IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE AT PONNERI
I.A No. OF 2024
IN
H.M.O.P NO. 459 OF 2021
Sai parkavi
W/o Niranjan@Vivek,
No 7-A, Nehru street,
Duraisamy nagar.
Thandaperumbakkam, Ponneri-601204 . …..Petitioner/Defendant
-Vs-
Niranjan@vivek,
S/o Udayakumar,
No-65, Kolaikattu street,
Mahalakshmi nagar,
Nagapattinam District-611003. …Respondent/Plaintiff
AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER
I, Sai parkavi W/o Niranjan @ vivek Hindu, aged about 28 years residing at
No-7 A Nehru street, Duraisamy nagar Thandaperumbakkam ponneri 601204
do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:-
1. I am residing in the above said address. I am the petitioner /
defendant in H.M.O.P No. 459 of 2021 and as such I am well acquainted
with the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. I state that, the 1st respondent / plaintiff as filed an H.M.O.P of 25 of
2021 in nagapattinam Sub-court and the same was transferred to
ponneri sub-court as per the HONORABLE HIGHCORT OF JUDICATURE
AT MADRAS Tr.C.M.P No 412 of 2021 and the same was numbered as
H.M.O.P.459 of 2021 In THE COURT OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE AT
PONNERI.
3. I state that, the above H.M.O.P 459 of 2021 before the I Additional City
Civil Court, Chennai were posted on 06.08.2024 for filing counter. I
further state that the I tried for re-union for the past 4 months but al my
efforts were ended in vain. Hence, I was set ex-pate in H.M.O.P 459 of
2021.
4. I further averred that, the re-union was not possible with the
Respondnent/ plaintiff as the respondent is not in a mindset to accept
me.
5. I state that my absence was neither willful nor wanton but due to the
reasons stated above. I further state that I have fair chance of success in
above case. I will be put into untold hardship if the above the ex-parte
order was not set aside. Hence, it is just and necessary to setaside the
above case.
6. I therefore pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
To set aside the ex-parte order passed in the above H.M.O.P No.
459 of 2021 by this Hon’ble Court and pass such other order or orders
as this Hon’ble may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case
and thus render justice.
Solemnly affirmed at Ponneri on BEFORE ME
this the day of
and signed his name in my presence. ADVOCATE:
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE AT PONNERI
I.A No. OF 2024
IN
H.M.O.P NO. 459 OF 2021
Sai parkavi
W/o Niranjan@Vivek,
No 7-A, Nehru street,
Duraisamy nagar.
Thandaperumbakkam, Ponneri-601204 . …..Petitioner/Defendant
-Vs-
Niranjan@vivek,
S/o Udayakumar,
No-65, Kolaikattu street,
Mahalakshmi nagar,
Nagapattinam District-611003. …Respondent/Plaintiff
PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER IX RULE 7 OF CPC
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the exparte order in the above
Petition in H.M.O.P 459 of 2021 on 06.08.2024 by this Hon’ble Court and pass
such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this day of September 2024.
Counsel for Petitioner
BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL
SUBORDINATE JUDGE AT
PONNERI
I.A No. Of 2024
IN
H.M.O.P. No. 459/2021
SAI PARKAVI
Petitione
r
-Vs-
NIRANJAN @ VIVEK
Respond
ent
AFFIDAVIT
S.
VIGNESWARAN
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
9791510105
BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL
SUBORDINATE JUDGE AT
PONNERI
I.A No. Of 2024
IN
H.M.O.P. No. 459/2021
SAI PARKAVI
Petitione
r
-Vs-
NIRANJAN @ VIVEK
Respond
ent
PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER
IX RULE 7
S.
VIGNESWARAN
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
9791510105
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE AT PONNERI
I.A No. OF 2024
IN
H.M.O.P NO. 459 OF 2021
Niranjan@vivek,
S/o Udayakumar,
No-65, Kolaikattu street,
Mahalakshmi nagar,
Nagapattinam District-611003. …Plaintiff
VS
Sai parkavi
W/o Niranjan@Vivek,
No 7-A, Nehru street,
Duraisamy nagar.
Thandaperumbakkam, Ponneri-601204 . …..Defendant
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY RESPONDENT
1. I am residing in the above said address. I am the petitioner / defendant in
H.M.O.P No. 459 of 2021 and as such I am well acquainted with the facts
and circumstances of the case.
2. I hereby deny and dispute all the facts stated, contentions raised and
grounds urged in the present H.M.O.P Petition except those which are
specifically unequivocally admitted in this reply. That the Answering
Respondent is filing the Counter Affidavit to the present HMOP to bring on
record correct facts and circumstances of the case.
3. It is submitted that the respondent completely admits that the marriage
was took place in SMY Blue star marriage hall nagapattinam on 26.03.2018
as per Hindu rites and customs. The marriage expenses were done by both
the sides. The respondent beard most of the expenses. The respondent
agreed that they lived jointly at the plaintiff house after that they lived in
Chennai for 4 months (Kotturpuram). The respondent strongly denies that
the respondent family ill-treated the Plaintiff in chennai. The plaintiff
quarreled with the respondent for flimsy reasons and left to this house in
Nagaptiinam. After that the plaintiff never contacted the respondent. The
respondent contacted the plaintiff and went to her matrimonial house
located at Nagapattinam.
4. The respondent agrees that the respondent’s parents took her to ponneri
for baby-shower function. After that the plaintiff showed his true colors.
The plaintiff never wanted to live with the respondent. The plaintiff always
tortures the respondent and when the respondent’s family tried to re-
union with the plaintiff the plaintiff beat up the respondent family and a
compliant was also made in the Nagapattinam police station. The
respondent always took care of the petitioner but the petitioner never
respected the love of the respondent.
5. The respondent strongly denies that the Plaintiff tried for a re-union on
04.11.2020 and 22.02.2021 as they visited respondent house with elders
and tried to convince the respondent. The respondent never ill-treated or
the respondent family members never abused any bad words towards the
petitioner’s family members. The respondent agrees that the plaintiff send
a notice and the respondent sent a reply notice stating all the facts.
6. The respondent agrees that the baby shower function was post-ponded
because of covid-19 lock down. Even after the government lifted some
restrictions the plaintiff never wanted to attend the function. The
respondent denies that the plaintiff never visited the child after its birth.
The respondent made a video call to show their son but the plaintiff and his
family members were never interested in any relationship with the child
and his family members. The respondent calmly bears all the mental agony
and physical pain caused by the plaintiff and family members only to lead a
happy life with the plaintiff.
7. The respondent denies that the plaintiff took care of all expenses around
Rs.4,50,000 for marriage and demanded no dowry from the respondents.
The plaintiff and his family members are money minded persons and
always demanded dowry and money from the respondents. The
respondent tried to re-union with the plaintiff but all her efforts ended in
vain.
Counsel For Respondent
BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL
SUBORDINATE JUDGE AT
PONNERI
I.A No. Of 2024
IN
H.M.O.P. No. 459/2021
SAI PARKAVI
Petitione
r
-Vs-
NIRANJAN @ VIVEK
Respond
ent
COUNTER
S.
VIGNESWARAN
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
9791510105
