IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 1ST CLASS,

FARIDABAD, HARYANA

Complaint No.: of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

ElizabethuBinu @ Joemole and others : Complainants

Versus

Rev. Binu P. Thomas and others : Respondents

REPLY/COUNTER-STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE

ACCUSED/RESPONDENT NO. 1

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

I. Preliminary Submissions:

1. The present Application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is misconceived, false, frivolous,
vexatious, and amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
2. The Respondents deny all allegations of Domestic Violence as defined
under the Act and submit that the allegations are motivated by a desire to
harass and extract money and property from the Respondents.
3. The Applicant(s) are not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed under
Sections 18, 19, 20, and 22 of the DV Act.

II. Para-wise Reply

The Respondents deny each and every allegation, averment, statement,

inference, or submission made in the corresponding paragraph of the
Application unless specifically admitted herein:
 Para 1: Admitted that the marriage between Applicant No. 1 and
Respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 15th February 2006 at Marthoma
Church Uthimoodu, Kerala. The rest of the para is a matter of record.
 Para 2: Admitted that two children, Angelina Binu (Petitioner No. 2,
born 27th June 2008) and Agnes Binu (Petitioner No. 3, born 12th July
2010), were born from the wedlock and are presently in the custody of
Petitioner No. 1.
 Para 3 & 4 (Denial of Dowry): Denied. The Respondents deny
demanding or accepting any sum of Rs.20,00,000/- or 60 pawans of gold
as dowry. It is submitted that the Applicant's family voluntarily gave
customary gifts which were never demanded. Respondent No. 1's position
as a priest is a matter of respect, and the allegation of using it to demand
dowry is absolutely false.
 Para 5 (Dowry Amount Contradiction): Denied. The Applicant's own
claim of the father giving Rs. 5 lacs and 60 pawans of gold and assuring
the "remaining amount" contradicts the earlier claim of receiving Rs.20
lacs in cash in Para 3. No such demand or assurance was ever made.
 Para 6 & 7 (Cruelty on Nuptial Night): Vehemently Denied. The
allegation of "cruel behavior" on the very first night and demanding the
balance of Rs.13.00 lacs is a malicious fabrication. The marriage was a
loving union, and the Respondent No. 1 never asked Applicant No. 1 to
demand money from her father. The figures cited, like Rs.8 lacs being
paid later, are baseless.
 Para 8: Denied that Applicant No. 1 was ever subjected to inhumane or
barbaric behavior. The Respondents merely requested the Applicant's
father to be allowed to live a simple married life without the constant
interference and monetary expectations from her parental family.
 Para 9: Denied. The Respondents deny "continuing raising their illegal
demand of dowry" while Respondent No. 1 was serving in Hangal
 (Karnataka). The deceased father of Respondent No. 1 (Rosamma
Pappachan's husband) never instigated maltreatment. The Respondent
No. 1 always cared for his wife.
 Para 10 (Bank Transfer): Admitted that a transfer of Rs.8 lacs was
received via bank transfer on 11.08.2006. However, Denied that this
amount was paid to satisfy an "illegal demand of dowry". The amount
was an investment/contribution voluntarily made by the Applicant's
father for the benefit of the married couple and the church work of
Respondent No. 1, not dowry.
 Para 11 (Miscarriage and Harassment): Completely and Vehemently
Denied. The Respondents were happy when Applicant No. 1 became
pregnant in Dec 2006. The allegations of physical and mental cruelties,
assault, and fear of her becoming a "burden" are false and baseless. The
remaining amount of Rs.7 lacs was never demanded.
 Para 12: The miscarriage in Feb 2007 was a tragic, natural event. Denied
that she was assaulted, denied medical attention, or kept in isolation.
 Para 13 & 14 (Second Pregnancy, Exploitation): Denied. Respondents
provided full care. The allegations of being "sexually exploited" and
"physically abused" are shocking and utterly false, designed to bring
disrepute to a man of God. It is denied that she was cunningly sent alone
to Faridabad "to escape from the liability of incurring medical expenses
and delivery expenses". She was sent to her parents for better care, as is
customary.
 Para 15 (First Child Birth): Denied. Respondent No. 1 did visit
Faridabad on 15.6.2008 and provided all the necessary attention and care.
He returned to his place of service (Hangal) with the knowledge and
consent of Applicant No. 1 and her family, as he had professional duties.
 Para 16 & 17 (Birth of Girl Child): Admitted the birth of Angelina
Binu on 27.06.2008. Denied that the Respondents "neither... came to see"
 the new-born child because she was a girl. The Respondents deny
refusing to take the Applicant and child to his workplace or being
"perturbed" by the birth of a female child.
 Para 18 (20 Pawans of Gold): Admitted that the Applicant's father
brought the Applicant and child to Kerala. Denied that 20 pawans of gold
were given to the Respondents for the sake of happiness. These were
voluntary customary gifts for the child and not an attempt to appease or
save the marriage.
 Para 19 & 20: Admitted Respondent No. 1 came for the baptism
ceremony. Denied that he refused to take them back or that the
Applicant's life was made miserable. The Respondents deny fighting or
creating "mountain out of mole".
 Para 21 (Taking Gold Jewelry): Vehemently Denied. The allegation
that Respondent No. 2 and her deceased father-in-law forcibly took away
the Applicant's jewelry and gave it to Respondent No. 5 as dowry is
grossly false. It is denied that Respondent No. 2 or 5 beat Applicant No.
1.
 Para 22 & 23 (Continued Demand and Abuse): Denied that the
Applicant's parents gave money often or that Respondent No. 1 avoided
talking telephonically. The Respondents deny that Applicant No. 1 was
pressurized for more money or called a "beggar".
 Para 24 & 25 (Udaipur): Admitted the transfer to Udaipur, Rajasthan.
Denied that Applicant No. 1 was pressurized for more money, denied
proper care, or that she was abused physically and sexually exploited.
These are egregious and false allegations.
 Para 26 & 27 (Second Pregnancy and Delivery): Admitted the second
pregnancy. Denied that she was maltreated or forcibly sent to Faridabad.
The Respondents deny refusing to bear expenses and state that she chose
to go to her parents for the delivery.
 Para 28: Admitted the birth of Agnes Binu (Petitioner No. 3) in
Faridabad on 12.07.2007.
 Para 29 & 30: Admitted the Applicant returned to Udaipur. Denied the
allegation that Respondent No. 1 asked her to go back to Faridabad
because his income was low or that he had spent money on his MBA. The
transfer to Muthedam church, Kerala, in May 2012 is admitted.
 Para 31: Denied. The attitude of Respondent No. 1 never changed, and
he always treated the Applicant and children with love.
 Para 32-35 (Brother's Visit and Gold Demand): Admitted the
Applicant's brother visited in Sept 2012. Denied that he was dragged out
of the house or that gold was demanded for Respondents 2, 4, and 5.
Denied that the Applicant was in pain during the October 2012 call.
Admitted that the Applicant's father visited on 16th Oct, 2012, and gave
"one gold chain and one gold set" to Respondent No. 2. This was a
voluntary gift, not a satisfaction of demand.
 Para 36 & 37 (Physical Abuse): Vehemently Denied. Respondent No.
1 never fought, slapped, or threw a food plate at the Applicant in front of
her father. The allegation that he said she was "no more her daughter and
she is his property" and that he had the right to "slap her or even kill her"
is false, baseless, and designed for defamation.
 Para 38-40 (Abuse and Property): Denied. The Respondents deny
using "filthy language". Denied that Respondent No. 1 abused her father,
called him a "beggar," or referred to the family as "slum dwellers".
Admitted that Respondent No. 1 owns two properties: 30 cents of land
and an apartment. Denied that these were bought using dowry or Stridhan
money. They were purchased from his legitimate income. Denied that
Respondent No. 1 beat the Applicant or pushed her father to the ground.
 Para 41-42: Admitted that the Applicant was taken away by her father.
This was done voluntarily by the Applicant's father to take them for a
 short visit, not because of any threat or abuse. Respondents did not assure
that they would not raise a dowry demand or mend their ways.
 Para 43-46 (Divorce Case u/s 32): Admitted that Respondent No. 1 filed
a case u/s 32 of the Divorce Act for Restitution of Conjugal Rights
(RCR). Denied that the case was false or frivolous. The Applicant's
stated desire to join the matrimonial society is a self-serving statement.
Denied that Respondent No. 1 intentionally got the matter adjourned.
 Para 47-49 (Maintenance and Transfer): Admitted Respondent No. 1
filed for divorce u/s 10 of the Divorce Act. Admitted that the Applicant
filed for maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and was granted interim
maintenance of Rs. 10,000/-. Admitted the transfer petition to the
Supreme Court and the subsequent mediation in 2015 where a settlement
was reached, and the parties rejoined.
 Para 50-51 (Transfer to USA): Admitted the transfer of Respondent No.
1 to the Marthoma Church in Anaheim, Los Angeles, USA, in 2017.
Denied that Respondent No. 1 "played with the emotions" or that
Applicant No. 1's parents sent 3000 U.S. Dollars to Respondent No. 1 on
the pretext of keeping it "in safe custody". The amount was voluntarily
given for the mutual expenses of settling in a new country.
 Para 52-54 (USA Cruelty): Vehemently Denied. The allegations of
Respondent No. 1 being a "totally changed person," inflicting cruelty,
mercilessly beating the Applicant, and "brutally attacking" the minor
children (Petitioner No. 2 and 3) are shocking, false, and baseless.
Denied that the Applicant was scared of police taking her children away
due to physical assault by the Respondent. Denied all allegations of
instigation by Respondents 2-5.
 Para 55-59 (Attempt to Kill and Church Committee): Completely
Denied. The allegation that Respondent No. 1 started beating Petitioner
No. 3 and tried to kill the Applicant by "putting pillow over her face" is a
 grave and false accusation, invented to gain sympathy. The
Respondents deny any "ongoing tension" or "cruel act". The Church
members intervened based on the Applicant's false narrative, and the
Respondents deny the Church's stated fear of the police taking the
children away.
 Para 60: Denied the allegations of ill-behavior, arrogance, or refusal to
interfere in their "personal life". The Church Committee was misguided
by the Applicant.
 Para 61-62 (Removal from Service): Denied. The Respondent No. 1
was not "caught red handed abusing and assaulting". His relief from
service and return to India in June 2018 was due to administrative
reasons, not domestic violence. Denied making any threats to the
Applicant's parents.
 Para 63-65 (Current Status and Maintenance Claim): Admitted the
Applicant and children are currently living with her parents in Faridabad.
Denied that they are living "on mercy" of her parents. The maintenance
claim of Rs.50,000/- per month is exorbitant and inflated. The
educational expenses claimed are voluntarily incurred by the Applicant's
parents, and the Respondent No. 1 is already making efforts to provide
for the children.
 Para 66-72 (Respondent's Income): Admitted that Respondent No. 1 is
serving as a priest in Kerala under the authority of the Bishop and draws a
salary with certain benefits. Denied that the salary and benefits amount to
the "handsome salary" claimed. Denied that he is deliberately avoiding
his obligations. Admitted to receiving voluntary donations from church
members. Admitted that he has ancestral agricultural income and rental
income. The Applicant's claim of his income being Rs.1,00,000 to
Rs.1,25,000 per month is inflated and denied. The salary is modest and
 meant for a single person's maintenance, as the Applicant and children
left his society.
 Para 73: Denied. The property worth Rs.3 crores in Kerala was not
bought after reunification through mediation. This is a false statement.
 Para 74-77 (Willingness to Rejoin): Admitted the marriage and
parentage of the children. Denied that the Applicant and children were
"deliberately and intentionally thrown petitioners out". The Applicant left
the matrimonial house on her own volition. The Respondents have made
efforts to communicate and are not "stone hearted". The Applicant's
willingness to rejoin is conditional and not genuine. The Respondent No.
1 has various liabilities, including his church work and taking care of his
elderly mother. The Applicant's claim of the Respondent enjoying "all
basic to luxuries" is exaggerated and false.

III. Reliefs Claimed in Application (Denial)

The Respondents submit that the Applicant has failed to establish any case of
Domestic Violence or that she is an Aggrieved Person and is therefore not
entitled to any relief.

 Under Section 18 (Protection Order): Denied. The Respondents deny

committing or aiding any act of domestic violence, illegal pressure, or
attempting to communicate in a prohibited manner.
 Under Section 19 (Residence Order): Denied. The Respondents deny
the Applicant's right to restrain the alienation of properties which are
either ancestral or legitimately acquired by Respondent No. 1 from his
own income. The claim for Rs.15,000/- per month for alternative
accommodation is denied.
 Under Section 20 (Monetary Relief): Denied. The total claim of
Rs.50,000/- per month is exorbitant and unsubstantiated. The claimed
 expenses are exaggerated and being incurred by the Applicant's parents
voluntarily.
 Under Section 22 (Compensation): Denied. The claim for
Rs.75,00,000/- towards damages for physical and mental violence is
baseless and an attempt to extort money.

PRAYER

In view of the submissions made above, it is most respectfully prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Dismiss the Application filed by the Applicant(s) under Section 12 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, with costs.
2. Reject all reliefs claimed under Sections 18, 19, 20, and 22 of the Act.
3. Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the
interest of justice, equity, and good conscience.

RESPONDENT NO. 1

Through Counsel

(ADITYA VERMA)

Advocate for the respondent no.1

Date: 10.12.2025

Place: Faridabad