1

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

HYDERABAD

D.V.C. No. 167 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

Smt. P. Sri Lakshmi

… Petitioner

AND

G. Anil Kumar
… Respondents

COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1

May it please your Honour!

1. That the respondent No. 1 submits that petition filed by the

petitioner for the various reliefs under D.V. Act is not maintainable as no
domestic violence was caused to the petitioner and admittedly at no
point of time the petitioner and respondent No. 1 lived in domestic
violence in the limits of Hyderabad.

2. That the contents of Para No. 2 of the petition herein the petitioner
alleged about giving of dowry adaparachu katnam, gold jewllery,
furniture etc., are absolutely false and incorrect.

3. That the respondent No. 1 submits that at the time of marriage the
respondent was residing at Singapore and after the marriage it was
decided by the elders that the petitioner and respondent No. 1, after the
marriage should lead their matrimonial life at Singapore, hence in the
marriage no dowry either in the shape of cash, gold jewellery or articles
were given.

4. That for the contents of Para No. 3 of respondent No. 1 submits

that all the contents are absolutely false and incorrect except joining of
the petitioner with respondent No. 1 at Singapore. After the marriage,
during marital life the petitioner never visited Algunoor Village as alleged
in this Para, the marriage was performed at Karim Nagar, after the
marriage she resided with her parents at Karim Nagar and from Karim
Nagar she directly went to Singapore to join her husband. The
respondent No. 1 admits that during wed-lock a male child was born to
them.
 2

4. That the contents of Para No. 4 of the petition are absolutely false
and incorrect, hence respondent No. 1 denies the same, that the
respondent No. 1 submits that he has no bad habits including the
alleged consuming liquor he never harassed the petitioner either
physically or mentally, but the petitioner with some ulterior motive to
transfer the properties of respondents made allegations of harassment in
this para she lived with the respondent No. 1 as per her own choice and
left his company as per her own decision. The petitioner since from the
beginning showed no interest in the marital life she joined the
respondent due to the force by her elders inspite of providing all the
necessities she did not co-operate the respondent No. 1 and used to leave
the matrimonial house by putting unreasonable conditions, as far as the
allegations of demanding Rs. 20 Lakhs for purchasing the house at
Singapore and also transferring of Rs. 10 lakhs by her father are
absolutely false and baseless, the petitioner taking advantage of same
bank transactions as her father who is holding good position at Andhra
Bank and the father of respondent No. 1 who was not even having PAN
card by that time created a false cause of action.

5. That the contents of Para No. 5 of the petition are absolutely false,
baseless, and created for the purpose of this case and connected case i.e.
Cr. No. 64 of 2016 WPS, North Zone, the respondent submits that the
petitioner left his company on own accord, and declared that she do not
want to stay with him, thereafter, created the story with the assistance of
her parents who were started demanding to transfer the properties of R2
and R3. The allegations of PR NRIC sending to the respondent, the
respondent submits that the allegations are absolutely false and
baseless, the PR NRIC is in the custody of petitioner.

6. That the contents of the Para No. 6 of the petition are absolutely
false and baseless, the respondent never neglected the petitioner always
attended her calls, as far as the allegations of second marriage is
concerned, the respondent submits that he never had such an intention,
he always tried to settle the matter with the petitioner to had marital life,
but the petitioner under the ill influence putting one or the other
unreasonable conditions for leading marital life.

7. That for the contents of Para No. 7 of the petition the respondent
submits that the registration of case as Cr. No. 64 of 2016 is correct, but
 3

the said case is based on all false and baseless allegations, the petitioner
by using the said false case her level best to send the R2 and R3 to
judicial custody, the investigating officer under the influence of the
petitioner and her parents arrested R2 and R3 coerce them to accept the
illegal, unreasonable condition, then try to send them to jail.

8. That the contents of Para No. 8 of the petition are absolutely false
and baseless, hence denied by the respondents, the respondents submits
that as submitted in the above Paras, the petitioner never resided in the
company of the R2 and R3, hence no belongings are in their custody, the
petitioner may be strict proof of the same.

9. That the contents of Para No. 9 of the petition are absolutely false
and incorrect, hence the respondent No. 1 denies the same, the
respondent submits that he always tried to call the petitioner to India
and to his duty place and also tried to contact her even when he visits
India, she did not show any interest in leading life with R1. The
petitioner has been residing with her parents at Karim Nagar and they
never resided in the limits of Hyderabad, as far as the maintenance of
their son is concerned the respondent has been paying regular
maintenance for his son and his son is also visiting the respondent as
and when he visits India and also visits his paternal grandparents on the
occasions festivals and other celebrations.

10. That the contents of Para No. 10 of the petition is absolutely false
and incorrect hence the respondent No. 1 denies the same, as far as the
house bearing No. m710 is concerned it is not a house, but only a flat
which was purchased by the respondent on instalments and he could
pay only half of the amount and regularly making payments in monthly
instalments as far as his monthly income is concerned he is getting Rs.
Rs. 2,00,000/- out of which he has to pay flat instalments, flat charges,
food etc., and also provide some maintenance to is old aged parents and
son.

11. That the contents of Para No. 11 of the petition, the respondent
submits that the allegations of agricultural land mentioned in this Para
i.e. Ac. 2.31 guntas at S. No. 269 and 1.26 guntas and at S. No. 270 C-A,
Algunoor Village, the said property was purchased by the R2 and R3
when the R1 was just a student and there is no income from R1.
 4

12. That the contents of Para No. 12 of the petition is concerned that
Flat No. 3, I Floor, Milan Apartment, Loth Kunta, the respondent submits
that the said flat was purchased by his father and he stays in the said
flat, hence there is no income from the said flat.

13. That the contents of Para No. 13 of the petition, the respondent
submits that the allegations leveled in this Para with regard to Ac. 2.18
guntas at Dacharam (V) are absolutely false and incorrect as far as H.No.
4-1-63 at Osmanpur is concerned the last daughter of R2 and R3 was
residing at the said house due to poor financial condition.

14. That the contents of Para No. 14 of the petition that a land
admeasuring Ac. 2.28 guntas at Alugnoor (v), Thimmapur Mandal is
concerned, the respondent submits that no such property is in existence,
as far as H.No. 4-40/5 at Algunoor Village, Thimmapur Mandal is
concerned the said house is belonged to his father and the same is under
their occupation.

15. That the contents of Para No. 15 of the petition is concerned that
the land admeasuring Ac. 3.3 guntas in the name of R3 is concerned, it
is correct it is in the name of R3, but there is no income out the said
land. The other properties Ac 0.1 ½ guntas agricultural land in S. No.
218/B2 at Mutannapet Village, Bejjanki Mandal, the respondent submits
that no such property is in existence. As far as the 2 acres land at
Ellabhotharam Village, Saidapur Mandal is concerned the said land is
under loan and not drawing any income.

16. That the contents of Para No. 16 of the petition is concerned, the
respondent submits that the petitioner herself left the matrimonial house
and earning much more than the earnings of R1 and she is not
dependant on his husband being resourceful lady by suppressing her
properties she filed the present petition to harass the respondents.

17. That the contents of Para No. 17 of the petition are absolutely false,
hence the respondent denies the same, the respondent further submits
that he never neglected his son and has been paying regular
maintenance to him, taking care of his education and health and used to
purchase the gifts of his choice as and when he visits India, hence the
allegations of this Para is absolutely false and incorrect.
 5

18. That the contents of Para No. 18 of the petition with regard to plot
bearing No. 24, Flat No. 303, the respondent submits that at no point of
time the petitioner stayed in the said flat and only to create a false cause
of action took the said address to foist a case in Hyderabad.

19. That the contents of Para No. 19 of the petition is concerned the
respondent submits that all the allegations are absolutely false, the
respondent never planned to perform his second marriage and always
tried to lead a good life with the petitioner.

20. That the contents of Para No. 20 of the petition is concerned the
respondent submits that he never tried to sell or alienate the properties,
apart from that, the properties which are mentioned in the petition are
not the properties of the respondent No. 1 most of the properties
belonged to his parents and some of the properties are not in existence,
hence the allegations are hereby denied.

21. That the respondent submits that the 1st prayer of the petitioner to
grant Rs. One lakh towards maintenance is absolutely not maintainable
for various reasons, the foremost reason is that the petitioner is earning
lakhs of rupees through her business and immoveable properties, some
of the said immoveable properties, some of the said properties are
mentioned below.

i) A Commercial complex under partnership in her name out of

which she is getting Rs. 70, 000/- per month rent,

ii) Petitioner is in the partnership for 9 % share at Mahalaxmi

Para Boil Rice Mills, Sadashivpally Village of Manikonda
Mandal, and earning Rs. 4,00,000/- per annum

iii) Petitioner purchased one plot with the savings of R1

admeasuring 300 Sq. Yards at Alwal, Opposite to Selat
Theatre, apart from this, she has many more properties as
her father is having only (2) daughters and he wanted the R1
to become an illitum son in law for his house.

22. That the 2nd Prayer of the petitioner for the maintenance of Master
J. Himanshu Reddy the respondent No. 1 submits that Master
Himanshu is studying at English Union School, at Karim Nagar and
respondent has been regularly making payments for his maintenance,
apart from that the respondent No. 1 purchased an LIC Policy Master
 6

Himanshu Reddy vide Policy No. 697376777 dated 16-08-2012 in which

he has been paying Rs. 42,650/- for every (6) months.

23. That the respondent submits that the 3 rd Prayer of the petitioner
i.e. for alternative accommodation, as the petitioner is staying in her own
house, apart from that, she has been earning more income.

24. That for the 4th Prayer of the petitioner to not to sell or transfer the
block No 710 at Singapore is concerned the respondent submits that the
said property is a very small and under loan and the respondent, till
date, has not become owner.

25. That 5th Prayer of the petitioner is not maintainable as far as the
flat No. 3, Milan Apartment is concerned the respondent submits that in
the said flat her father used to stay as and when he visits India and it is
mortgaged to one Jambul Reddy and the said Jambul Reddy is staying in
the said property.

26. That 6th Prayer of the petitioner is not maintainable as the property
mentioned in S. No. 269 and 270 C-A is concerned the said property
were purchased by the parents of the respondent No. 1 when he was a
student.

27. That 7th Prayer to not to sell, alienate, etc., the property
admeasuring 450 sq. yards the respondent submits that there is no such
property is in existence.

28. That 8th Prayer of the petitioner, as stated above the respondent
submits that in the said flat her father used to stay as and when he visits
India and it is mortgaged to one Jambul Reddy and the said Jambul
Reddy is staying in the said property.

29. That 9th Prayer of the petitioner for Ac. 12.335 gts, at Aluganoor
village, Thimmapur Mandal, Karim Nagar, the said property is in the
name of respondent No. 1.

30. That the 10th Prayer with regard to agricultural land admeasuring
20 acres 18 guntas at Dacharam village the respondent submits that
land is no way concerned with the respondent.

31. That the 11th Prayer of the petitioner with regard for house bearing
No. 4-1-63, at Osmanpur the respondent submits that the said house
 7

itself registered property of R2 and R3 and R1 is no way concerned with

the same.

32. That the 12th Prayer of the petitioner with regard to Ac 2. 28 guntas
situated at Alugunoor village, R1 submits that the said property belonged
to the forefathers of the respondents and R1 has no right over the said
property.

33. That the 13th Prayer of the petitioner with regard to property
bearing No. 1-58, Alugnoor Village, the said property belonged to his
mother and she is the absolute owner, hence it is no way concerned with
this case

34. That the 14th Prayer of the petitioner with regard to property
bearing No. 4-40/5 is concerned, the said property was belonged to his
maternal grandfather and it was transferred in the name of his mother,
hence no order can be passed with regard to this property.

35. That for the 15th Prayer the respondent submits that the said
property belonged to the mother of the petitioner, hence no order can be
passed with regard to the said property.

36. That for the 16th Prayer of the petitioner with regard to the 0.1 ½
guntas in survey no. 218/B2, the respondent submits that there is no
such property, hence no order can be passed.

37. That for the 17th Prayer of the petitioner for the land admeasuring
Ac. 2 at Ellabhotharam village, the respondent submits that the said
property is in the name of his mother which is under subsidy.

38. That for the 18th Prayer for compensation for mental and physical
harassment, the R1 submits that at no point of time the petitioner is
subjected to harassment and the petitioner may be put strict proof of the
same.

39. That for the 19th Prayer of the petitioner she was never subjected to
domestic violence and she may be put strict proof of the same, hence no
order can be passed U/s 18 (a) of the D.V. Act.

40. That as far as the return of Rs. 50 lakhs, Rs. 10 lakhs dowry, gold
jewellery is concerned the respondent submits that no such amount was
given and the petitioner may be put strict proof of the same.
 8

41. That the petition is devoid of merits hence the same is liable to be
dismissed.

42. That the allegations which are not specifically denied are hereby
denied.

IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED,

That that Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the petition filed
by the petitioner under D.V. Act in the interest of justice.

Place: Hyderabad

Date: -05-2018 Respondent No. 1

Counsel for Respondent No. 1

9

N THE COURT OF THE HON`BLE IV

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
HYDERBAD

D.V.C. No 167 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

Smt. P. Sri Lakshmi

… Petitioner

AND

G. Anil Kumar
… Respondents

COUNTER FILED BY THE

RESPONDENT NO. 1

Filed on: -05-2018

Filed by:

Counsel for Respondents

M.A. AZEEM
Associates and Advocates,
Hyderabad