Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Thereafter, petitioner in order to support her case, petitioner got herself examined and she filed her evidence by way of affidavit and reiterated all the facts mentioned in the petition.

5. Ld. Counsel for respondent cross-examined the petitioner wherein she stated that her father and family members have spent approximately Rs. 13 to 14 lacs. She further stated that she does not remember whether any list of istridhan articles was prepared at the time of marriage which was signed by both the parties. She further stated that she does not know whether said list was attached by her with her petition or not. She denied the suggestion that the gifts and presents were given to her by her family members as per Case No. 157/2004 Rohini @ Dolly Vs Deepak Sharma prevailing customs at the time of marriage. She admitted that there was no demand from respondent side prior to marriage. She further stated that she does not know whether she has filed the hospitalisation bill of delivery of petitioner no. 2. She denied the suggestion that she has not filed any such bills on record as she is not in possession of any such bill or that no expenses were incurred upon as she got treatment under the free-ship kota at St. Stephen's Hospital. She further stated that she is 12th passed and she can read, write and understand English. She further stated that she was told that respondent is a graduate but she is not sure whether he is graduate or not. She further stated that she does not know whether copy of her criminal complaint was filed against respondent and family members in April 2004 is filed by her along with her petition. She denied the suggestion that she has not filed copy of the complaint intentionally as the contents thereof are contrary to the pleadings of the case. She further denied the suggestion that his father visited St. Stephen Hospital when she was admitted there for the delivery or that her father did not allow them even to see the child. She admitted that during the period, she had stayed Case No. 157/2004 Rohini @ Dolly Vs Deepak Sharma with respondent at Kaushambi, Jhilmil and finally at Shakarpur. She further admitted that the address of Shakarpur house is U-141, Shakarpur, Delhi and this flat is owned by her mother in law and not by her father in law. She further stated that they stayed together at Shakarpur house for about 2-2 ½ months as she does not remember exactly. She further stated that she does not have the possession of said house at Shakarpur nor her lock is there on the flat. Voluntarily she stated that the said flat was got sealed by the respondent. She further stated that her sister in law got married prior to their marriage. She further stated that she has not filed any petition for restitution of conjugal rights till date. She denied the suggestion that she has not done so as it was she who had deserted the respondent without any just cause and reason and she is living separately from the respondent without reasonable excuse. She further stated that she does not possess any property in her name. She denied that respondent was compelled by her and her family members to leave Shakarpur house. She further denied the suggestion that after shifting over to Shakarpur house she and her father put pressure on the respondent to get the Case No. 157/2004 Rohini @ Dolly Vs Deepak Sharma Shakarpur house transferred in her name or that on refusal they compelled the respondent to leave the house. She further denied the suggestion that she has not given details of expenditures incurred upon petitioner no. 2 as alleged. She further stated that her father is a property dealer. She denied the suggestion that she has joined hands with her father in his property business or that she is looking after his office or that she is earning Rs. 20,000/- per month while working with her father as property dealer. She further stated that she does not remember the exact address of shop of respondent at Chawri Bazar but it is situated in Ganpati Market, Chawri Bazar. She further stated that she had been to that shop 7-8 times during her stay with the respondent and the adjoining shop of the hardware and sanitary wares and one of the shop is M/s Balaji Enterprises and second she does not remember. She denied the suggestion that there is no Ganpati Market in Chawri Bazar or any shop in the name of Balaji Enterprises or that respondent is not running any shop at Chawri Bazar not generating income of Rs. 35000/-. She further stated that the paint and distamper manufacturing factory was situated at the ground floor of parental home of respondent at Vishwas Case No. 157/2004 Rohini @ Dolly Vs Deepak Sharma Nagar. Voluntarily she stated that they have shifted the premises. She further stated that she cannot tell where it has been shifted. She denied the suggestion that respondent has nothing to do with any factory of paint and distamper at Vishwas Nagar or that no paint factory was ever been run at the parental house of respondent. She further denied the suggestion that respondent is not earning any sum of Rs. 40,000/- from any such paint business or that her contentions are hypothetical in nature. In reply to question of ld. Counsel for respondent i.e. when for the first time she were subjected to the alleged cruelty by the respondent or his family members after marriage, she replied that it was about 5-6 months after her marriage that she was subjected to mal- maltreatment/harassment. She cannot tell the exact date. She further denied the suggestion that she is unable to tell any date as no such cruelty was ever meted out to her from respondent side. She denied the suggestion that no such incident dated 08.4.2004 had taken place or that the entire story was concocted by her in connivance with her father so as to take revenge from the respondent and his family members. She admitted that as averred in her complaint, Case No. 157/2004 Rohini @ Dolly Vs Deepak Sharma pursuant to the incident dated 08.4.2004, she was hospitalized at Hedgewar Hospital and she was discharged on the same day. She denied the suggestion that thereafter she intentionally got admitted at Garg Hospital and procured false documents for the purpose of adducing false evidence against the respondent and his family members or that she had taken away her entire belongings while leaving her matrimonial home along with respondent for rented premises. She further stated that she does not remember whether she is maintaining any saving bank A/c No. 180581 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gandhi Nagar. She denied the suggestion that she has not filed any case U/s 125 Cr. PC. or any complaint before CAW Cell between 03.9.2003 to 08.4.2004 as she was having no complaint against the respondent or that her parents in law have lodged various complaint against her and her parents for her misconduct and behaviour. She denied the suggestion that she has filed the present case with the purpose to harass the respondent or that respondent is employed and is getting approximately Rs. 4000/- per month or that she is deposing falsely.