IN THE COURT OF CIVIL COURT SENIOR DIVISION

KALYAN AT KALYAN

MARRIAGE PETITION NO /2024

RAHUL BHASKAR SHETTY,

Age 38 Years, Occ Service,

R/at C/9, Navpoonam Apartment,

Sangeeta Wadi, Shiv Mandir,

Dombivli East, Tal- Kalyan, Dist- Thane …PETITIONER

V/S

MOKSHA RAHUL SHETTY,

Age-36 Years, Occ - Service,

R/at [Link]. 02, Shivtara bldg, Gupte Road,

Jai Hind Colony, Opp to Old Don Bosco School,

Dombivli West, Tal- Kalyan, Dist- Thane …RESPONDENT

REPLY TO THE PETITION FILED

UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

That the Respondent, being a law-abiding citizen, most respectfully

submits this reply in response to the Petition filed by the Petitioner
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Respondent
denies the false and baseless allegations made by the Petitioner and
states as follows:

At the very outset the Respondent denies all false, vague, and
misleading allegations made in the present petition by the petitioner
and asserts that the present petition is not maintainable, as she has just
and reasonable grounds to live separately.

The respondent state that, The claim that she has "wrongfully
withdrawn" from the marital relationship is completely false and
fabricated. The departure from the matrimonial home was not
voluntary but was a consequence of compulsion and necessity arising
out of an environment marked by mental, emotional, and physical
distress. Her decision to leave was made solely for the protection of
her well-being and that of her children.

The Respondent states that, for years, she endured her husband's cruel
behaviour , which included verbal abuse, mental and physical cruelty,
and emotional manipulation. This cruelty created an atmosphere of
fear and anxiety, affecting her and their children’s mental, physical,
and emotional well-being; hence, she filed a divorce petition to
dissolve her marital ties due to prolonged cruelty and emotional
distress. She further states that the petitioner has filed this present
petition with mala fide intent to suppress her divorce petition and
coerce her into resuming an unwilling and unsafe marital relationship.

The Respondent states that the allegations made by the Petitioner

regarding her alleged wrongful withdrawal from the marital home are
false, baseless, and misleading.
The Respondent states that her husband i.e. petitioner is an alcoholic
with a short temper and an aggressive nature, often reacting with
anger and hostility, Under the influence of alcohol, he acts impulsively
without thinking, creating an unsafe home environment that causes
emotional distress and negatively impacts the well-being of both the
Respondent and their children

The respondent says that the Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble
Court with the utmost unclean hands and the Petitioner has
deliberately and intentionally filed this petition to pressurizing the
Respondent

Without prejudice to what is stated herein above, this Respondent

gives a para-wise reply which is as under :

a) That the contents of paragraphs 1 to 5 of the Petition are not

denied, except to the extent that the Petitioner has made certain
misleading statements regarding the conduct of the Respondent.

b) That the content of paragraph no. 6 of the petition is partly

admitted only the extent of that after the birth of their second
child during the COVID-19 pandemic, she temporarily stayed at
her parental house for medical recovery and support. This
decision was made because the Petitioner and his family began
fighting and quarreling with the Respondent and her family,
expressing disappointment over the birth of a baby girl. As a
result, they refused to take care of the newborn and the mother,
leaving the Respondent with no choice but to seek support at
her parental home.
c) That the content of paragraph no. 7 is wrong, false, frivolous,
and fabricated therefore, vehemently denied by the respondent,
The respondent further denies the allegations of a sudden
change in behavior and asserts that it was the Petitioner who
engaged in acts of neglect, emotional distress, not providing
proper nutrias food to respondent and failure to provide a
harmonious environment for her and the children.

d) That the content of paragraph no. 8 of the petition is wrong,

false, frivolous, and fabricated, and therefore denied by the
Respondent. The respondent further states that she was not
leaving her matrimonial house voluntarily but was compelled to
do so due to continuous harassment, mental agony, and an
unhealthy environment created by the Petitioner and his family.
The Petitioner has selectively omitted crucial facts, including
but not limited to instances of domestic violence, verbal abuse,
and financial neglect suffered by the Respondent during the
subsistence of the marriage.

e) That the content of paragraph No. 9 of the petition is incorrect,

false, frivolous, and fabricated, and therefore denied by the
Respondent. However, it is pertinent to say that the alleged
refusal to return to the marital home is misleading and has been
distorted to present a one-sided narrative. The Respondent has
always prioritized the well-being of the children and has
provided them with a stable and nurturing environment.

f) The content of paragraph no. 10 of the petition is wrong, false,

frivolous, and fabricated; therefore, it is vehemently denied by
 the Respondent. Furthermore, it is vehemently denied that the
Respondent ever compelled the Petitioner to leave his own
home. it was the Petitioner who chose to stay at his in-laws'
house after having a dispute with his family over financial
matters. However, under the influence of alcohol, he began
humiliating and abusing the Respondent and their children in
front of the Respondent's parents. His intoxicated behavior
caused severe emotional distress and had a deeply negative
impact on the children’s well-being

g) The content of paragraph no. 11 of the petition is wrong, false,

frivolous, and fabricated; therefore, it is vehemently denied by
the Respondent. The respondent states that the claims of the
petitioner that he was provided financial support to his in-laws,
i.e., the respondent's parent, and bearing all their expenses,
including medical bills, and rent, is false and strictly put for the
proof. It is further categorically denied the allegations that her
mother has negatively influenced the situation. The Petitioner’s
claims in this regard are baseless and merely an attempt to
malign the Respondent’s mother's character.

1. The content of paragraph no. 12 of the petition is wrong, false,

frivolous, and fabricated. the allegations of harassment by the
Respondent's family are entirely baseless and misleading,
therefore, it is vehemently denied by the Respondent.
Furthermore, the Petitioner has falsely stated that the
Respondent has denied him access to the children. In reality, the
Petitioner has had sufficient opportunities to meet and interact
 with the children, but he has chosen to portray a false scenario
before this Hon’ble Court.

h) The content of paragraph no. 13 of the petition is incorrect,

false, frivolous, and fabricated; therefore, it is vehemently
denied by the Respondent. the respondent states that the
Petitioner has failed to acknowledge his own cruel behaviour
and acts of emotional and financial neglect, which have
significantly impacted the Respondent and the children’s well-
being. The Respondent further states that she has always
prioritized the well-being of the children and that granting
custody to the Petitioner would not be in their best interest,
considering his past conduct and inability to provide a stable
and nurturing environment.

i) The content of paragraph no. 14 of the petition is false,

incorrect, frivolous, and fabricated therefore it is vehemently
denied except the matter of record, and respondent state that the
complaint was filed independently, based on genuine grievances
arising from his conduct, and it is incorrect to state that the was
filed under external influence. The FIR dated December 12,
2023, was registered by the authorities only after they found
sufficient grounds for investigation.

j) The content of paragraph no. 15 of the petition is false,

incorrect, frivolous, and fabricated; therefore, it is vehemently
denied by the respondent, except for the matter of record. It is
denied that the Respondent or her mother caused any mental
harassment or anguish to the Petitioner. The Petitioner’s claims
 in this regard are baseless and merely an attempt to malign the
Respondent’s parents' character. On the contrary, it was the
Respondent who was subjected to continuous emotional,
mental, and at times economic cruelty within the matrimonial
home, which ultimately compelled her to take the difficult step
of separation in order to safeguard her and her children's dignity
and well-being.

k) The content of paragraph 16 of the Petition is false, incorrect,

frivolous, and fabricated. Therefore, the Respondent denies all
the baseless and misleading averments made therein, except to
the extent that she submitted a reply through her advocate to the
legal notice dated December 27, 2023. It is denied that the
Respondent made false or unsubstantiated allegations against
the Petitioner. On the contrary, the Respondent's reply contained
true and bona fide grievances arising out of continued mental
and emotional harassment, neglect, and ill-treatment suffered at
the hands of the Petitioner and his family members. The
Respondent’s unwillingness to return to the marital home stems
from the hostile and unsafe environment created by the
Petitioner, which made peaceful cohabitation impossible. The
allegations made by the Respondent were based on her lived
experiences within the matrimonial home and are well within
her legal and moral right to assert.
l) The content of paragraph 17 of the Petition is false, incorrect,
frivolous, and fabricated; it is denied that the Respondent made
any unilateral demand for alimony in a coercive or transactional
manner. The Respondent merely expressed her willingness to
consider a mutual settlement, including reasonable and lawful
 maintenance for well-being of her children and herself, as
contemplated under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure
Code and other applicable provisions. The Petitioner’s attempt
to portray this as a demand lacking justification is misleading
and unfair. The Respondent has a legal and constitutional right
to seek maintenance, especially given her contributions to the
household and the circumstances leading to the breakdown of
the marriage. The Petitioner’s interpretation of such a lawful
demand as evidence of desertion or cruelty is erroneous, and
such allegations are denied in toto.
m) The content of paragraph 18 of the Petition is false, incorrect,
frivolous, and fabricated; therefore, the Respondent
emphatically denies the baseless and irresponsible allegation
that the children are being exposed to a "harmful environment"
merely because they are residing with the Respondent and her
mother. It is categorically denied that the Respondent’s mother
exerts any negative influence or has had any detrimental impact
on the children. On the contrary, the Respondent’s mother has
been a source of support, care, and stability for both the
Respondent and the minor children during a period of emotional
turmoil.

n) The content of paragraph 19 of the Petition is false, incorrect,

frivolous, and fabricated. The Respondent denies the
Petitioner’s claim of providing financial support amounting to
Rs. 8,00,000/- from 2020 to the present, as well as bearing the
children’s educational expenses. The Respondent states that
these claims are exaggerated and misleading. The Respondent
further states that despite facing financial constraints, she has
 independently managed the household expenses and the needs
of both children, often without timely or sufficient assistance
from the Petitioner. The Respondent reserves her right to call
for strict proof of the alleged amount of ₹8,00,000/- and to
submit her own record of financial expenditures incurred
towards the children’s upbringing.

o) That the contents of paragraph 20 are false, frivolous, and

fabricated, and are therefore expressly denied by the
Respondent. The Respondent states that she made sincere
efforts to save the marriage and endured the Petitioner’s
misconduct and humiliation, hoping that her patience, love, and
care would lead to a change in his behavior. However, all such
efforts were in vain, as the Petitioner showed no willingness to
change or improve the situation. Hence, in view of her safety
and the well-being of her children, the Respondent was left with
no option but to distance herself from the Petitioner.

p) That the contents of paragraph 21 are false, frivolous, and

fabricated; therefore, denied by the respondent due to
considering his past behaviour. Respondent further submits that
she has no intention of resuming cohabitation with the
petitionerdue to his behaviour and treatment towards her and the
children.

q) That the content of paragraph 22 is false, frivolous, fabricated,

and hypothetical; therefore, emphatically denied. However, it is
pertinent to mention that the because of brutal conduct of the
petitioner toward the respondent makes her life a living
 nightmare hence, she has no intention of resuming
cohabitation with the Petitioner due to his behavior and
treatment towards her and the children.

r) That the content of para no.23 of the petition is a matter of fact

and record and therefore need not to be reply.

s) That the content of para no.24 of the petition is a matter of

record and therefore need not to be reply.

t) That the content of para no.25 of the petition is a matter of

record and therefore need not to be reply.

The Respondent, therefore, prays that the Hon’ble Court

dismiss the present petition filed by the Petitioner and reject
his claims for restitution of conjugal rights and custody of the
children.

PRAYER:
Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, the
Respondent prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

Dismiss the present petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955.

b) Reject the Petitioner’s claim for full and unconditional

custody of the children, as it is not in their best interest.
c) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
Date: /04/2025

Place-

RESPONDENT

ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT

VERIFICATION

I, Moksha Rahul Shetty, Age 36 years, Occ: Service, R/at

[Link]. 02, Shivtara Bldg, Gupte Road, Jai Hind Colony, Opp to
Old Don Bosco School, Dombivli West, Tal-Kalyan, Dist-
Thane, do hereby verify that the contents of this reply are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Date: /04/2025

Place-

RESPONDENT

ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT

1. The Respondent refutes the claim that she intentionally kept the
children away from the Petitioner. Instead, she asserts that the
Petitioner failed to make sufficient efforts to maintain a healthy
relationship with the children and to fulfill his paternal
responsibilities.

2. The Respondent categorically denies that she or her mother

influenced the children negatively or created a hostile
environment against the Petitioner. On the contrary, the
Respondent states that the Petitioner's behavior and his own
neglect of marital obligations led to the estrangement.

3. The Respondent strongly refutes the allegations of financial

exploitation and coercion and states that the Petitioner’s
financial contributions were made voluntarily, and any claims
otherwise are made with mala fide intent.

4. The Respondent states that the filing of an FIR against the

Petitioner on 12/12/2023 was based on genuine grievances
arising from his conduct, and it is incorrect to state that the
same was filed under external influence.