Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

He has further deposed in para 27 that he has knowledge that an order of maintenance allowance has been passed against his son which had been filed by Ritu Gupta. He has further deposed in para-29 that his son is not impotent and they do not ready to take the defendant Ritu Gupta with them due to their bad reputation in entire society. He has further deposed in para-30 that since they have visiting term at Sahebganj so this case has been filed by them here.

He has further deposed in para-31 & 32 that it is also not true to say that Ritu Gupta was assaulted by them when she was residing there. It is also not true to say that just after 2 to 3 days of their marriage they did not want to keep the defendant with them as they did not like her. He has further deposed in para-33 that it is also not true to say that marriage of his son has been fixed at another place. He has further deposed in para- 34 that it is also not true to say that they subjected the defendant to cruelty and when they did not ready to bring her back then the defendant lodged a dowry case and maintenance case against them. He has further deposed in para-37 that it is also not true to say that their family has not been exposed in the society by the family of Ritu Gupta and their reputation has not been tarnished in their society.

He has further deposed in para-13 that his daughter has filed a case against the plaintiff, his brother, bhabhi and her father-in-law and mother-in-law but it is not true that in that dowry case her daughter has imposed allegation against her husband that he is an impotent and despite of her repeated request her husband did not get his medical test done. He 2026:JHHC:6760-DB has further deposed in para-14 that he has not knowledge as to what has been mentioned by his daughter in dowry case. He has further deposed in para-15 that Rs 8,000/-per month maintenance allowance is being paid to her daughter.

DW-2 Manita Devi is mother of the defendant and she has also almost reiterated the same facts in her examination-in-chief as deposed by DW-1 & D.W.3 in their examination-in-chief and thus to avoid repetition only relevant portion of her cross examination is being discussed here. During cross examination, she has deposed in para-12 that earlier to this 2026:JHHC:6760-DB case her daughter has filed a dowry case against Anupam Bipul and his family members and she has read the contents of that application. She has further deposed that it has falsely been typed in her affidavit that mother- in-law of her daughter inflected cut injury in the hand of her daughter with knife during snatching ornaments rather cut injury was done during snatching of mobile. She has further deposed that she had also written in dowry case that her son in law (Anupam Bipul) was ready to take bedai of Ritu Gupta but later on he refused to take bedai of his wife due to non- fulfillment of demand of dowry under the influence of his parents. She has further deposed in para-13 that it is not true that she has also stated in dowry case that her son in law was reluctant to get medical examination of his manliness done which was the main cause of dispute. She has further deposed in para-14 that she has no doubt in manliness of her son-in-law rather he and his parents have deliberately made the excuse of impotence and filed a false case against her daughter for taking divorce. She has further deposed in para-15 that it is true that she has stated in dowry case that her son in law wants to marry another modern girl. She has further deposed that she cannot say as to whether it is disrespectful to any husband or her family if his wife put question mark on the potency of her husband. She has further deposed in para-16 that no any panchayati has been convened as yet for bedai of her daughter. She has further deposed that her daughter has filed a maintenance case, in which she gets maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month and her daughter has received Rs. seven Lakhs from her husband in the light of direction of the Hon'ble High Court at the time of hearing of anticipatory bail of her son-in-law. She has further deposed in para-17 that her daughter has filed a dowry 2026:JHHC:6760-DB case against her Bhaisur, Jeth and his family members and one Udai Kumar but police did not find any evidence against them. She has further deposed that family members of the plaintiff had come to her house after taking bedai of her daughter and negotiation was done in between them in mediation centre. She has further deposed in para-18 that it is not true that they have themselves ruined the life of her daughter in the hurry of filing case. She has further deposed in para-20 that it is the influence of his parents. She has further deposed in para-13 that it is not true that she has also stated in dowry case that her son in law was reluctant to get medical examination of his manliness done which was the main cause of dispute.

She has further deposed in para-14 that she has no doubt in manliness of her son-in-law rather he and his parents have deliberately made the excuse of impotence and filed a false case against her daughter for taking divorce. She has further deposed in para-15 that it is true that she has stated in dowry case that her son in law wants to marry with another marriage modern girl. She has further deposed that she cannot say as to whether it is disrespectful to any husband or her family if his wife put question mark on the potency of her husband.