, one

of the Respondent’s maternal cousin even told the

Respondent and his family that how could they let a

Mumbai girl stay in such a bad situation and they

should make proper arrangements for the

 9

accommodation of the Petitioner. The Petitioner

states that it was extremely difficult to adjust in the

said situation however she somehow managed for the

sake of Respondent and her love for the Respondent.

8. The Petitioner states that they had their reception

after sometime. The Petitioner states that due to

some technical issue with the lights, the inverter

stopped working. The Petitioner states that there was

no electricity for the whole night and thus there was

also no way to fill water from the submersible. There

were around 15-20 rats running around the house

which made the Petitioner nauseous and immediately

the Petitioner conveyed it to the Respondent that it is

difficult for her to stay in such a condition but the

Respondent did not comfort her and just blamed the

Petitioner for not adjusting well. The Petitioner states

that the Respondent and his family were not

welcoming to her since the first day of the marriage

and the Respondent did not consider the fact that she
 10

was new at the place and needed his support. The

Petitioner states that such incidents caused her

extreme mental pain and physical discomfort and she

was disheartened.

9. The Petitioner states that she kept forcing herself to

adjust in between an uncomfortable lifestyle and

unnecessary taunts. The Petitioner states that the

Respondent and his family were orthodox and

patriarchal and used to pass unnecessary comments

amongst each other creating a lot of negativity in the

house. The Petitioner states that the elder male

members of the family used to shout abuses

randomly in the house in front of the women and

children. The Petitioner states that the Respondent

was aware about how much the Petitioner hated this

kind of abusive language and even during their dating

years, the Petitioner would ask the Respondent to

drop using even slightest abusive language. However

when she showed discomfort regarding the same, the

 11

Respondent reverted by saying that this was not an

issue as it was just said in front of her but it was not

directed at her.

10. The Petitioner states that till March 2021, she

used to constantly ask the Respondent that when will

they shift but the Respondent always neglected this

topic and never answered properly giving various

reasons such as Covid, even though there was no

lockdown at that time. The Petitioner states that she

realised that she should not have trusted the premise

on the basis of which the Respondent convinced the

Petitioner and her parents for the marriage. The

Respondent had no plans to move out from

Najibabad and betrayed the trust of the Petitioner

which caused immense agony to the Petitioner.

11. The Petitioner states that the Respondent had a lot of

anger issues and was abusive. The Petitioner states

that even when they were dating, on 23rd February

2017, the Respondent lost his first job but since the
 12

Petitioner was also in her first job on a probation

period she could not get leave and thus couldn’t go

and meet him. The Petitioner states that she called

the Respondent to comfort him but he abused her

heavily on call. The Petitioner states that she was

taken aback and hurt by this behaviour of the

Respondent however the Petitioner thought that due

to loss of job he is under severe stress and thus

forgave him understanding his problems. The

Petitioner states that the Respondent after their

marriage used to get angry on the smallest of things

and his tone as well as words was extremely

derogatory, which made the Petitioner feel very

mentally disturbed. The Petitioner states that she had

come a long way from home for him and had fought

hard with her parents for him but the Respondent

always used to say that he was the man of the house

and she would have to stay as per his whims and

fancies. The Petitioner states that the Respondent

stopped treating the Petitioner as an equal and

 13

whenever someone taunted her or she raised issues

regarding the living conditions such as washing

machine not working for a month, rats roaming

around the house, lack of electricity, lack of wifi

availability and not letting the Petitioner work, the

Respondent always took the side of his family and

shouted at the Petitioner for no reason. The

Petitioner states that Respondent used to relax with

his family after fighting with the Petitioner while the

Petitioner felt suffocated and used to cry for hours as

she had no one to go to and this caused extreme

stress to the Petitioner.

12. The Petitioner states that by the end of April 2021,

after staying in Najibabad for more than two months,

seeing no hopes of the Respondent moving out from

there, thereby betraying her trust, she was finding it

more and more difficult to stay there despite of trying

level best to adjust in the cramped household. The

Petitioner states that she did not have a loving and

 14

empathetic husband as she had hoped for. The

Petitioner states that the Respondent cared the least

about her feelings and on 24th April 2021, the

Respondent got very angry on her as she again raised

a few concerns about the cleanliness and

environment of the house, and told the Petitioner

that if he would have known she would be like this, he

never would have married her. The Petitioner states

that the Respondent further asked her to pack her

bags, leave and send the divorce papers to him in

front of his family. The Petitioner out of humiliation

started to pack her bags in front of everyone, and she

was shocked to see that no one came in to console her

or to stop her but the Petitioner herself stopped as

she loved the Respondent and wanted to save her

marriage.

13. The Petitioner states that the Respondent involved

his family in all their private matters from the first

day of their marriage and would always insult and

 15

humiliate Petitioner’s mother. The Petitioner states

that the Respondent would always taunt her mother

that she had not taught her daughter to live in a

matrimonial home. The Petitioner states that she

never wanted to humiliate her matrimonial home and

had not shared anything foul about her marriage with

her parents, not even the fire accident she had faced

on her first day in the bathroom as she always wanted

to maintain peace and harmony in the family.

14.The Petitioner states that on 28th April 2021, when

the Petitioner was crying in worry looking at the

COVID numbers in Mumbai feeling scared for her

parents, the Respondent just left the room and

started having fun outside with his family. The

Petitioner states that when she questioned his cold

behaviour, the Respondent again told her ‘if I had

known you were like this, I would have never married

you.’ The Petitioner was left broken and shattered.

 16

15. The Petitioner states that after May 2021, after the

easing of the lockdown restrictions she was able to

visit her parental house in Mumbai but it wasn’t easy

as she had to travel 3-4 hours to Dehradun airport to

catch a flight to Mumbai, which was also not always

available. The Petitioner states that she was

dependent on the Respondent to take her to the

airport and the Respondent used to constantly taunt

her for going home to meet her parents which made

the Petitioner more disheartened. The Petitioner

states that the Respondent also used to call the

parents of the Petitioner and shouted at them for not

teaching the Petitioner on how to live in the

matrimonial house while he himself was breaching

their trust. The Petitioner states that this behaviour

caused extreme mental agony on the Petitioner and

her parents.

16.The Petitioner states that towards the end of the June

2021, the Petitioner tried to make the Respondent

 17

understand her predicament and that she is trying

her best to adjust however that it is difficult for her to

stay in Najibabad due to lack of space and all together

different atmosphere but the Respondent instead of

understanding her predicament replied her saying

“go to hell and this is your shortcoming”. The

Petitioner craves leave to refer and rely upon

the relevant documentary evidence as and

when required.

17. The Petitioner states that in mid-august 2021, one

day, the Respondent shouted at her badly with no

rhyme or reason. The Petitioner states that she had

developed difficulties in breathing which she never

had before whenever the Respondent fought with her

or shouted at her. The Petitioner craves leave to

refer and rely upon the relevant documentary

evidence as and when required. The Petitioner

states that at the end of August 2021, the Petitioner

suggested a trip to Jaipur to make the marriage better

 18

and resolve the issues. The Petitioner states that her

mother-in-law, sister-in-law and the Respondent’s

teenage cousin also joined the trip but the Petitioner

was happy to have her husband along with her but

the Respondent was focused only on his family

members and neglected the Petitioner throughout the

trip. The Petitioner states that when her husband was

unable to pay for hotel accommodation for everyone

due to some issue, she immediately paid the whole

amount for everyone and she also paid for the tickets

of many of the tourist places for everyone. The

Petitioner states that she had hoped that during the

said trip both the Petitioner and the Respondent

would get to spend quality time with each other

however the same was not the case and thus she felt

extremely disheartened. The Petitioner states that

they travelled to Meerut by train and after that the

Respondent asked the Petitioner to board another

train to Najibabad. The Petitioner states that she

requested the Respondent to travel by a cab .The

 19

Respondent got angry and when they returned he

asked the Petitioner to pay her share of the cab. The

Respondent did not even consider the fact that the

Petitioner had paid for everyone’s hotel

accommodation and most of the tourist place tickets.

The Petitioner felt alone and like an outsider forced

to stay in their house and this caused extreme agony

to the Petitioner.

18. The Petitioner states that on 4th September

2021, the Petitioner came back to Mumbai to stay at

her parental house for sometime after returning from

the Jaipur trip to celebrate Ganesh Chaturthi at her

house. The Petitioner states that the Respondent

conveyed to the Petitioner through chat by the end of

the month that he was waiting for her to leave his

house and wanted to divorce her. The Respondent

also asked the Petitioner to not return to Najibabad

as she was not welcome in his house anymore and he

kept sending her the ‘middle finger’ emoji on chat.

 20

The Petitioner states that she was shocked to hear the

same as she did not know as to what had caused the

Respondent to make such a decision and thereby

begged the Respondent asking him as to what had

gone wrong, and to not divorce her but the

Respondent paid no heed to it and left the Petitioner

alone and devastated. The Petitioner craves leave

to refer and rely upon the relevant

documentary evidence as and when required.

The Petitioner states that on 30th September 2021,

the Respondent called the Petitioner and told her that

he is going to divorce her and find another woman to

marry. The Petitioner states that this incident added

to the mental stress she was going through and the

Petitioner was unable to breathe. The Petitioner

states that her old parents were broken beyond

words.

19. The Petitioner states that suddenly on 1st October

2021, the Respondent paid a surprise visit to the

 21

Petitioner in Mumbai and told her that he had come

for her. The Petitioner states that she was very happy

and hoped that things would get better between them

however she was wrong in getting her hopes up as

hopes were again shattered. The Petitioner states that

on that day, the wifi was running weak in the last

room, and the Respondent taunted her that she used

to complain about no Wi-Fi and electricity in his

house. The Petitioner was eating Shrikhand and the

Respondent again taunted her saying she does not

like sugar in her tea but she can eat sugar in her

house. The Petitioner states that the Respondent

complained and taunted about everything in her

house in front of the Petitioner’s mother and father’s

sister, who was visiting them. The Petitioner clearly

understood that the Respondent had not come to take

her back but instead to find reasons to abuse and

fight with the Petitioner and her family. The

Petitioner states that the next day, the Respondent

again started taunting that she lived in just a small

 22

house but kept complaining about his house. The

Respondent woke up Petitioner’s father and started

shouting at everyone saying that Petitioner doesn’t

know how to behave like a daughter-in-law and keeps

complaining about everything. The Petitioner states

that the Respondent kept shouting at them from 8

a.m to 2.30 p.m and the Petitioner’s father tried to

make him understand however the Respondent was

in no mood to listen and continued to shout. The

Petitioner tried to keep her concerns in front of the

Respondent but he asked her to shut her mouth and

told “biwi hai biwi ki tarah reh. Jab bola jaye tabhi hi

muh khol”, in front of the Petitioner’s father which

made it clear that this is how the Respondent wanted

the Petitioner to live with him. The Petitioner states

that she was utterly shocked by this behaviour of the

Respondent and it caused extreme stress to her

parents.
 23

20. The Petitioner states that the Respondent left

her house on 2nd October 2021 and they stopped all

communication until 26th October. The Petitioner

states that during this time, in one of the calls made

by the Respondent to Petitioner’s mother, the

Respondent told her that “aapko ek ladka paida karna

chahiye tha kyuki fir aap ise nai bulate. Ek bhabhi

hoti jo isko kabhi apne ghar me nahi ghusne deti”.

The Petitioner was shocked that how could someone

stoop this low. The Respondent the same day on call

with the Petitioner also insulted her for her long

working hours saying that she gives her personal time

to her boss and ass licks her boss. The Petitioner

craves leave to refer and rely upon the

relevant documentary evidence as and when

required. The Petitioner’s family seeing her not able

to breathe the other day and having known earlier

such instances at Najibabad also took her for a heart

check up where the doctor informed her that her

heart was normal but she was diagnosed with

 24

depression and the doctor prescribed her anxiety and

depression pills. The Petitioner craves leave to

refer and rely upon the relevant documentary

evidence as and when required.

21.The Petitioner states that in November 2021, she

suggested the Respondent to celebrate Diwali with

his family as the Petitioner wanted to make things

better. The Petitioner and the Respondent made

another trip to Amritsar to spend some more time

together and work on their relationship however even

on the said trip the Respondent’s mother, sister and

cousin accompanied them. The Petitioner states that

this shows that she took numerous efforts to make

the relationship better but all in vain.

22. The Petitioner states that on 26th

December 2021, she again told the Respondent that

the Petitioner is trying but she does not feel good and

feels low living there. The Respondent said that the

Petitioner had to live in this way since she is a

 25

woman. The Petitioner states that despite of all this,

the Petitioner went to decorate the Respondent’s

father’s younger brother’s house as their twin

children had their birthdays and all the kids in house

loved the Petitioner the most amongst everyone,

which highlights how she really tried to mingle and

be a part of the family, despite the fact that the

Petitioner was treated like an outsider and had to live

around their patriarchal behaviour and unnecessary

negative taunts amongst each other and to the

Petitioner.

23. The Petitioner states that in December 2021,

while the Petitioner was still in Najibabad, the

Respondent got a job in Berlin, Germany and the

Petitioner was happy and positive that they would be

able to work on their relationship by living abroad

and the Respondent would eventually be cordial with

her but all the hopes of the Petitioner were shattered.

The Petitioner states that on 27th December 2021, she

 26

had entered the kitchen to toast bread. The

Petitioner’s mother-in-law gave her the tawa and

since it was wet, the water and ghee started making

noise to which the Respondent’s father’s elder

brother saw it was her and shouted that “‘yeh kaun

hai jisko tawa bhi istamal karna nahi ata” The

Respondent’s father’s elder brother unnecessarily

taunted and created a fight on such a trivial issue.

The Petitioner states that she then went for a long

walk for her peace of mind as she had found no

respect or comfort from her husband and had to

listen to unnecessary taunts for trivial things and

called her sister to vent her feelings. The Petitioner

then stopped at a restaurant to eat something, while

her parents asked her to call the Respondent. The

Petitioner states that the Respondent picked her up

on a bike and dragged her to court threatening they

would get a divorce immediately. The Petitioner

states that she was shocked beyond words as she had

just gone for a walk because of his cold behavior and

 27

the deliberate taunt by his father’s elder brother. The

Petitioner states that the Respondent asked for a

divorce lawyer outside the court but since it was a

Sunday, everything was closed. It is only after that

the Respondent took her home. The Petitioner states

that after being kicked out by her own husband like

this and everyone in the house knowing the same, the

Petitioner felt ruined and insulted beyond words with

no fault of hers at all. The Petitioner states that the

Respondent’s torture did not end there and thus even

after reaching the Respondent humiliated and abused

the Petitioner in a very derogatory language for no

rhyme or reason and kept saying that she deserved to

be taken to court and be sent back to her parent’s

house and then the Respondent threw the Petitioner

out of the matrimonial house threatening her not to

return back. The Petitioner states that thus she was

forced to return to Mumbai and take shelter with her

parents. The Petitioner states that the above insults

 28

and actions of ill-treatments at the hands of the

Respondent left her in extreme mental agony.

24. The Petitioner states she decided to give some

space to the Respondent to calm down and hoped

that better sense would prevail upon him as he would

miss her. The Petitioner states that thus in January

2022, the Petitioner tried conversing with the

Respondent and also asked the Respondent on text

that why did he make her stay in Najibabad despite of

agreement to stay in the city to which the Respondent

replied that he did not have the money. The

Petitioner states that she was shocked to hear the

same and also failed to understand as to how money

was a problem as the Respondent was earning a high

salary and was working for more than five years. The

Petitioner told the Respondent that he would have

had enough money to move out by April but the

Respondent said that he had the freedom to take this

decision of making her stay in Najibabad and

 29

deliberately made her stay there to show her place as

a woman. The Petitioner was shocked to know that he

thought that as a man it was his right to make her

stay in Najibabad and she was wrong in trusting on

his words before marriage. The Petitioner craves

leave to refer and rely upon relevant

documentary evidence as and when required.

25. The Petitioner states that the Petitioner and the

Respondent both knew that their marriage was not at

all in a stable condition but the Petitioner did not

want to give up on their relationship of 6 years and

thus pleaded and convinced the Respondent to give

their marriage a final try by finally staying separately

as was decided prior to marriage. The Petitioner

states that they decided to move to Bangalore first

but later because they had to move to Berlin by April,

they thought Haridwar would be better as they both

had work from home and the Respondent’s car and

 30

bike and their luggage could be easily shifted between

Haridwar and Najibabad before moving to Berlin.

26. The Petitioner states that on 5th February

2022, the Petitioner went back to Najibabad and

started looking for a rented house with the

Respondent in Haridwar. The Petitioner states that

on 17th February 2022, the Petitioner and the

Respondent moved to Haridwar from Najibabad in a

rented 2BHK house. The Petitioner states that during

the first week in Haridwar, the Respondent used to

help the Petitioner with cooking and washing dishes.

The Petitioner states that she was happy that things

were improving after living alone but she was

mistaken as the Respondent slowly reduced and then

completely stopped helping her after a week of

shifting to Haridwar. The Petitioner states that she

used to manage her job and household chores both

with no help from the Respondent even though the

 31

Respondent’s working hours were much lower than

that of the Petitioner.

27. The Petitioner states that since their marriage

the Respondent forced and pushed the Petitioner to

have unprotected intercourse for which the Petitioner

was not comfortable as she was not ready to get

pregnant this early into the marriage as their marital

life was not stable but the Respondent guaranteed

that nothing would happen as he is a qualified

acupressurist and there was no way that she could get

pregnant just after her menstrual cycle but the

Petitioner got pregnant on 8th March 2022. The

Petitioner states that though it was an unplanned

pregnancy she wanted to do full justice to this

pregnancy, even though she was extremely worried

with becoming pregnant suddenly in an unstable

marriage and did not want to take any risks. The

Petitioner states that however behaviour of the

Respondent was extremely hostile and the

 32

Respondent did not even take care of the Petitioner in

the crucial condition and the Petitioner had to do

everything on her own. The Petitioner states that she

had expected that after this sudden unplanned

pregnancy and she still choosing to go ahead with the

pregnancy, the Respondent will have a change of

behaviour by helping her with the household chores

and letting go of his bothersome tone and regressive

words. However, that did not happen. The Petitioner

states that the behaviour of the Respondent left her

shattered and in pain as he still showed almost no

empathy towards her and had no care or concern for

the Petitioner or their unborn child.

28. The Petitioner states that just after moving to

Haridwar, before she knew she was pregnant, she

regularly wasn’t feeling well and thus she requested

the Respondent to get a maid to ease her work

however the Respondent was literally unbothered by

her situation and replied that they should do their

 33

work themselves if they plan on ever living abroad

even though he did not do any work by himself, and

therefore the Petitioner kept juggling between

managing the house and her job. The Petitioner

states that she wanted to make things right especially

now with the baby, therefore she went back to her

matrimonial home to share the news of her

pregnancy and celebrate the Respondent’s birthday

on 12th March and also requested her mother-in-law

to live with them in Haridwar so that the Petitioner

would take care of her as the Respondent’s mother

was not well and she used to get extremely tired with

managing the house and spending hot afternoon

hours as dictated by the Respondent’s brother in his

small shop which had no electricity. The Petitioner

states that the Respondent’s mother never showed

any concern for the Petitioner and never stopped the

Respondent when he used to shout horribly at the

Petitioner and abused her, but the Petitioner was

 34

extremely concerned for the well being of her mother-

in-law.

29. The Petitioner states that the Petitioner did not

have a smooth pregnancy and that juggling both

household work and her job was taking a toll on her

health and thus she begged the Respondent to

appoint a maid now as it was affecting her health and

it was only after many tears shed did the Respondent

reluctantly agreed to the same. The Petitioner states

that the Respondent liked to see the Petitioner suffer

and liked to see her in pain. The Petitioner states that

she was also having a hard time cooking without

Respondent’s help and used to feel tired and pukish

all the time. The Petitioner states that thus she used

to sleep at 8 p.m without eating anything and was

losing weight. The Petitioner states that the

Respondent never felt or thought to accompany the

Petitioner for any walks during her pregnancy which

again left her feeling lonely as the Petitioner was new

 35

to the place and expected the Respondent to

accompany her during walks to make her feel safe

and spend some quality time with the Petitioner. The

Petitioner states that the Respondent would talk

rudely and use derogatory language every time the

Petitioner tried to talk to him, which would affect the

Petitioner adversely. The Respondent always used to

tell her that managing the house is her job as she is a

woman even though the Petitioner also used to get

ration from outside and pay electricity bills from her

salary. The Petitioner states that the above incidents

have caused extreme mental trauma and distress to

her.

30. The Petitioner states that one day just days

after knowing of her pregnancy, the Petitioner and

Respondent had gone to Har ki Pauri with the

Respondent’s family. The Petitioner states that

initially in the evening also when everyone was

walking around the heavily crowded markets of Har

 36

ki Pauri, the Respondent’s brother and sister in law

handed their 10 month old child to the Petitioner and

the Respondent and instead of the Respondent taking

care of the pregnant Petitioner in those crowded

streets was busy taking care of their child. The

Petitioner states that she was tired from the long

walks but since the Respondent wanted to go to the

place where his family was shopping, he asked her to

sit and wait nearby on the Ghat. The Petitioner states

that she was continuously looking back keeping an

eye on where her husband was in case she needed

him. The Petitioner states that it was almost 9 p.m,

when the Petitioner looked behind to find that the

Respondent and his family had left from there leaving

her behind. The Petitioner looked around for them,

scared to not slip anywhere as it was dark and wet

near the Ganga Ghat. The Petitioner states that when

she couldn’t find them, she decided to finally go out

of Har ki Pauri on her own and try to find her

husband. The Petitioner states that when she reached

 37

she saw that the Respondent had already gotten

outside unbothered by the fact that he had left his

newly pregnant wife alone. The Petitioner states that

this behaviour of the Respondent left her even more

devastated. The above-mentioned incident clearly

shows the neglectful and inconsiderate nature of the

Respondent.

31.The Petitioner states that one day she got severely

sick so the Respondent got her a medical certificate

from her gynaecologist and she had to pause her

work for three weeks. The Petitioner states that one

day, despite being witness to the Petitioner’s

condition the Respondent taunted the Petitioner that

she doesn’t cook dinner and they should keep a cook

so that he doesn’t have to sleep hungry at night. The

Petitioner states that the Respondent even in this

situation was not at all concerned about her and the

baby’s health and was only concerned about him. The

Petitioner states that such was the inconsiderate

 38

behaviour of the Respondent. The Petitioner states

that she requested the Respondent to keep a cook

several times so that the Petitioner would get some

assistance in kitchen as she was not keeping well

during her pregnancy and had a heavy workload but

the Respondent was not ready to do so and forced her

to cook and used to continuously tell her that it was

her duty as a woman to cook. The Petitioner stated

that she used to visit a small nursing home and the

Respondent’s maternal cousin who was a radiologist

had told the Respondent to go to a low qualified

doctor as only such a doctor will do a normal delivery.

The Petitioner was not comfortable that the

Respondent and his cousin brother were making such

an important decision for her. The Petitioner states

that on one of the visits to the nursing home in

Haridwar, the Petitioner upon asking told her

gynaecologist that she was from Mumbai. The

Petitioner states that when she came back and

narrated the same to the Respondent, he shouted at

 39

her badly calling her a show off and told the

Petitioner that she should have told that she is from

Najibabad since now the doctor with do a C-Section

on her to extort money as she belongs to a big city.

The Petitioner states that the above-mentioned

incident added more stress and agony to her because

of Respondent’s tone and behaviour towards her and

she was scared how she was going to go through this

pregnancy in Haridwar if she could not even trust her

gynaecologist. The Petitioner told the Respondent

that she cannot deliver the baby in a place where she

cannot trust her gynaecologist but the Respondent

promised her that he will get her delivery done in

AIIMS, Rishikesh or Delhi but she did not trust the

Respondent due to his past behaviour and promises

specially during her pregnancy.

32. The Petitioner states in the month of May 2022,

she was getting more scared as it was getting harder

to manage things and live around in a stressed

 40

environment. The Petitioner states that she told the

Respondent that it is a tradition of her house that the

first delivery happens at the wife’s parental house and

asked if the Respondent could accompany the

Petitioner to Mumbai for the last three months of her

pregnancy as she would be more comfortable with

her mother taking care of her and would get better

healthcare services in Mumbai as compared to

Haridwar/Najibabad but the Respondent refused to

go there and rudely said that the Petitioner’s family

had no manners. The Petitioner states that she was

taken aback as she was maintaining cordial relations

with the Respondent’s mother and family but the

Respondent was still extremely disrespectful to her

parents and was not ready to make things normal

even with the baby now. The Petitioner states that

such abusive nature of the Respondent caused

immense trauma to her.

 41

33. The Petitioner states that in Haridwar too, the

Respondent’s tone, anger and patriarchal mindset

were the same as in Najibabad. The Petitioner states

that she could not also call her mother in Haridwar as

that would mean that the Petitioner’s mother would

have to uproot herself from Mumbai leaving her

husband and her 86 year old widow mother in law

alone and the Petitioner did not want to burden her

mother also knowing that the Respondent did not

respect her and used to call her mannerless. The

Petitioner was scared that if she needed a woman in

the last months of the pregnancy, the Respondent

would take her to Najibabad to deliver the baby in

where the healthcare provisions were extremely poor

and was thus worried for the wellbeing of herself and

the unborn baby. The Petitioner states that she had

an anxiety attack during her second trimester of

pregnancy due to the above-mentioned incidents but

she continued living with the Respondent to save her

marriage for her child’s future.

 42

34. The Petitioner states that on 21st May 2022, she

went to Mumbai for a couple of weeks to relax and

feel pampered and loved as she would not be able to

travel to her home via flight later when her third

trimester would begin and after her delivery for a

long time. The Petitioner states that she again tried to

convince the Respondent to go to Mumbai for the

remaining months of the pregnancy and deliver the

baby there as the due date was in the month of

November and it would be extremely cold in the

north but the Respondent refused and started

abusing and blaming her and her family. The

Respondent asked the Petitioner to book the tickets

for Bangalore to which the Petitioner asked him to

adjust for three months in her home in Mumbai as it

was difficult for her to go to a new place, find a house

and setup everything during such a crucial time in

her pregnancy. The Respondent again had an

argument with the Petitioner and the Respondent

stopped all communications with the Petitioner for

 43

the next 12 days. The Petitioner states that she was

not supported when she wanted to prioritise her and

her child’s comfort and wellbeing and was compelled

to stay in a negative and stressful environment during

her pregnancy.

35. The Petitioner states that one day on 13th June

2022, when she was at her home and the Respondent

had stopped talking to her, the Petitioner called the

Respondent wanting to talk to him when the

Respondent told the Petitioner that another pregnant

lady had a smooth delivery because she did yoga

during her pregnancy to which the Petitioner

responded that she is also doing Yoga but the

Respondent got angry and told her to only listen to

him and not talk in between. The Petitioner states

that she was unable to bear such kind of behaviour

anymore as there was no empathy in the tone and

language of the Respondent even though the

Petitioner was pregnant. The Petitioner states that

 44

she was constantly getting affected by the

Respondent’s inconsiderate behaviour and was

scared of having to go back to Haridwar. The

Petitioner states that in their last argument, the

Respondent had finally told her ‘Mat aa (don’t come)’

which left the Petitioner devastated. The Petitioner

was to return back to Haridwar on 18th June 2022,

but they were not on good talking terms and the

Respondent did not call or message the Petitioner at

all. The Petitioner states that she had a flight at 2 p.m

and the Petitioner had not cancelled her ticket and

was waiting with her bags packed for the Respondent

to send her at least a warm ‘come back fast’ message.

The Petitioner states that the Respondent at 1 p.m

dropped a message saying ‘Dehradun aao?’ but it was

too late and she had no chance to board the flight and

she decided to stay back for the well-being of the

child. The Petitioner replied to the Respondent that

she still had the ticket but they were not on good

talking terms and his message had come too late for
 45

her to be able to board the flight now. The

Respondent directly reverted by saying, I am

emptying the house in Haridwar. The Petitioner was

devastated that after doing so much for the

Respondent, he could not try to mend his

relationship with the Petitioner. The Petitioner’s

doctor also suggested the Petitioner to stay in a

peaceful environment for the healthy growth of the

baby and thus the Petitioner decided to take a break

and stay back for her baby and her well being. The

Petitioner was not happy in her daily life as the

Respondent would act as per his whims and fancies

and would get angry on every small thing. The

Petitioner did not want the above incidents to be

repeated and wanted the support of the Respondent

on major things such as mending his behaviour and

comforting and supporting the Petitioner towards the

end of her pregnancy. The Petitioner states that even

during their staying apart there was not a single day

when the Respondent used to not fight with the

 46

Petitioner and used to find reasons to harass and

abuse the Petitioner over the call which was adversely

affecting the health of the Petitioner. The Petitioner

states that after this incident, the Respondent

frequently called the Petitioner’s parents to harass

them which was very mentally traumatizing for the

Petitioner and her old parents. The Petitioner states

that the Respondent used to blame the Petitioner’s

family for her decision to stay back in Mumbai and

did not think the Petitioner was capable enough to

make her own decisions for the well-being of the

child she was raising in her womb which was ironical

as the Petitioner was solely managing the pregnancy

in Haridwar without any support from her husband.

The Petitioner states that this caused extreme stress

and mental agony to the Petitioner.

36. The Petitioner states that on rare times, when

things were a bit stable with them, the Respondent

did not ever come and pay a visit to the pregnant

 47

Petitioner and make things normal. The Petitioner

states in July, the Petitioner was trying to make

things better between them with the Petitioner

always initiating the conversation and trying to make

things normal with the Respondent but all in vain.

The Petitioner states that on 2nd August 2022,

entering into the 7th month of pregnancy, the

Petitioner was deeply saddened with the Respondent

never having come to meet her even once and not

even trying to know how she was feeling and what

changes she was going through. The Petitioner states

that when the Petitioner tried to have a conversation

with the Respondent to make him understand the

same and resolve the issues, the Respondent angrily

replied by saying that ‘she would cost him a mentally

unfit baby’. The Petitioner was shaken to the core and

started crying horribly to hear that the child she was

raising so lovingly and with such great difficulties

inside her womb was being called mentally unfit. The

Petitioner craves leave to refer and rely upon

 48

the relevant documentary evidence as and

when required.

37. The Petitioner states that all throughout her

pregnancy till October, the Respondent never asked

her about her health, the baby’s health, appointments

or reports. The Petitioner shared everything from her

end only. The Petitioner states that all the expenses of

the pregnancy were borne by the Petitioner and her

family which went up to Rs. 2 lakhs. The Petitioner

craves leave to refer and rely upon the

relevant documentary evidence as and when

required by the Hon’ble Court. The Petitioner

states that on 20th October 2022, the doctor told the

Petitioner that she was going to deliver the baby

soon. The Petitioner and Respondent were talking

decently by then so she asked him about his plans to

come to Mumbai. The Respondent told him that he

doesn’t feel invited and they got into an argument

again. The Petitioner states that the Respondent kept

 49

harassing the Petitioner’s parents and kept saying

things like now that she is married and they have

given her as a daan to him, her parents have no say in

her life and men and women are equal only in

textbooks. The Petitioner states that all of these

caused extreme emotional distress to her.

38. The Petitioner states that on 30th October 2022,

the Petitioner called the Respondent in the morning

and told him that she is in labour pain since

yesterday and thus she is going to the hospital. The

Petitioner states that she expected the Respondent to

come during the delivery of the child and was

enduring the labour pain and waited for the

Respondent to arrive however the Respondent did

not show up. The Petitioner states that she was in

extreme and unbearable pain in the hospital, and

when the Petitioner’s mother video called the

Respondent to make her feel that he was there with

her during the birth of their child, he was just sitting

 50

relaxed without looking like he wanted to be there for

the Petitioner when she was giving birth to his child.

The Petitioner states that she realised that the

Respondent did not have any care or concern for the

Petitioner, and that is when the Petitioner decided to

not wait for the Respondent anymore and go ahead

with the delivery of the baby.

39. The Petitioner states that she delivered a

healthy boy and the Petitioner’s mother called the

Respondent first to give the good news. The

Petitioner states that when the Petitioner returned

from the operation theatre they video called the

Respondent to show the face of the new born baby.

The Petitioner requested the Respondent that she

needs him and also requested him to come to the

hospital to which he shouted at her and reminded her

about their fight. The Petitioner states that she was

shattered to know that the Respondent was still stuck

on their previous fight and had decided to let his ego

 51

win instead of coming to see the birth of his own

child. The Petitioner states that she was unable to rest

or sleep the whole night. The Petitioner states that

she again called the Respondent and asked him to not

punish the baby and that the child need to see his

father but the Respondent again rudely replied that

“the baby doesn’t need me, he only needs his mother

and you are just doing it to save your honour”. The

Petitioner again called the Respondent and the

Respondent asked the Petitioner whether she had

written “OM” on the baby’s tongue with honey, to

which the Petitioner replied that she was unaware

about the said ritual and again wishing dearly that he

came to see the child told him that he should come

here and do the ritual for his son. The Petitioner

states that the Respondent instead of going easy on

the Petitioner considering she had just given birth to

a baby he very coldly told the Petitioner “tum kya

brahmin ho, bas bethke ghanta bajana ata hai.” The

Petitioner started crying horribly in the hospital

 52

lobby and two nurses had to bring her back to her

hospital room. The Petitioner states that these

incidents added to her stress and caused extreme

mental agony to her.

40. The Petitioner states that the Respondent was

never with her and never supported her throughout

her pregnancy. The Petitioner states that she went

into postpartum depression due to the above-

mentioned incidents, and her breast milk also slowly

dried up. The Petitioner states that she tried

allopathy, Ayurveda and acupressure for the same but

nothing worked out. The Petitioner states that the

Respondent did not come to see his own child for 55

days and the Petitioner made constant efforts to

persuade the Respondent to come see his child by

continuously calling and texting him but the

Respondent always shouted or taunted her in return

which caused mental trauma to the Petitioner. The

Petitioner also states in the initial video calls they had

 53

to show the Respondent their newborn child, he

called him by his brother’s son’s name ‘Pranav’. This

further disheartened the Petitioner that the

Respondent after already being absent physically for

their child was not even mentally connected with his

own child. The Petitioner states that the Respondent

did not think it was a big deal to call his own son with

some other name. The Petitioner craves leave to

refer and rely upon the relevant documentary

evidence as when required by the Hon’ble

Court.

41.The Petitioner states that in November 2022, the

Respondent again called and the Petitioner thought

the call was to ask about her health and the baby but

instead the Respondent chose to harass her parents

and used derogatory language towards her father and

not once asked about their well-being, even though

the Petitioner’s parents were the ones who were

calling the Respondent and his family from the

 54

hospital and asking them to come to meet the baby

but the Petitioner got no support from her

matrimonial house during her pregnancy. The

Petitioner states that the Respondent came to meet

the child on 24th December 2022. The Petitioner

requested him to come to her house as the child was

barely 2 months old but the Respondent refused and

the Petitioner had to take the child outside on a

windy day so that the child could meet the

Respondent. The Petitioner states that this shows

how inconsiderate, selfish and heartless the

Respondent was that he did not care about the fact

that the child would get sick. The Petitioner states

that on the next day, the child got a little sick because

anticipating that he would fall sick in the windy

environment she had already taken good care and

precaution of him before and after taking him outside

to meet the Respondent, however he could not be

brought out again and the Petitioner requested the

Respondent to come at the lift lobby as she could not

 55

take the child outside but the Respondent refused

and said that he is going to stay in Mumbai and he

will meet the child later but the Respondent for once

did not ask if the child was fine. The Petitioner was

extremely disheartened by this behaviour of the

Respondent as she had thought that the Respondent

would at least care for the child.

42. The Petitioner states that she asked the

Respondent to meet outside for lunch and the

Petitioner’s cousin also accompanied her, but when

they reached there, the Respondent asked where his

son was to which the Petitioner replied that he is sick

and sleeping at home under the care of Petitioner’s

mother. The Petitioner requested him to talk to her

for sometime and also brought him a family photo

frame of their first photos with their child from the

day before as a gift but the Respondent coldly replied

with “tu kya idhar khane aayi hai”. The Petitioner

states that she begged the Respondent to talk to her

 56

once but the Respondent asked the Petitioner to leave

and thus they left without having a conversation. The

Petitioner states that this caused more pain and

mental stress to her.

43. The Petitioner states that on 29th December

2022, the Petitioner made a reconciliation call to the

Respondent to discuss about Atharva’s future and

their marriage. The Petitioner states that from the

beginning of the call, the Respondent was shouting at

her even though she was in her postpartum period

but she continued to talk to him for the sake of the

child. The Respondent again abused her and said “Tu

akeli hai kya kaam karne wali aurat jo ma bani hai, tu

khud barbad hai tut ere bache ko kya abaad karegi, ,

tu ma hai kya ma to ban pehle.” The Petitioner states

that the Respondent was only interested in abusing

her even in her postpartum period and the

Respondent kept shouting and abusing at her heavily

rather than discussing the child’s future. The

 57

Petitioner states that she was emotionally disturbed

and it caused her extreme agony and pain. The

Petitioner craves leave to refer and rely upon

the relevant documentary evidence as when

required by the Hon’ble Court.

44. The Petitioner states that after 24th December

2022, the Respondent did not come to Mumbai to

meet his son on his own. The Petitioner states that

towards the end of January 2022, the Respondent

had come to Bangalore for his office work and the

Petitioner had hoped that he would definitely be

coming to Mumbai during his return to meet their

child again. The Petitioner states that when she asked

him if he was coming to Mumbai to meet their child,

she was shocked to know that he was already in

Jodhpur to attend his friend’s marriage. The

Petitioner states that the Respondent was putting no

effort in meeting her and his child. The Petitioner

states that since she was desperate for her child to be

 58

with his father, she called the Respondent on their

marriage anniversary on 16th February 2023, the

Petitioner begged the Respondent to come to

Mumbai saying that since he didn’t want to come to

her house and she cannot bring a 3 month old child

outside for long, the Petitioner would be fine to stay

with him at a hotel in Kharghar for the child to spend

a couple of days of quality time with his father. The

Petitioner states that although the Petitioner was

reluctant to stay with the Respondent after the way

she was treated by him during her pregnancy and

delivery, she let go of her agony for her child and

went to stay with the Respondent with the child for

four days.

45. The Petitioner states that on 6th March 2023,

the Petitioner again made a reconciliation call to the

Respondent for the sake of their child. The Petitioner

stressed on the fact that she wanted her child to be

with his father and also wanted him to have all the
 59

extended family relations of his side and her side. The

Petitioner told the Respondent that even though

there was a little hope left that things could be stable

between them, they should try to get back together so

that the child could have a stable family. The

Petitioner also suggested that they should try moving

to Bangalore where things between them would not

fall apart at least because of either of the two families.

However, the Respondent suggested that they stay in

Haridwar to minimise cost of living and provide their

child with pure cow milk. The Petitioner agreed to it

for her child on the condition that since his home was

close to Haridwar, she did not want any interference

from his family in breaking their marriage again. The

Petitioner further said that if they continued fighting

like they have been doing since the past two years, it

would be very devastating for their child and she

would not at all be okay with that. The Petitioner

states that after constant pleading and convincing of

the Petitioner, the Respondent agreed to this deal and

 60

hence the Petitioner decided to move back to

Haridwar with their child because she was desperate

to give him his father. The Petitioner states that on

7th April 2023, the Petitioner took her 5 month old

son in train from Mumbai to Delhi and then to

Haridwar by the Respondent’s car.

46. The Petitioner states that on 23rd April 2023,

their minor child got sick with high fever. Since this

was the first time she had seen her child fall sick, the

Petitioner was getting very anxious and scared for her

child. The Petitioner states that they went to a

Pediatrician who asked them to give their child a

higher dose of a different medicine than what had

been told to the Petitioner by her usual Pediatrician

in Mumbai. The Petitioner gave the medicine she was

asked by her trusted Mumbai Pediatrician and tried

to control the child’s fever with that. The Petitioner

states that when the fever did not drop, the Petitioner

called her Mumbai Pediatrician to get advice on the

 61

medicines given to her by the Haridwar Pediatrician

to which he responded that it was okay to give these

medicines. The Petitioner states that after hearing

this, the Respondent got angry and shouted at the

Petitioner for being irresponsible whereas on the

contrary she had been extra careful and concerned

about what medicine she was giving her child. The

Petitioner states that the Respondent suggested that

we need someone to help us right now and so he

wanted to call his mother and sister to the house to

which the Petitioner readily agreed. The Petitioner

states that when the Respondent’s mother and sister

came in, they were hardly even staying around and

were either sleeping in their room or arranging

Respondent’s clothes. The Petitioner states that she

got no help from Respondent’s mother or sister.

47. The Petitioner states that one day, the

Respondent asked his mother to give the sick child a

change of clothes while the Petitioner had gone to

 62

prepare milk for the child. The Petitioner started

hearing her sick child screaming and crying loudly

and when she came out, the Petitioner saw that the

Respondent’s mother was forcing a change of clothes

on her sick child while the Respondent and his sister

were just sitting watching it. The Petitioner states

that she rushed to her sick child and took him with

her to make him quiet and playfully and peacefully

changed his clothes. The Petitioner states that later

the Respondent got angry on the Petitioner and

shouted at her. The Petitioner was shocked to see this

harsh behaviour with a sick child and was even more

shocked that the Respondent cared the least about

the sick child but more about how the Petitioner took

her child away from his mother. The Petitioner states

that the above-mentioned incidents caused immense

trauma to the Petitioner.

48. The Petitioner states that on 24th April 2023

when the child had slightly recovered, the Petitioner

 63

states that the Respondent unnecessarily started

fighting with the Petitioner for no rhyme or reason

which woke up the minor child and the minor started

wailing. The Petitioner states that she tried pacifying

the baby however the minor child was extremely

scared because of the loud noise due to fight and

continued to cry profusely and it is only after much

effort did the baby sleep peacefully. The Petitioner

states that however she went to the balcony scared

called her sister and started crying as she was scared

that such an environment was not good for the child.

The Petitioner was so scared that she started bleeding

heavily. The next day, while the Respondent’s mother

and sister were leaving, the Petitioner was bleeding

so heavily that she had to urgently use the washroom

so she rushed and closed the door. The Petitioner

states that instead of understanding the Petitioner’s

condition, the Respondent and his family thought

and told her that she was mannerless and had

insulted them. The Petitioner told the Respondent

 64

that they cannot keep on fighting like that as it would

affect their baby however, the Respondent instead of

understanding replied that “haram ka baccha bana

dia, bech ke aayi baccha apne ghar me, chori karke

apne ghar ka ghulam bana dia hai” The Petitioner

was devastated after hearing abusive words against

her child. The Petitioner states that the Respondent

also added that after 9 to 10 years, the Petitioner will

see how the Respondent will drop her surname from

the child’s name and destroy her vansh forever. The

Respondent also threatened the Petitioner’s parents

and said that if she divorced him and took the child,

irrespective of what happens in the court, he would

settle the matter outside the court by killing her

parents. The Petitioner craves leave to refer

and rely upon the documentary evidence as

and when required. The Petitioner states that she

tried calling the Respondent’s mother to make her do

something about this threat. However, she did not

pick up so the Petitioner asked the Respondent to call

 65

her but he refused and started shouting again. The

Petitioner tried taking his phone from him but the

Respondent kept hitting and twisting her hand

repeatedly threatening her to stop otherwise he

would beat her hard. The Petitioner states that later,

when the Petitioner was unable to reach the

Respondent’s mother, she texted her to call her

otherwise she would have to go to the police station,

the Respondent’s mother immediately called her

back. The Petitioner states that she was very scared

and crying, told the Respondent’s mother that her

son had given a death threat to kill her parents, to

which she very casually replied ‘haan to kuch karega

thodi’. The Petitioner crying even more told her that

the Respondent had threatened this to her multiple

times and she had seen the rage, hatred and madness

in his eyes and he was very much capable of doing it.

The Petitioner states that the Respondent’s mother

casually said she takes guarantee that he won’t do

anything but not once said she would scold him and
 66

make him realise his folly. The Respondent had

emotionally broken the Petitioner to such an extent

that she was ready to end her life however she

thought about the minor innocent life she had given

birth and decided to live for him. The Petitioner

states that she maintained distance from the

Respondent after that day as she was living in fear of

a murder threat. The Petitioner kept bleeding heavily

for the next two weeks and was put on medications to

control her hormonal imbalance induced due to

tremendous mental stress. The Petitioner states that

she wanted to immediately leave after such incidents

but the Respondent threatened her of dire

consequences if she left and thus the Petitioner

continued to live in fear with the Respondent. The

Petitioner craves leave to refer and rely upon

the relevant documentary evidence as and

when required.
 67

49. The Petitioner states that on 18th May 2023,

after coming back from Yoga, the Petitioner and the

Respondent again got into a fight as the Petitioner

had to single-handedly manage the affairs of the child

with no help from the Respondent. The Respondent

took the child in between the fight and said “leke

dikha ye baccha mere paas se”. The Petitioner tried

taking the child multiple times from the Respondent

but she could not match his power. The Respondent

kept banging the Petitioner’s hand, pushing her and

twisting her hands. The Petitioner begged the

Respondent to give the child back and the fight

escalated so much that people had gathered around

outside their flat. The Petitioner ran outside and cried

for help to get her child back. The Petitioner states

that looking at the gathering outside their house, the

Respondent got scared and realised that someone can

call the police and thus he immediately handed over

the baby to the Petitioner. The people gathered

around asked her to keep the affairs of the house

 68

inside and not cause disturbance in the society. The

Petitioner was trembling with fear as she had no

friends or family to help her and she feared the

Respondent would take the child to Najibabad which

was just 50 kms away from Haridwar. The left

knuckle of the Petitioner was dislocated and she was

unable to hold the child properly for weeks after this

incident.

50. The Petitioner states that the Respondent

would not only refuse to help or support the

Petitioner properly but would also sabotage the work

that she did. The Petitioner would not keep much

expectations from the Respondent during the

weekdays as she understood his heavy workload

which he never understood for her even during her

pregnancy but the Petitioner expected him to be more

around and hands on at least during the weekends

because she was having a lot of weakness due to

excessive bleeding, lack of sleep and the knee pain

 69

that she had developed post pregnancy but that was

also not happening from the Respondent’s end. The

Petitioner states that on one night, the Respondent

spoiled the child’s cow milk and forced the Petitioner

to give the child buffalo milk whereas the Petitioner

only wanted to give formula milk as the buffalo milk

would have been very heavy for the minor child to

digest. The Respondent also fed a small portion of

outside sweet to a 6 month old child. The Petitioner

got angry as the Respondent tried to risk the health of

the minor child and for the next five days the child

suffered from high fever and loose motions. The child

stayed in the lap of the Petitioner for the next week

while the Petitioner could barely hold him because of

the bruises on her hand given by the Respondent. The

Petitioner was in agony and pain due to the cruel

behaviour of the Respondent The Petitioner

craves leave to refer and rely upon the

relevant documentary evidence as and when

required.
 70

51. The Petitioner states that when the child had gotten

sick the last time, the doctor had told them that he

had first fallen sick mostly because of putting unclean

things in his mouth. The Petitioner states that once

the Respondent and his mother got a soft toy for the

minor child and directly gave it to him without

washing which he kept putting in his mouth as usual.

When the Petitioner asked where they had bought it

from, they said they had bought it from the roadside.

The Petitioner states that she had to constantly keep

telling the Respondent to not be so absent minded

with such a small child. The Respondent used to not

at all care about cleanliness and hygiene of and

around the child and even leave sharp objects like

screwdrivers on the bed. The Petitioner states that

this caused extreme stress to her as she had to alone

take care of the child and also protect the child from

the negligence of the Respondent and his mother.

 71

52. The Petitioner states that in April 2023, the

Respondent’s family were travelling to Tehri via

Haridwar so the Respondent requested them to wait

at the Chandi bridge so that they could all meet the

child for the first time. The Petitioner happily agreed

and dressed the child to go and meet with them. The

Petitioner states that when the Respondent’s family

reached the bridge, the Respondent asked them to

wait for 15 minutes while he finished his office

meeting. However, even to the Respondent’s

disappointment, they couldn’t even wait for 15

minutes and left saying they couldn’t wait for him to

come. The Petitioner realised they cared the least

about her child. The Petitioner states that they met

the child later in the night at Amrapur ghat where the

Petitioner invited them to her child’s function of

Annaprashan and Mundan sanskar and havan which

was considered a very important and auspicious

function for a child by the Respondent and his family.

The Petitioner insisted that they come and bless the

 72

child on his first important function. The Petitioner

also invited her family, however, the air prices were

extremely high due to tourist season in Uttarakhand

and unaffordable but still they booked one ticket for

the Petitioner’s mother to be there to bless the child.

The Petitioner states that when the Petitioner’s

mother arrived, contrary to the Respondent’s mother

and sister, she took very good care of the child. The

Petitioner’s mother even washed, dried and folded all

their clothes and cleaned around the house to give the

Petitioner a much needed rest. The Petitioner states

that on the day of the function on 29th April 2023,

the Petitioner got to know that no one from the

Respondent’s family was going to come to bless the

child. The Petitioner immediately called the

Respondent’s mother and for her child apologised to

her for the fight that had occurred between the

Petitioner and the Respondent when they had come

in their home even though the Respondent had

unnecessarily started it and also told her that she was

 73

already very tensed that day because her child had

been sick for the first time. The Petitioner states that

she begged the Respondent’s mother to come with

the whole family and not deprive the child of their

blessings. However, even after begging everyone to

come, just the Respondent’s mother and sister turned

up to bless the child. This further disheartened the

Petitioner as she understood that the Respondent’s

family cared the least about her child whereas the

Petitioner’s family even after getting a death threat

and having been terribly insulted by the Respondent

during and post pregnancy were there and cared

deeply for her child. The Petitioner states that she

was extremely hurt by the said behaviour of the

Respondent.

53. The Petitioner states that on 10th June 2023,

she was video calling her parents at night. The

Petitioner was extremely exhausted from taking care

of the child day and night without any support from

 74

the Respondent. The Petitioner was about to put the

phone down when the child took the phone which

slightly hit him and the child started crying as he was

already sleepy and cranky. The Respondent came and

asked what happened to which the Petitioner replied

that the phone slightly hit the child. The Respondent

snatched away the crying child and went outside but

the child started crying more. The Petitioner begged

the Respondent to give the child back as he wanted

his mother and would sleep only with the Petitioner.

The Petitioner states that she then tried explaining

the Respondent that the child was sleepy and thus he

is crying but the Respondent got abusive and started

shouting due to which the child would not stop

crying. The Respondent again used abusive language

for the child saying “haram ka baccha bana diya hai

ise.” The Petitioner states that she asked the

Respondent to leave, not harass her and let her

comfort the crying child but the Respondent kicked

her and they got into a physical fight. The Petitioner

 75

states that the child was crying horribly and thus the

Petitioner took the child outside the house. The

Petitioner came back when the child had slept and

the Respondent was complaining to his mother on

call. The Petitioner states that they got into an

argument again and the Respondent got agitated and

he slapped the Petitioner very hard, so hard that he

later himself told the Petitioner’s father that his

shoulder had got dislocated from hitting her. The

Petitioner states that the right hand of the Petitioner

had turned blue and the Petitioner was completely

devastated as the child was crying continuously till

his throat choked. The Petitioner states that the child

was extremely scared the next day and didn’t drink

the milk or slept properly. The Petitioner told the

Respondent that she could not live with him anymore

as the Petitioner could not let the child suffer along

with her. The Respondent again threatened her and

said “jake dikha yahan se. Leke jake dikha”. The

 76

Petitioner states that such threats of the Respondent

put her in extreme emotional distress.

54. The Petitioner states that after such frequent

physical assault, the Petitioner was extremely scared

and thus called her parents. The Petitioner’s parents

reached Haridwar on 11th June 2023. The Petitioner’s

family and the Respondent had a discussion that

night and the Petitioner’s father suggested that the

Petitioner and the child should go back to Mumbai

with them and they can work out their issues through

counselling or therapy and not let the child suffer.

The next morning, the Respondent’s family also

came. The Petitioner states that as the Respondent

had already given her multiple death threats and had

constantly physically assaulted her, the Petitioner

had made an intimation call to Jwalapur police

station in case the Respondent and his family hurt

her or her parents. The Petitioner states that the

Respondent’s family were only keen on verbally

 77

insulting the Petitioner and defended the death

threats given by the Respondent saying that he has

not done anything yet and also said that they were

scared of the Petitioner in Najibabad even after

knowing that the Petitioner was all alone in the small

town as it was a new place for her with zero support

from her own husband. The Petitioner states that the

Respondent’s family also kept passing regressive

comments saying that running a household is the job

of a woman and only objective of the marriage for a

woman is to bear children. The Petitioner states that

the Respondent’s family also said that on the first day

of the marriage, the Petitioner wasn’t injured by the

fire due to short circuit and unnecessarily created a

big scene out of it. The Respondent’s family was

unbothered about the well-being of the child while

the Petitioner’s parents only wanted to discuss what

was best for the child.

 78

55. The Petitioner states that the Respondent’s

family had called Najibabad’s Arya Samaj head,

named Santoshbala Arya who ran a boy’s gurukul

which was funded partly by the Respondent and came

to do havan as their Pandit at his home on a few

important occasions to talk on behalf of them. The

Petitioner states that when the Petitioner’s father

asked about who she was, they all lied together saying

that she was the Respondent’s ‘bua’ or father’s sister.

The Petitioner however from her past visits to Arya

Samaj at Najibabad knew that the entire Najibabad

called her Bua ji and she was definitely not their

blood relative. The Petitioner states that she was an

educated social elite of Najibabad who had chosen to

work for Arya Samaj as a Pandit. The Petitioner

hence clarified their lie to her parents. The Petitioner

states that the Respondent’s family did not like their

lie being clarified and said that she was more closer

to them than a blood relation hence she had come to

talk however the fact was she wasn’t even invited to

 79

the Petitioner and Respondent’s wedding in 2021 at

Mumbai. The Petitioner states that based on her stay

in Najibabad with the Respondent’s family knew that

the lady only knew the family formally and that she

had been only close to the Respondent, his mother

and the Petitioner just as a respected spiritual guide

and that they had actually got her to help them

converse decently with the Petitioner’s family based

out of Mumbai which clearly showed that the

Respondent did not have confidence on his own

family to have a decent conversation. The Petitioner

states that the lady asked the parents from both sides

to let the three of them, i.e the Petitioner, Respondent

and the child stay in their house only and they should

close their doors for them and not allow them to go

back to their homes. The Petitioner’s father even

asked who would take the responsibility if something

happened to the Petitioner or the child but the lady

did not care about the child and replied that anything

could happen but they should close their doors. The

 80

Petitioner states that amidst the Respondent’s family

repeatedly insulting the Petitioner in front of the lady

and her family, the Petitioner’s mother requested the

lady to for once also listen to her daughter who was

upstairs taking care of the child. The Petitioner states

that when the lady approached the Petitioner, the

Petitioner asked her what her true objective was of

coming here to which she replied nothing. The

Petitioner states that she then told the lady that the

Petitioner’s intention and objective from her

pregnancy till today is to give the best for her child,

ensure his well-being and safety and that she will not

tolerate any injustice towards her child. The

Petitioner states that the lady spoke to the Petitioner

and tried to convince her to stay with the Respondent

by saying that the Petitioner will have to live with the

Respondent, and the men always have ego but the

Petitioner will have to adjust as she won’t be able to

singlehandedly raise the child. The Petitioner states

that she reminded the lady about how whenever she

 81

used to come to do havan at the Petitioner’s

matrimonial house, the lady used to always ask the

Petitioner why she looked so upset. The Petitioner

was shocked to know that the lady who claimed to be

more than their blood relative hardly knew anything

about their marriage except whatever little one sided

brief she had been given by the Respondent. The

Petitioner states that the lady was unaware how the

Respondent had treated the Petitioner since the day

of the marriage and the Petitioner had tolerated

everything in order to save the marriage. The

Petitioner informed the lady that the Respondent has

anger issues and the Petitioner came back to him for

the sake of the child but the Petitioner is exhausted as

she has to take care of the child alone and she cannot

let her child be raised in such an abusive

environment.

56. The Petitioner states that after the discussion,

the Respondent or his family was not ready to take

 82

responsibility for their actions and the Petitioner’s

concerns were not addressed. The Petitioner states

that no conclusion came out from the said discussion.

The Petitioner states that the lady returned

downstairs after her conversation with the Petitioner

and told the Respondent, his family and the

Petitioner’s family that ‘haan kuch kuch baatein hui

hain aisi’ concluding that the Petitioner and the

Respondent should stay separately for now and the

Respondent should let the Petitioner leave with the

child. The Petitioner states that the Respondent’s

family meanwhile were pushing him to divorce the

Petitioner and move on. The Petitioner states that

this was her only chance to leave that place as the

Respondent had threatened her of dire consequences

if she decided to leave. The Petitioner states that she

finally felt free and understood that nothing was

going to change even after the constant efforts made

by the Petitioner, thus the Petitioner left the

matrimonial house on 13th June 2023 and the

 83

Petitioner and Respondent has been living separately

since then. The Petitioner craves leave to refer

and rely upon the relevant documentary

evidence as and when required.

57. The Petitioner states that she married the

Respondent with lot of dreams of happy life and on

the basis of promises made by him that they would be

staying separately after marriage but he broke her

trust from the first day of the marriage itself. The

Petitioner states that she endured and tolerated all

the abuse and suffered silently for a long time. The

Petitioner states that she suffered extreme mental

agony and excessive hardships due to such behaviour

by the Respondent, which translated into violent

assaults and abuse that the Petitioner could not bear

anymore. Hence the Petitioner needs to be relieved

from such mental agony and terror.

58. The Petitioner states that she had made

continuous efforts to resolve the issues and reconcile

 84

with the Respondent since the beginning but the

Respondent has always been abusive and neglected

her. The Respondent has never supported her during

her crucial times and pregnancy and thus it is unable

for the Petitioner to live with the Respondent.

59. The Petitioner states that such inappropriate

and violent behavior of the Respondent has created

reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be

injurious for the Petitioner to have status of an

alleged wife of the Respondent. Moreover, the

Petitioner states that the Respondent never bothered

to enquire about the well-being of the child during

and after her pregnancy, let alone the Petitioner,

which highlights his callousness and irresponsibility

as a father and husband respectively. The Petitioner

submits that the behavior of the Respondent as stated

hereinabove has caused considerable mental tension

and thus she is entitled to the reliefs sought for in this

Petition.
 85

60. The Petitioner states that she married the

Respondent with dreams of a blissful and contended

married life, alas the Respondent had deceived her by

such inappropriate conducts on account of himself

and his family members and due to that the

Petitioner has suffered a lot of injury and mental

agony hence she is entitled for the decree of divorce.

61.The Petitioner states that the Respondent’s conduct

and misdeed have been so improper as to constitute

irretrievably breakdown of marriage and hence the

Petitioner cannot live with the Respondent and

having devastating effect on the Petitioner’s physical

and mental health. The Petitioner states that the

Respondent’s conduct as aforesaid is reprehensible

amounting to physical and mental cruelty, torture,

agony, callousness, and deliberate harassment and

the Petitioner is therefore left with no other

alternative but to file legal proceeding for the

dissolution of marriage.
 86

62. The Petitioner submits that from the

incidents and circumstances narrated above it is

crystal clear that all throughout the Respondent has

treated the Petitioner with utmost cruelty and the

Petitioner is constantly under tension.

63. The Petitioner states that in view of child

getting full attention, love and care from the

Petitioner, the child will get better life with her. If the

Respondent takes the child with him, the child will

not get a good upbringing as the Respondent is very

negligent and dangerous, and his behaviour is

extremely inappropriate as enumerated above and

the child will lack care and affection as the

Respondent suffers from vindictive behaviour and

anger issues and would not be present for the child

and lack any sort of responsibility from his side. The

child if he stays with the Petitioner would be in the

right company as far as his well-being is concerned

and shall remain happy thereafter. Thus it is safe for

 87

the child to be in the custody of the Petitioner in the

future. The Petitioner states that the Respondent is

having a very quarrelsome and aggressive nature and

often has a habit of physically and mentally abusing

unreasonably, which has already in the past affected

and traumatized the child and furthermore will have

bad influence on the child. The Petitioner states that

paramount interest of the child is in the hands of the

Petitioner as she is very peaceful by nature. The

Petitioner states that the Respondent has threatened

the Petitioner that he would snatch away the child

from her custody. The Petitioner states that the child

is merely 8 months old and is very young to be

subjected to the inappropriate acts/ conducts of the

Respondent which will have a very bad effect on the

child.

64. The Petitioner states that due to the above

factors, the Petitioner is entitled to the permanent

custody of the child “Atharva Arya Oza.” The

 88

Petitioner states that if the custody of the child is

given to the Respondent, the child will be unable to

live a happy life due to the abusive nature of the

Respondent. The Respondent has never been for the

child since the time of the pregnancy till now and

hasn’t cared for the well-being of the child. The

Petitioner states that the child is very small and needs

a peaceful and positive environment to grow up,

which he will lack with the Respondent. The

Petitioner hence states that it is of the paramount

interest that the custody of the child “Atharva Arya

Oza” be retained with the Petitioner.

65. The Petitioner states that from the

incidences narrated above, it is harmful and

dangerous for Petitioner and her child to live any

more with Respondent. It is now not possible for her

to stay with Respondent, so the Respondent may be

directed from the Hon’ble Court by Permanent and

Temporary injunction to not take away the custody of

 89

the child “Atharva Arya Oza” from the Petitioner and

restrain the Respondent from taking away lawful

custody of the child. If such an order is not passed in

favour of the Petitioner, great harm and prejudice

will be caused to the Petitioner which can’t be

compensated in terms of money. The balance of

convenience is in favour of the Petitioner.

66. The Petitioner reserves her right to add, alter,

amend or modify the content or averments of the

present petition if required and reserves her right to

narrate certain incidents hereinafter if required.

67. The Petitioner states and submits that there are

still some incidences which are untold and which the

Petitioner would narrate hereinafter.

68. The Petitioner says that despite the fact that the

Petitioner was greatly disappointed and distressed to

find married life was unsatisfactory and becoming

miserable and unbearable, the Petitioner continued

to be patient in the hope that the Respondent would

 90

realize his folly and improve and soften. The

Petitioner states that she held herself in patience

hoping for a change of heart and mind and behaviour

on the part of the Respondent. However, it was a

matter of distress of mind to the Petitioner that even

after a passage of time, various efforts by the

Petitioner and after numerous assurances given by

the Respondent to improve the said behaviour, the

Respondent could not fulfil the said and it became

even worse.

69. The Petitioner states that the attitude of the

Respondent towards the Petitioner became

unbearably tortuous. The Petitioner states that the

long chains of innumerable acts are so serious in

themselves so as to have by themselves constituted

cruelty. Besides this there are certain minor

innumerable acts all of which though apparently

insignificant in themselves have in their accumulated

effects, served to completely shatter the Petitioner’s

capacity to endure them any longer.

 91

70. The Petitioner states and submits that the

Respondent has treated the Petitioner with such

cruelty that now the Petitioner apprehends that it

would be harmful, dangerous and injurious to stay

with him any longer due to his constant threats and

actions and therefore she is seeking and is entitled to

a Decree of Divorce of the marriage solemnized

between the Petitioner and the Respondent on 16th

February 2021 under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

71. The Petitioner further submits that in view of the

above facts and circumstances of the Respondent it is

not possible for the Petitioner to continue the marital

status with the Respondent any longer.

72. The Petitioner states that the Respondent is

working at Coindcx and the current salary of the

Respondent known to the Petitioner is Rs. 59 lakhs

per year in addition to the other investments of the

Respondent the specifics of which are unknown to

the Petitioner. The petitioner states that she is unable

 92

to sufficiently maintain herself and the minor child to

the fullest owing to the harassment inflicted and the

trauma she endured as a consequence of the same.

The Petitioner states that she cannot be a permanent

burden on her family, whereas the Respondent is

capable of maintaining the Petitioner and the minor

child; and therefore, she is entitled to the same

standard of living as that of the Respondent. The

Petitioner states that she is entitled to interim

maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,30,000 per month

bifurcating to an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 towards

herself and Rs. 30,000 towards the minor son

respectively pending the disposal of the final petition

or such other sum as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit

and proper. The Petitioner is entitled to the standard

and status of the Respondent and his family.

73. The Petitioner craves leave to alter/modify the

said claims under changed circumstances as and

when required.
 93

74. The Petitioner further states that the Petitioner

is driven to expensive litigation by the Respondent to

bring the truth and thoroughly expose the

Respondent the Petitioner is required to spend from

time to time. The Respondent therefore be ordered

and directed to pay to the Petitioner a sum of Rs.

5,00,000 for the expenses of the cost of the Petition.

Pending the hearing and disposal of the Petition, the

Respondent be ordered and directed to pay to the

Petitioner the said amount in addition thereto.

75. The Petitioner states that she is currently

staying with her parents at her father’s residence at

BARC Colony, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai however,

she cannot remain a permanent burden on her old

parents and thus it is the duty of the Respondent to

arrange an ownership house for the Petitioner and

the minor child in order to rebuild their lives and

secure their future. Pending the hearing of the said

Petition, the Respondent should be directed to

provide a suitable accommodation for herself and the

 94

minor child in the vicinity of her parental house and

also pay for the rent of the same amounting to Rs.

50,000/- (Rupees Fifty-thousand only) per month

along with the security deposit.

76. The Petitioner reserves her right to add, alter,

amend or modify the content or averments of the

present petition if required and reserves his right to

narrate certain incidents hereinafter if required.

77.The Petitioner states that there is no collusion and/or

connivance between the said parties in filing the

present petition.

78. There is no coercion, force, fraud or undue

influence upon the Petitioner in filing the present

petition.

79. The Petitioner states that they have been

staying separately since 13th June 2023 and they

have not had marital relations since then.

80. The Petitioner states that she is exempt from

paying the fees as per the High Court Notification

dated July, 2015.

 95

81. The Petitioner states that the Petitioner

currently resides at Anushaktinagar, Mumbai as

mentioned in the Cause title of the Petition and the

marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent

was solemnized at Shankuntalam, Anushaktinagar,

Mumbai and thus this Hon’ble Court has Jurisdiction

to entertain and decide the present Petition.

82. The Petitioner states that there are no pending

cases in the said Court or in any other Court in India

between the said parties with respect to the said

subject matter.

a) The Petitioner therefore prays that:-

a. The marriage between the Petitioner and the

Respondent solemnized on 16th February 2021 be

dissolved by the decree of Divorce.

b. The permanent custody/ guardianship of the minor

child “Atharva Arya Oza” be retained with the

Petitioner;

c. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an Order

restraining the Respondent or his agent or his family

 96

members or any person claiming under him, by

permanent injunction of the Hon’ble Court, from taking

away the custody of the minor child “Atharva Arya Oza”

from lawful custody of the Petitioner without due

process of law.

d. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition,

the Respondent or his family members or, or any other

person claiming under them should be restrained, by the

interim order of the Hon’ble Court, from taking away the

custody of the minor child, named “Atharva Arya Oza”,

aged 8 months, from her lawful custody without due

process of law;

e. That the Respondent or his family members, or any

other person claiming under them should be restrained,

by the permanent order/ injunction of the Hon’ble

Court, from directly or indirectly contacting,

approaching and harassing the Petitioner, her family

members, relatives and colleagues in person or through

any other mode of communication at her residence in

 97

Anushaktinagar as mentioned in the cause title of the

Petition;

f. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition,

the Respondent or his family members, or any other

person claiming under them should be restrained, by the

interim order/ injunction of the Hon’ble Court, from

directly or indirectly contacting, approaching and

harassing the Petitioner, her family members, relatives

and colleagues in person or through any other mode of

communication at her residence in Anushaktinagar as

mentioned in the cause title of the Petition;

g. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to order and

direct the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner a sum of

Rs. 1,00,00,000 ( Rupees one crore only) as and by way

of permanent maintenance and/or alimony.

h. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition,

this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order and

direct the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner a sum of

Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) per month as and

by way of Interim maintenance of the Petitioner.

 98

i. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order and

direct the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner a sum of

Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with 10%

increment per year as and by way of permanent

maintenance of the minor child “Atharva”.

j. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition,

this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order and

direct the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner a sum of

Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) per month

as and by way of Interim maintenance of the minor child

“Atharva”.

k. The Respondent by the order of this Hon’ble Court be

directed to arrange an ownership house of 1BHK for

herself and the minor child in the vicinity of the

Petitioner’s parental home.

l. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the main

petition, the Respondent be directed to arrange a

suitable accommodation for the Petitioner and the

minor child in the vicinity of the Petitioner’s parental

home and also direct the Respondent to pay for the rent
 99

of the same amounting to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

thousand only) per month and also provide security

deposit amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

twenty-thousand only).

m. The ad-interim and interim reliefs as prayed in

hereinabove clauses be please granted.

n. The Respondent may be ordered to pay the cost of the

Petition of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only).

o. Such other and further reliefs be granted as the nature

and circumstances of the case may require.

Mumbai
Dated this 2023 Petitioner
 100

VERIFICATION
I, Bhairavee Rajendrakumar Oza, the Petitioner

abovenamed do hereby state that whatever is stated in the

foregoing paragraphs is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief and believe the same to be true.

Mumbai
Dated this 2023 Petitioner

Identified by me,

Advocate for the Petitioner Before me;

 101

IN THE FAMILY COURT

AT BANDRA, MUMBAI
PETITION NO. A-
_____OF 2023

BHAIRAVEE R OZA
…PETITIONER
V/S
PRASHANT RATAN ARYA
. ...RESPONDENT

PETITION:-
Dated this day of, 2023

Advocate for Petitioner

Mrs. Usha Tanna & Associates

MAH 513/1991
1001, 403, Pinnacle Corporate
Park, Opp. MTNL, Next to
Trade Centre, BKC, Bandra
(East), Mumbai-400051.
022-26529988/26529977
9821066479, 9619946479
www.ushatanna.com