BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, LUCKNOW
R.S NO –
U/S- 9 of H.M.A
RAHUL PRAJAPATI, aged about 32 years, S/O Uma Shankar
Prajapati, Permanently Residing at 9/379 Indiranagar,
Lucknow, 226016
……...……Petitioner
VERSUS
GEETIKA, aged about 36 years, W/O Rahul Prajapati, H.N
9/1/171 Rishi Tola Part, P.S-Kotwali Nagar, Tehsil- Faizabad,
Distt. -Faizabad, Pin- 224001
…………Opposite Party/Respondent
PETITION FOR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS
UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,1955.
THE HUMBLE PETITIONER NAMED ABOVE MOST
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS HEREIN UNDER:-
u
1. That at all material times and at present, the parties to the
proceeding were and are Hindu by their religion, so ruled by
Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
2. That the petitioner declares that he has not filed any other
petition for the same cause of action involved in the present
petition before any court of law.
3. That it is not disputed that the marriage of the petitioner and
the respondent was solemnized on 29.11.2017 in accordance
to Hindu customs and rituals as well as without dowry in front
of all the relatives of both the parties at Faizabad, Uttarpradesh
. The said marriage was consummated thereafter and the
parties co-habited as husband and wife at their matrimonial
home. As such respondent is legally wedded wife of the
petitioner. The XEROX COPY MARRIAGE CARD/MARRIAGE
PHOTOGRAPH CONFIRMING THE SAID AVERMENTS IS
BEING FILED WITH THIS PETITION AS ANNEXURE NO 1.
4. That the marriage of the parties was solemnized in a traditional
and simple way without the dowry, nothing was given by the
respondent’s parents in cash or kind to the petitioner or his
family except some household items or gifts by the family
members and relatives and some other things in accordance to
customs/rituals during the whole ceremony of marriage.
5. That it is very substantial to mention here that the petitioner
prior to solemnization of the marriage was preparing for the
government job and at that time he was not engaged in any
kind of employment and the aforementioned situation was
never camouflaged by the petitioner and his family members.
The respondent and her family members were not having any
kind of disapproval/reluctance/dissatisfaction from the
abovesaid situation. Later on after the fixation of the marriage
the petitioner engaged in employment with a company named
uber.
6. That it is stated that petitioner performed his duty as husband
towards the respondent by fulfilling all of her legitimate,
persuasive, lawful demands and always tried to live happily
with her in every bit of situation.
7. That it is very germane to proclaim here that the respondent
and her family members camouflaged the basic things which
are requisite in every matrimonial relationship, despite of the
afore-mention abnormal behaviour of respondent and her
family members, the petitioner and his family member
condoned this term hoping for a better matrimonial
relationship.
8. That it is further stated by the petitioner that respondent is a
lady of very high aspiration/ambitions and always try to live a
lavish lifestyle without compromising even in the bad days.
9. That the petitioner tried to give all the amenities to her wife but
she was never gruntled with the petitioner and she always
indulges herself without even thinking about the future
consequences along with the reputation of petitioner’s family
10. That it is pertinent to mention here that the behaviour of the
respondent from the onset towards her in laws was always rude
and abnormal. Right from the day-one of the marriage the
behaviour/ attitude of the respondent towards the petitioner,
his mother, father, other family members and relatives has been
very insulting/ disrespectful, quarrelsome, non-co-operative,
suspicious, rude, insulting, adamant, dominating, high
tempered, aggressive, violent and suicidal. The respondent has
given the petitioner lots and lot of mental tension almost every
day, by her acts of commission and omission, refusing to
perform any of her matrimonial obligations. She has treated the
petitioner with cruelty, by every possible way.
11. That after some time of the said marriage the
decency/attitude/behaviour of the respondent has been totally
changed towards the petitioner and his family members. She
did not discharge any matrimonial obligations instead of that
she always tried to conquer and dominate the petitioner along
with his family member making life of everyone worse and
sometimes petitioner tried to step outside her shoes but it
resulted in threats of registration of false F.I.R along with
plenty many cases by the respondent.
12. That it is also important to mention here that the respondent
had a habit of discussing the complainant’s personal
discussions with her other family members and friends also the
respondent penchants to pass on secret information about one
person to another which several times resulted in harassment
of the petitioner and his family members.
13. That it is further stated that the respondent had idiosyncrasy
of visiting her parental home off & on and used to stay back
for about 2-3 months for no rhyme or reason and upon great
insistence and persuasion of the petitioner and his family
members, she would only return to matrimonial home.
14. That it is very imperative to mention here that the respondent
has already taken away her entire STRIDHAN except some
household items, given to the Respondent including jewellery,
of gold and/ or silver, as also the artificial ones, dresses,
sarees. She has kept her entire stridhan items at her present
resident address which is afore-stated. It may however be
added and clarified herein that neither petitioner’s side nor the
respondent’s side had given much of gold or silver jewellery.
The jewellery was meagre/ small items like. All the Jewellery
and valuables are with the Respondent as on the date of filing
of this petition except some household items.
15. That because of whimsical /abnormal/vehemence /cajoling
behaviour of respondent, the marital relations between the
parties were not very pleasing and compatible since the day of
marriage till the date filing of this Petition. The reasons for
disharmony and non-compatibility are squarely attributable to
the Respondent.
16. That on dated 16.07.2018 the petitioner encountered with a
gigantic accident thereby resulting 55percent physical
disability . The XEROX COPY MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
CONFIRMING THE SAID AVERMENTS IS BEING FILED WITH
THIS PETITION AS ANNEXURE NO 2.
17. That it is very relevant to mention here that at the
aforementioned pitiful situation the respondent did not
bothered to look after the petitioner along with his family
members. The doctors on the very onset of the treatment
suggested for amputation of the affected limb which was very
disheartening/ demoralising/dejecting for the petitioner, the
respondent instead of supporting the petitioner created a
brouhaha for taking the divorce from the petitioner.
18. That the respondent is doing the cruelty of trying to pry
petitioner away from his “pious obligation” to live with his aged
mother and provide shelter to her and when it is objected by
the petitioner, she threatens him by saying that she will lodge
the false F.I.R along with other cases.
19. That the respondent was also found to be of blaming attitude
unnecessarily by saying that if the petitioner or any of the family
member even think of putting any restriction in the absolute
freedom and life style of the respondent, she would implicate
the petitioner and his other family members in false cases of
harassment.
20. That in the month of October 2018, the respondent due to the
aforesaid disquieting situation without any reason left her
matrimonial home and when enquired about the same the
respondent replied that she will never come back to him, and
by listening to her words the petitioner was in complete shock.
The Cause of action arises on the month of October 2018.
21. That the petitioner tried his best to bring the respondent, a
number of times, but on one pretext or the other, she declined
to come.
22. That even though the petitioner realised that the respondent
being under the heavy influence of her parents has not been
much interested in a happy domesticity and may flout the
sacrosanct ties of the marriage the petitioner always hoped
that perhaps there may a new beginning bringing some light in
the life of the petitioner and the respondent, for the petitioner
and such a man who devoutly and fervently believes that
everyday is a new life to a wise man as well as a women.
23. That the respondent deserted the petitioner and has
withdrawn from his company without the reasonable or
necessary excuse. Hence the necessity of this petition arose.
24. That there is no other legal ground as to why the decree of
restitution of conjugal rights be not granted in favour of the
petitioner.
25. That as it a petition for granting decree of restitution of
conjugal rights so no other atrocities which are done by the
respondent are mentioned and if the Hon’ble court may require
about the same it would be futher submitted by the petitioner.
26. That as the place of marriage of the petitioner is Faizabad but
the parties to this present petition lastly resided at Lucknow ,
so the present case is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
court.
P R A Y E R
WHEREFORE, on the facts and grounds stated above, it
is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously
pleased
(i) The Hon.ble court may pleased to direct the decree of
restitution of conjugal rights in favour of petitioner.
(ii) Any other relief or reliefs which the court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case be
also passed in favour of the petitioner.
Lucknow (Tarun Pant “Tushar”& Pawan Kumar )
Dated: Advocate
(Counsel for the petitioner)
BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, LUCKNOW
R.S NO –
U/S- 9 of H.M.A
RAHUL PRAJAPATI, aged about 32 years, S/O Uma Shankar
Prajapati, Permanently Residing at 9/379 Indiranagar,
Lucknow, 226016
……...……Petitioner
VERSUS
GEETIKA, aged about 36 years, W/O Rahul Prajapati, H.N
9/1/171 Rishi Tola Part, P.S-Kotwali Nagar, Tehsil- Faizabad,
Distt. -Faizabad, Pin- 224001
…………Opposite Party/Respondent
AFFIDAVIT
I, RAHUL PRAJAPATI, aged about 32 years, S/O Uma
Shankar Prajapati, Permanently Residing at 9/379
Indiranagar, Lucknow, 226016 the deponent do hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:-
1. That the petitioner is himself the deponent in the present
petition and would herself be doing pairivi in this petition.
2. That the contents of paras 1 to 26 of the complaint are true to
my personal knowledge and are believed to be true on the basis
of information gathered from records and those of and are
based on legal advice.
3. That the Annexure filed along with the complaint are
true/Photostat of its respective original, which has been
compared by the deponent to be true.
Lucknow.
Dated: , 2019 Deponent
V E R I F I C A T I O N
I, the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the
contents of paras 1 to 3 of this affidavit are true to my personal
Knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been
concealed.
So, help me God.
Lucknow.
Dated: , 2019
Deponent
I, identify the above named deponent on the basis of records,
who has signed before me.
Lucknow [ Pawan Kumar]
Dated: ,2019 Advocate
(Counsel for the Complainant)
Solemnly affirmed before me on at A.M./P.M by the
deponent who is identified by Shri Pawan Kumar, Advocate,
Lucknow.
I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent, that
he understands the contents of this affidavit, which have been
read over and explained to him by me.
IN THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE ,FAMILY COURT.
LUCKNOW
R.S NO –
U/S- 9 of H.M.A
REGISTERED ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES
RAHUL PRAJAPATI, aged about 32 years, S/O Uma Shankar
Prajapati, Permanently Residing at 9/379 Indiranagar,
Lucknow, 226016
……...……Petitioner
VERSUS
GEETIKA, aged about 36 years, W/O Rahul Prajapati, H.N
9/1/171 Rishi Tola Part, P.S-Kotwali Nagar, Tehsil- Faizabad,
Distt. -Faizabad, Pin- 224001
…………Opposite Party/Respondent
Lucknow [ Pawan Kumar]
Dated: 2019 Advocate
(Counsel for the Complainant)
