Vipin Kumar

BEFORE THE LD. SUB DIVISIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE RAMPUR BUSHEHAR SHIMLA In the Matter of: Smt. Sepu Devi W/O Sh. Ram Dass R/O Vill Maghara Tehsil Rampur Bsr. District shimla HP …Petitioners Versus Sh.Ram Dass S/O Jamku Ram R/O Vill Maghara Tehsil Rampur Bsr. District shimla HP …Respondent Reply to the application U/S 125 (3) CR.P.C. FOR GRANT OF MAINTENANCE TO THE PETITIONER Respectfully Sheweth, Preliminary Objection 1. That the replying respondent has been paying the un- enhanced of maintenance to the applicant regularly up to- and has preferred and a revision which is pending adjudication in the court of Ld. Sessions Judge Rampur and is fixed for-, where in the replying respondent has agitated the order dated- on the grounds that the enhanced maintenance is on the higher side and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- can not be paid by the replying respondent as he has got two school going children besides himself. Although the order dated- has not been stayed by the appellate court, yet in the interest of justice and equity the payment of enhanced maintenance may be deferred till the decision of the appeal. Reply on merits 1. Admitted. 2. That in reply para 2 it is denied that the replying respondent has failed to make the payment of maintenance to the applicant. As submitted above the replying respondent has paid the un-enhanced maintenance amount to the applicant regularly. 3. That in view of the preliminary objection as above the payment of arrears of maintenance for the past period may be deferred. A part from it the applicant is not entitled to any litigation expanses, as claimed. 4. That it is denied that only Rs.1500/- has been paid. It is, therefore, prayed that the payment of the outstanding past maintenance may kindly be deferred in the interest of justice Rampur Bushehar Dated Replying Respondent BEFORE THE LD. SUB DIVISIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE RAMPUR BUSHEHAR SHIMLA In the Matter of: Smt. Sepu Devi …Petitioner Versus Sh.Ram Dass…Respondent AFFIDAVIT I, Ram Dass S/O Jamku Ram R/O Vill Maghara Tehsil Rampur Bsr. District shimla HP, aged about 51 years, occupation Government Servant, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1.That the accompanying reply to the application under section 125 (3) Cr.P.C has been prepared and drafted on my instance and instructions. 2.That I have carefully gone through the contents of preliminary objection 1 and contents reply contained in Para 1 to 4 of the reply which are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed there from. I, the above named Deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm declare that the contents of my above statement are true and correct no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Verified at Rampur Bushehar on this day of May , 2009. Deponent DEPONENT BEFORE THE LD. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SHIMLA In the Matter of: 1. Master Himanshu, (minor) S/O Sh. Hari Singh, 2. Baby Bhawna D/O Sh. Hari Singh, Both through their next friend and guardian maternal grandmother namely Raj Rani, W/O Om Prakash, R/o Type I, Set No.2, Park Area Khalini, Shimla, HP …Applicants/Petitioners Versus Sh. Hari Singh,working at O/O Addl. Secretary (SAD) HP Govt. Arms Dale Building as peon …Respondent Application U/S 125 (d) Cr.P.C. for grant of interim maintenance and expenses of litigation. Respectfully Sheweth, 1. That the applicants have filed a petition U/S 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, which is pending disposal before this Hon’ble Court and the contents of the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of this application. 2. That it will take time to dispose of the petition and the applicants are unable to maintain themselves and have no independent source of income. 3. That the respondent has intentionally neglected to maintain the petitioners without any reasonable cause and excuse and has not paid a single penny to the petitioners despite the fact that petitioners have no source of income and all expenses are being borne by the maternal grandmother of the petitioner No.1 & 2 whereas the respondent is earning about Rs.12,000/- p.m. for their daily needs. 4. That a sum of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. is required by the applicants as interim maintenance during the pendency of main petition before this Ld. Court in view of the poor financial condition and keeping in view the age of the minor children. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the application be allowed and the petitioners be granted Rs. Rs. 5,000/- p.m. as interim maintenance, keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove. Applicants Through Shimla,(Ajay K Sharma) Dated 6.1.2009Advocate. BEFORE THE LD. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SHIMLA In the Matter of: Master Himanshu & Anr.…Applicants/Petitioners Versus Sh. Hari Singh, …Respondent AFFIDAVIT I, Raj Rani, W/O Sh. Om Prakash, R/o Type I, Set No.2, Park Area Khalini, Shimla, HP, (next friend and guardian of petitioners), aged about years, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1.That the accompanying application has been prepared and drafted by my counsel under my instruction and at my instance. 2.That I have carefully gone through the contents from Para 1 to 4 of the application, which are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. I, the above named Deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of paras 1-2 of my above affidavit are true. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Verified at Shimla on this 6th day of January, 2009. DEPONENT BEFORE THE LD. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SHIMLA In the Matter of: 1. Smt. Sunita Kumari w/O Sh. Dharam Singh, R/O VPO Urni, Tehsil Nichar, District Kinnaur. 2. Master Navjot s/O Sh. Dharam Singh, R/O VPO Urni, Tehsil Nichar, District Kinnaur. Through mother ( petitioner No 1 as natural guardian) Presently resident of C/O Sh. Prem Chand Negi, Pall Niwas by pass road shanan, Tehsil & District shimla. …Petitioners Versus Sh. Dharam Singh s/O Late Sh. Badar sukh R/O VPO Urni, Tehsil Nichar, District Kinnaur. …Respondent PETITION U/S 125 CR.P.C. FOR GRANT OF MAINTENANCE TO THE PETITIONERS. Respectfully Sheweth:- 1. That the petitioner No.1 is legally wedded wife of the respondent and the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent was solemnized as per the Customary rites and rituals prevalent in area solemnized on 8.8.2003 at their native place. That out of this wed-lock one son namely Navjot that is a petitioner No. who was born on-. 2. That after the period of one and half years from the marriage the respondent and his family members started maltreating the petitioner No.1 and used to abuse day to day and started to quarrel with the petitioner No. 1. But the petitioner No.1 kept on enduring all these agonies for the sake of her parents and society and with the idea that later or sooner the respondent and his family member would mend their ways but all in vain. 3. That the cruelties of the respondent started getting worse and the respondent had beaten the petitioner No.1 under the influence of intoxication on day to day till the matrimonial home was left by the petitioner No. 1, the parents of petitioner No. 1 requested the family members of the respondent to improve the attitude towards the petitioner NO. 1 from doing so but they all continued to do so. Thereafter, the petitioner NO.1 was also beaten by the respondent on day by day at her matrimonial home. Ultimately the parents of the petitioner No. 1 tried their best to resolve the matter by intervening from some respectable person of the locality but the respondent always paid no heeds to the request of the parents of the petitioner NO. 1 as such petitioner NO.1 left her matrimonial home and started residing with her parents at village Kilba, Tehsil Sangla District Kinnaur. 4. That it is also submitted the petitioner NO.1 had submitted the written complaint against respondent alleging that the behavior of the respondent was quarrel some and violent towards the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent did not even care take the petitioner No.1 and thereafter the matter was resolved with intervention of police in the presence of the family members as well as both the parties. As per the compromise it was agreed between the parties that respondent will not tease nor give any beatings to the petitioner and he will properly look after the petitioner. And after then the petitioner returned back to her matrimonial house along with the respondent. But the respondent again started beatings and teasing the petitioner and the ultimately the petitioner compelled to leave her matrimonial home and started residing with her parent. However It is pertinent submitted here that the petitioner NO. 1 was pregnant while leaving her matrimonial home in the month of Dec, 2004 and this fact was duly known to the respondent despite that he did not care and look after the petitioner. That the petitioner had been waiting the respondent to visit her parental home to know her health condition as she was on the verge of delivery but the respondent did not make any attempt to visit the petitioner. 5. That it is further submitted that the petitioner NO.1 gave birth to petitioner NO 2 on- at Mahatama Gandhi hospital at Rampur and the respondent was duly informed by the parents of the petitioner nO. 1 regarding the birth of respondent NO 2 even then he did not care of the petitioners nor he came there to know their health condition Whereas the petitioner NO. 1 required much care and look after as she required financial assistance to met out the expenses which were born by her parents who are poor and hardly managed such a huge amount at the stage of delivery. 6. That the petitioners were forced to leave the matrimonial house and go to her parental house and is unable to live with the respondent as she apprehends that the respondent remains always under intoxication and will do away with their lives in case they live with respondent. 7. That the respondent has intentionally neglected to maintain the petitioners without any reasonable cause and excuse and has not paid a single penny to the petitioners despite the fact that petitioners have no source of income and all expenses are being borne by the parents of the petitioner No.1. It is further submitted that the petitioner NO. 2 studying in Class Nursery at Saraswati Shiksha Mandir Shanan at Shimla and the petitioner NO 1 is facing hardship to manage his educational expenses which she getting from her parents moreover the petitioner NO. 2 requires nutrious food at this stage for which Rs. 2,000/- is required for his welfare and betterment. The petitioner NO. 1 also required 3,000/- per month to maintain her self and petitioner NO. 2 . 8. That the respondent is a private Contractor and having apple orchard at his native place and his annual income is Rs. 5,00,000/-P.A to which is more than sufficient to maintain the petitioners. 9. That the father of the petitioner No.1 is unable to maintain the petitioners since he has his own large family to maintain and lives at his native place. 10. That the petitioner No.1 is unemployed and has no source of income to maintain herself and her minor son i.e. petitioner No.2, who is studying in Saraswati Shikha Mandir School at Shanan Shimla, whose monthly expenses on education are about 2,000/- p.m. and the petitioner No.1 requires about Rs. 3,000/- p.m. to maintain herself. 11. That this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction adjudicate the present petition as the petitioner NO. 1 is residing with her father along with petitioner NO. 2 at Shimla. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the petition be allowed and the petitioners be granted Rs. 5,000/- p.m. as maintenance keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove. Petitioners Through Shimla,(Baldev Negi) Dated.Advocate. BEFORE THE LD. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SHIMLA In the Matter of: Smt. Sunita Kumari & Others …Petitioners Versus Sh. Dharam Singh …Respondent AFFIDAVIT I, Sunita Kumari w/O Sh. Dharam Singh, R/O VPO Urni, Tehsil Nichar, District Kinnaur, aged about … years, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1.That the accompanying petition has been prepared and drafted by my counsel under my instruction and at my instance. 2.That I have carefully gone through the contents from Para 1 to 11 of the petition, which are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Deponent Verification I, the above named Deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of paras 1-2 of my above affidavit are true. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Verified at Shimla on this day of May , 2009. DEPONENT BEFORE THE LD. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SHIMLA In the Matter of: 1. Smt. Sunita Kumari w/O Sh. Dharam Singh, R/O VPO Urni, Tehsil Nichar, District Kinnaur. 2. Master Navjot s/O Sh. Dharam Singh, R/O VPO Urni, Tehsil Nichar, District Kinnaur. Through mother ( petitioner No 1 as natural guardian) Presently resident of C/O Sh. Prem Chand Negi, Pall Niwas by pass road shanan, Tehsil & District shimla. …Petitioners/ applicants. Versus Sh. Dharam Singh s/O Late Sh. Badar sukh R/O VPO Urni, Tehsil Nichar, District Kinnaur. …Respondent Application U/S 125 (d) Cr.P.C. for grant of interim maintenance and expenses of litigation. Respectfully Sheweth:- 1. That the applicants has filed a petition U/S 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, which is pending disposal before this Hon’ble Court and the contents of the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of this application. 2. That it will take time to dispose of the petition and the applicants are unable to maintain themselves and have no independent source of income. 3. That the respondent has intentionally neglected to maintain the petitioners without any reasonable cause and excuse and has not paid a single penny to the petitioner despite the fact that petitioners have no source of income and all expenses are being borne by the parents of the petitioner No.1 whereas the respondent is earning about 5,00,000/- p.a. 4. That a sum of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. is required by the applicants as interim maintenance and Rs. 5,000/- is also required for litigation charges and expenses to pursue the petition for maintenance. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the application be allowed and the petitioners be granted Rs. Rs. 3,000/- p.m. as interim maintenance and Rs. 5,000/- also be granted for litigation charges and expenses to pursue the petition for maintenance keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove. Petitioners Through Shimla,(Baldev Negi) Dated.Advocate. BEFORE THE LD. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SHIMLA In the Matter of: Smt. Sunita Kumari & Others Pettiioner/ Applicant Versus Sh. Dharam Singh…Respondent/ non applicant AFFIDAVIT I, Sunita Kumari w/O Sh. Dharam Singh, R/O VPO Urni, Tehsil Nichar, District Kinnaur, HP. aged about …… years, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1.That the accompanying Applicant has been prepared and drafted by my counsel under my instruction and at my instance. 2.That I have carefully gone through the contents from Para 1 to 4 of the applicant, which are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Deponent Verification I, the above named Deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of paras 1-2 of my above affidavit are true. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Verified at Shimla on this ……. day of May, 2009. DEPONENT BEFORE THE LD. JMIC, COURT NO.2 SHIMLA In the Matter of: Smt. Sumtra Devi, W/O Sh. Budh Ram R/O Vill. Dhalli, PO Piran, Sub-Teh. Junga, Distt. Shimla, HP …Petitioner Versus Sh. Budh Ram S/o Sh. Lachmi, R/O Vill. Huen, PO Dubloo, Via Chail, Distt. Solan, HP …Respondent Reply to Application US125 Cr.P.C. on behalf of respondent. Respectfully Sheweth, 1. That it is admitted that respondent married to applicant in accordance with the Hindu Custom. 2. That it is admitted that out of said wed lock four children were born. 3. That it is admitted that applicant was dependent upon the respondent. 4. That it is admitted that respondent is working in the department of PWD as work Charge. 5. It is wrong and denied that respondent is habitual of consuming alcohol. It is proved that respondent used alcohol occasionally. It is also true that complainant was lodged in P.S. Junga and compromise took place between both parties i.e. applicant and respondent. 6. That it is wrong and denied that the applicant was forced to leave the marital home. Matter of facts is that applicant asked respondent for visiting her parental house and respondent allowed the applicant for the same. After some days, when applicant did not come back to marital home in that situation, respondent visited applicant’s parental house for taking back to applicant. But while respondent asked applicant for coming back to marital home, applicant refused to come back to marital home and applicant’s relatives started quarreling with the respondent and applicant violated terms and conditions of the compromise done between the parties at P. S, Junga. 7. That it is wrong and denied that the respondent failed to maintain applicant while respondent is ready to maintain applicant and invited applicant for rejoining the marital home. 8. That it is not possible to respondent to pay required monthly maintenance while respondent is interested to live together at marital home. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this application may kindly be dismissed and the applicant be directed to re-join the marital home in the interest of justice. Respondent Though Counsel Shimla(Sanjay Kumar) Dated: Advocate BEFORE THE LD. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SHIMLA In the Matter of: Smt. Meena Verma, W/O Sh. Rajinder Kaundal, R/o VPO Ghaini (Jelidhar) Sub-Teh. Sunni, Distt. Shimla HP D/O Sh. Roop Singh Verma, R/O Vill. Chamiyana, PO Kamlanagar, Teh. & Distt. Shimla, HP. …Petitioner Versus Sh. Rajinder Kaundal, S/O Sh. Puran Chand Kaundal R/o VPO Ghaini (Jelidhar) Sub-Teh. Sunni, Distt. Shimla HP, at present JBT teacher Primary School Ghaini, Sub-Teh. Sunni, Distt. Shimla, HP. …Respondent PETITION U/S 125 CR.P.C. FOR GRANT OF MAINTENANCE TO THE PETITIONER. Respectfully Sheweth, 12. That the petitioner is the legal wedded wife of the respondent and the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies on 18-19/11/2000 at Vill. Chamiyana, PO Kamlanagar, Shimla-6, HP and till then they had been residing together till October, 2007. 13. That out of this wed-lock no child was born to them and this reason developed a hatred in the mind of respondent and his family members and they started finding faults with the petitioner and as such rebuking, insulting and taunts also started from the side of respondent and his family members and they started maltreating the applicant by saying that she is not the wife of their choice as she is unable to give birth to a child and the respondent also number of times said that he wants to marry again if the applicant leaves their company. 14. That the applicant had been persuading the respondent and his family members to accompany her to medical test to some reputed hospital but the respondent and his family members never agreed to it. 15. That the respondent is employed as a JBT teacher in primary school Ghaini, Sub-Teh. Sunni, and is earning about Rs. 15,000/- per month as his salary and there is non who is dependent upon him. 16. That the parents of the respondents are having plenty of agriculture land and are earning about 2,00,000/- per year from agricultural produce. 17. That the applicant is a Bachelor of Arts and is unable to maintain herself and is totally dependent on her parents and has no income of her own. 18. That during the Diwali festival in the month of October, 2007 the respondent and the applicant had come to the house of her parents at Vill. Chamiyana Teh. & Distt. Shimla and after night stay there by the respondent, left for his duties on the next day with the saying that she may stay here for short period and the respondent will take her back after 4-5 days. 19. That the applicant had made number of telephone calls the respondent since October, 2007 to take her back to her matrimonial house but the respondent is evading either on one pretext or the other and none came to take her back to her matrimonial house. 20. That the applicant made last telephone call to the respondent on- but the respondent refused to take her back to her matrimonial house by saying that he wants to marry an another lady of his choice as the applicant is unable to give birth to any child during the last 7 years. 21. That the respondent has neglected and refused to maintain the applicant since October, 2007 and has finally made it clear that he is going to marry another lady of his choice as the applicant is not a wife of his choice as she has failed to give birth any child. 22. That the behavior of the respondent is unreasonable and has willfully failed to maintain the applicant, whereas he is possessed of sufficient means as above. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the petition may be allowed and the petitioners may be granted Rs. 5,000/- p.m. as maintenance keeping in view the status, facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove. Petitioner Through Shimla,(Narain Singh Shandil) Dated-Advocate. BEFORE THE LD. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SARKAGHAT In the Matter of: 1 Smt. Puspa Devi W/O Sh. Devi Chand R/o Dhatoli PO Khudla ill. Hatli The. Sarkaghat Distt. Mandi 2 Babita D/O Devi Chand R/o Dhatoli PO Khudla ill. Hatli The. Sarkaghat Distt. Mandi …Petitioners Versus 3 Sh. Devi Chand s/o Mahant Ram R/o Dhatoli PO Khudla ill. Hatli The. Sarkaghat Distt. Mandi …Respondent PETITION U/S 125 CR.P.C. FOR GRANT OF MAINTENANCE TO THE PETITIONER. Respectfully Sheweth, 1 That the petitioner No.1 is legally wedded wife of the respondent and the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent was solemnized as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies on 27 -04-1990 at village Dhaloti ill Hatli The Sarkaghat Distt Mandi HP. and out of this wed-lock two children were born. 2 That after the solemnization of marriage respondent kept the applicant nicely for two years and thereafter he started beating the applicant mercilessly and started demanding dowry and forcing the applicant to demand. Money and other article from her parents. 3 That the respondent and his family members started maltreating the petitioner No.1 and used to abuse day to day and started to quarrel with the petitioner No. 1. But the petitioner No.1 kept on enduring all these agonies for the sake of her parents and society and with the idea that later or sooner the respondent and his family member would mend their ways but all in vain. 4 That the petitioner and her children were forced to leave the house of her husband and after that the petitioner resided with the parents for about one and half year. After that the respondent and his family members assured the petitioner for not maltreating her in future and the petitioner joined the respondent 5 That after this the respondent and his mother always used to abuse the petitioner and her children. 6 That in the year 2009 the petitioner and her parents tried to solve the matter amicably with the respondent and his family but the respondent quarreled and regarding that the petitioner has filed the complaint u/s 498A , 506 IPC. The copy of FIR is attached. 7 That the petitioner has no source of income and the petitioner No 2 is studying in the college. 8 That it is submitted that the respondent tortured petitioner and demanded dowry and physically assaulted the petitioner and threatened the petitioners to do away with their lives. 9 That the respondent has intentionally neglected to maintain the petitioners without any reasonable cause and excuse and has not paid a single penny to the petitioner despite the fact that petitioners have no source of income and the girl child petitioner No 2. is college going student. 10 That the respondent has good source of income and also running the mobile shop and having landed property & is earning more than 25000(Forty Five) per month 11 The petitioner No.1 is unemployed and has no source of income to maintain herself and her daughter i.e. petitioner No.2, who is studying in college whose monthly expenses on study are about 45,00/- p.m. and the petitioner No.1 requires about Rs. 3500/- p.m. to maintain herself. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the petition be allowed and the petitioners be granted Rs. 8,000/- p.m. as maintenance keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove. Petitioners Through Sarkaghat,(Pawan Kumar) Dated.Advocate. BEFORE THE LD. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SARKAGHAT In the Matter of: Smt. Puspa Devi.…Petitioners Versus Sh. Devi Chand …Respondent AFFIDAVIT I, Smt. Puspa Devi W/O Sh. Devi Chand R/o Dhatoli PO Khudla ill. Hatli The. Sarkaghat Distt. Mandi aged about years, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1.That the accompanying petition has been prepared and drafted by my counsel under my instruction and at my instance. 2.That I have carefully gone through the contents from Para 1 to 12 of the petition, which are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Deponent Verification I, the above named Deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of paras 1-2 of my above affidavit are true. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Verified at Shimla on this day of , 2012. DEPONENT BEFORE THE LD. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SARKAGHAT In the Matter of: 1 Smt. Puspa Devi W/O Sh. Devi Chand R/o Dhatoli PO Khudla ill. Hatli The. Sarkaghat Distt. Mandi 2 Babita D/O Devi Chand R/o Dhatoli PO Khudla ill. Hatli The. Sarkaghat Distt. Mandi …Petitioners Versus Sh. Devi Chand s/o Mahant Ram R/o Dhatoli PO Khudla ill. Hatli The. Sarkaghat Distt. Mandi Application U/S 125 (d) Cr.P.C. for grant of interim maintenance and expenses of litigation. Respectfully Sheweth, 1 That the applicants has filed a petition U/S 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, which is pending disposal before this Hon’ble Court and the contents of the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of this application. 2 That it will take time to dispose of the petition and the applicants are unable to maintain themselves and have no independent source of income. 3 That the respondent has intentionally neglected to maintain the petitioners without any reasonable cause and excuse and has not paid a single penny to the petitioner despite the fact that petitioners have no source of income and all expenses are being borne by the parents of the petitioner No.1 whereas the respondent is earning about 25,000/-per month 4 That a sum of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. is required by the applicants as interim maintenance and Rs. 5,000/- is also required for litigation charges and expenses to pursue the petition for maintenance. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the application be allowed and the petitioners be granted Rs. 4,000/- p.m. as interim maintenance and Rs. 5,000/- also be granted for litigation charges and expenses to pursue the petition for maintenance keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove. Petitioners Through Sarkaghat,(Pawan Kumar) Dated.Advocate. BEFORE THE LD. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SARKAGHAT In the Matter of: Smt. Puspa Devi.…Petitioners Versus Sh. Devi Chand …Respondent AFFIDAVIT I, Smt. Puspa Devi W/O Sh. Devi Chand R/o Dhatoli PO Khudla ill. Hatli The. Sarkaghat Distt. Mandi aged about years, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1.That the accompanying Applicant has been prepared and drafted by my counsel under my instruction and at my instance. 2.That I have carefully gone through the contents from Para 1 to 4 of the applicant, which are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Deponent Verification I, the above named Deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of paras 1-2 of my above affidavit are true. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Verified at Shimla on this 19th day of September, 2008. DEPONENT BEFORE THE LD. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SHIMLA In the Matter of: 1. Mrs. Anamika Rao W/O Sh. Kunal Rao, D/O Sh. Gian Singh Chauhan, presently R/o Asheesh Lodge Upper Shankli , Lakkar Bazar Shiml;a-1, HP. 2. Master Talin Rao, S/O Sh. Kunal Rao, aged 1 years, presently under the care and custody of his mother and natural guardian Mrs. Anamika Rao, R/o Asheesh Lodge Upper Shankli, Lakkar Bazar Shiml;a-1. …Petitioners Versus Sh. Kunal Rao, S/O Sh. Rahul Rao, R/O House No. 928, Sec-9 (Urban Estate) Karnal Haryana. …Respondent PETITION U/S 125 CR.P.C. FOR GRANT OF MAINTENANCE TO THE PETITIONER. Respectfully Sheweth, 1. That the petitioner No.1 is legally wedded wife of the respondent whose marriage was solemnized with the respondent on- at Hotel Sagar Ratna, Karnal (Haryan) in accordance with Hindu rituals and rights out of the aforesaid wedlock a son (petitioner No.2) named Talin was born to the petitioner No.1 on-, who is presently one year old and is under the care and custody of his mother, petitioner No.1. 2. That the petitioner No.1 prior to her marriage with the respondent was working in Tata AIG, Chandigarh as Assistant Manager and drawing Rs. 25,000/- per month as her salary. The parents of the respondent compelled the petitioner No.1 to quit her job before solemnization of her marriage with the respondent. 3. That the parents of the petitioner No.1 did their best to fulfill the greed of the respondent as well as his parents during the pre-marriage and marriage ceremonies and had to spend lacks of rupees for the sake of petitioner No.1’s future and happy married life. 4. That the respondents as well as his parents immediately after the marriage started harassing and maltreating the petitioner No.1 on the pretext of less dowry and they were not happy with the dowry and the gifts given by the parents of the petitioner No.1 to the respondent as well as his family members. The mother of the respondent used to taunt the petitioner No.1 that the dowry items given by her parents were not according to their financial status and used to impress upon petitioner No.1 to ask her parents to bring costly gifts for every family members and also for their close relatives. The parents of the petitioner No. 1 tried to fulfill each and every demands made by the respondent as well as his parents for the sake of happy married life of their daughter. 5. That the respondent as well as his parents after 2-3 months of the marriage started maltreating the petitioner and even used to thrash her on one pretext or the other and finally on- the petitioner No.1 alongwith her one year old son was dropped by the respondent at the instance his parents at her parents house at Shimla. The respondent thereafter rushed back to Karnal without saying anything to the petitioner or her parents despite so many requests made by her parents but flatly refused to take her back to Karnal and told the petitioner No.1 and her parents that he as well as his parents wants to get rid of the petitioner No.1 as well as No.1 as they were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and pre-marriage ceremonies. 6. That presently the petitioner NO.1 alongwith her minor son has been compelled to take shelter to the house of her parents at Shimla and both of them are totally dependent upon her parents for day to day expenses. 7. that the respondent is a business partner with his father in the business of Rahul Power and Trans, INC at Panipat as well as at Nabha (Punjab) and their annual turnover from the said business is more than Rs. 9 to 10 crores and apart from this the respondent has a very palatial house at sector-9 (Urban Estate) Karnal and the value thereof is more than 5 crores. 8. That the respondent has sufficient means and has willfully neglected and refused to maintain both the petitioners without any rhyme and reasons and he is legally bound to maintained them being husband and father. The petitioner has stated above has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself as well as her minor son. The petitioner now is facing great hardships in meeting her as well as her son’s day-to-day expenses. The respondent is having sufficient income and means from the aforesaid business and after every fortnight visits China and other countries in connection with his business and as such legally bound to maintain both the petitioners. The petitioners required at least Rs. 50,000/- per month as maintenance for herself as well as for the brought up of her minor son as per social and financial status of the her-In-laws. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this application may kindly be allowed and the respondent may kindly be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month (Rs. 25,000 each petitioners) as maintenance and expenses for the litigation in the interest of justice. Petitioners Through Shimla() Dated Advocate BEFORE THE LD. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SHIMLA In the Matter of: Mrs. Anamika Rao & Ors. Applicants/Petitioners Versus Sh. Kunal Rao. Respondent AFFIDAVIT I, Anamika Rao W/O Sh. Kunal Rao, D/O Sh. Gian Singh Chauhan, presently R/o Asheesh Lodge Upper Shankli , Lakkar Bazar Shiml;a-1, HP, aged about 26 years, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1.That the accompanying application has been prepared and drafted by my counsel under my instruction and at my instance. 2.That I have carefully gone through the contents from Para 1 to 4 of the application, are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Deponent Verification I, the above named Deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of paras 1-2 of my above affidavit are true. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Verified at Shimla on this day of , 2008. Deponent BEFORE THE LD. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SHIMLA In the Matter of: 1. Mrs. Anamika Rao W/O Sh. Kunal Rao, D/O Sh. Gian Singh Chauhan, presently R/o Asheesh Lodge Upper Shankli , Lakkar Bazar Shiml;a-1, HP. 2. Master Talin Rao, S/O Sh. Kunal Rao, aged 1 years, presently under the care and custody of his mother and natural guardian Mrs. Anamika Rao, R/o Asheesh Lodge Upper Shankli, Lakkar Bazar Shiml;a-1. Applicants/Petitioners Versus Sh. Kunal Rao, S/O Sh. Rahul Rao, R/O House No. 928, Sec-9 (Urban Estate) Karnal Haryana. Respondent Application U/S 125 (1) Cr.P.C. for grant of interim maintenance and expenses of litigation. Respectfully Sheweth, 1. That the applicants has filed a petition U/S 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, which is pending disposal before this Hon’ble Court and the contents of the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of this application. 2. That it will take time to dispose of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C and the applicants are unable to maintain themselves and have no independent source of income. 3. That the respondent has intentionally neglected to maintain the petitioners without any reasonable cause and excuse and has not paid a single penny to the petitioner despite the fact that petitioners have no source of income and all expenses are being borne by the parents of the petitioner No.1 whereas the respondent is earning about Rs. 25,00,000/- per month from his business. 4. That a sum of Rs. 50,000/- p.m. (Rs. 25,000/- each petitioner) is required by the applicants as interim maintenance and Rs. 50,000/- is also required for litigation charges and expenses to pursue the petition for maintenance. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the application be allowed and the petitioners be granted Rs.50,000/- p.m. as interim maintenance and Rs. 50,000/- also be granted for litigation charges and expenses to pursue the petition for maintenance keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove. Petitioners Through Shimla,( ) Dated.Advocate. BEFORE THE LD. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SHIMLA In the Matter of: Smt. Hema & Another …Petitioners Versus Sh. Virender Pathania …Respondent AFFIDAVIT I, Hema W/O Sh. Virender Pathania R/o Lal Bhawan, Inder Nagar, Dhalli, Shimla-12, HP, aged about 30 years, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1.That the accompanying Applicant has been prepared and drafted by my counsel under my instruction and at my instance. 2.That I have carefully gone through the contents from Para 1 to 4 of the applicant, which are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Deponent Verification I, the above named Deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of paras 1-2 of my above affidavit are true. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Verified at Shimla on this 10th day of September, 2007. DEPONENT