Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

True Copy of SLP Civil No. 9483 of 2013 before SC

544 visualizaciones

Publicado el

Second True copy of SLP (C) No. 9483 of 2013 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for direction to the High Court of Delhi for early date of hearing and early disposal of the case.

Publicado en: Derecho
  • Sé el primero en comentar

  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

True Copy of SLP Civil No. 9483 of 2013 before SC

  1. 1. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Order XVI Rule 4 (1) (a) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 9483 OF 2013 (Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India arising out of the interim Order dated 22.01.2013 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MAT APPL. No. 7 0f 2012). IN THE MATTER OF: OM PRAKASH PODDAR … PETITIONER VERSUS RINA KUMARI …RESPONDENT I.A. NO. OF 2013 APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON WITH I.A. NO. OF 2013 APPLICATION PRAYER FOR DIRECTION TO THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI FOR EARLY DATE OF HEARING AND DISPOSAL OF THE CASE. PAPER BOOK (FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE) PETITIONER IN PERSON
  2. 2. FILING INDEX IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION[C] NO.9483 OF 2013 IN THE MATTER OF: Om Prakash Poddar …Petitioner VERSUS Rina Kumari …Respondent S.N Particulars Copies Court Fees 1. Memo of Appearance 1 2. Office Report on Limitation 3+1 3. Listing Performa 3+1 4. Synopsis and list of dates 3+1 5. Impugned Order/Judgment 3+1 6. SLP with Affidavit 3+1 252/- 7. ANNEXURES P-1 to P-19 3+1 38/- 8. Application for Direction to the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for early date of hearing and disposal of the case. 3+1 10/- 9. Application for permission to appear and argue in person 3+1 10/- 10. PFS 10/- Total 320/- Petitioner in Person Filed on: 04.02.2013 Om Prakash Poddar
  3. 3. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION[C] NO. OF 2013 IN THE MATTER OF: Om Prakash Poddar …Petitioner VERSUS RINA Kumari …Respondent MEMO OF APPEARANCE To The Registrar Supreme Court of India New Delhi Sir, Please enter my appearance Petitioner-in-Person in the above mentioned matter: New Delhi Dated this the day of 2013 Yours faithfully, (OM PRAKASH PODDAR) Petitioner-in-Person
  4. 4. INDEX S.N Particulars Page No. 1. Office Report on Limitation ‘A’ 2. Listing Performa A1-A5 3. Synopsis and list of dates B-N 4. Interim Impugned Order dated 22.01.2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MAT.APPL. NO.7 of 2012. 5. Special Leave Petition (C) with Affidavit. 6. Annexure: P-1 (Colly) (i) Copies of handicapped certificate Concession certificate) dated 04.12.2000 issued by AIIMS, New Delhi and; (ii) Translated copies of Cremation Certificate dated 17.11.2007 of father of the petitioner Issued by Cremation Authority, Manihari, Katihar, Bihar. 7. ANNEXURE: P-2 Copies of medical certificate
  5. 5. (Discharge Summary) dated 16.11.2010 Issued by AIIMS, New Delhi of Mother of the Petitioner. 8. ANNEXURE: P-3 Copies of the police complaint Dated 30.5.2011 to the Chowki Incharge, P.P. Dwarka, Sector-10, Dwarka Court, New Delhi-75. 9. ANNEXURE: P-4 A Copy of Order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi in Suit No. HMA-700/10. 10. ANNEXURE: P-5 A copy of Order dated 06.06.2011 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi in Suit No. HMA-700/10. 11. ANNEXURE: P-6 Copies of RTI reply dated 30.08.2011 Furnished by the Office of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi. 12. Annexure: P-7 (Colly)
  6. 6. (i) Copies of Ex-parte evidence of Petitioner dated 01.08.2011; (ii) Evidence of friend of the petitioner by way of Affidavit dated 27.08.2011; (iii) Evidence of mother of the petitioner by way of Affidavit dated 07.09.2011 in Suit No. HMA-700/10 before Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi; (iv) Evidence of sister of the petitioner by way of Affidavit dated 07.09.2011 in Suit No. HMA-700/10 before Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi. 13. ANNEXURE: P-8 A Copy of Order dated 07.09.2011 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi in Suit No. HMA-700/10. 14. ANNEXURE: P-9
  7. 7. Copies of Judgment dated 16.12.2011 Passed by the Family court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi in HMA Case No.678 Of 2010. 15. ANNEXURE: P-10 (Colly) (i) Copies of receiving of complaint letter to the Secretary, DHCLSC dated 07.02.2012; (ii) Email communication dated 30.01.2012, (iii)Email communication dated 31.01.2012, wherein Legal Aid Advocate has admitted the fact of concealing the material facts. (iv)Email communication dated 01.02.2012 wherein Legal Aid Advocate has admitted the fact of concealing the material facts. (v) Email communication dated 02.02.2012 wherein Legal Aid Advocate has admitted the fact of concealing the material facts. 16. ANNEXURE: P-11
  8. 8. A Copy of Order dated 23.04.2012 Passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(Civil) NO. 9854/2012. 17. ANNEXURE: P-12 Copies of complaint letter with speed post receipt addressed to the Chairman, Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee dated 26.04.2012 and delivered on 03.05.2012. 18. ANNEXURE: P-13(Colly) (i) Copy of RTI reply by PIO, High Court of Delhi dated 27.08.2012; (ii) A copy of order of High Court of Delhi dated 06.07.2012. 19. ANNEXURE: P-14 (Colly) (i) Copies of RTI reply by PIO Delhi State Legal Service Authority, DSLSA) dated 28.08.2012; (ii) RTI reply by First Appellate Authority, DSLSA dated 24.09.2012 (iii)RTI application to the
  9. 9. Second Appellate Authority (CIC), New Delhi dated 07.10.2012 vide diary no. 180751 dated 16.11.2012. 20. ANNEXURE: P-15 A copy of order of High Court of Delhi dated 18.10.2012. 21. ANNEXURE: P-16 A copy of order of High Court of Delhi dated 06.11.2012. 22. ANNEXURE: P-17 A copy of order of High Court of Delhi dated 07.12.2012. 23. ANNEXURE: P-18 (Colly) (i) Copies of police complaint made by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police (SP), katihar, Bihar dated 31.12.2012 against the police atrocities; (ii) Copies of police Complaint made by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police (SP), katihar, Bihar dated
  10. 10. 29.09.2011 against the police atrocities; (iii)Copies of police complaint made by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police (SP), katihar, Bihar dated 03.08.2011 against the police atrocities; (iv)Copies of police complaint made by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police (SP), katihar, Bihar dated 16.07.2011 against the police atrocities; (v) Copies of police complaint made by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police (SP), katihar, Bihar dated 07.04.2011 against the police atrocities. 24. ANNEXURE: P-19 Copies of complaint to the President of India helpline vide Grievance Registration No. PRSEC/E/2013/01857 dated 28.01.2013.
  11. 11. 25. Application for direction to the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for early date of hearing and disposal of the case. 26. Application for seeking permission to appear and Argue the special leave Petition in person.
  12. 12. ‘A’ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2013 IN THE MATTER OF : OM PRAKASH PODDAR … PETITIONER VERSUS RINA KUMARI …RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION 1. The Petition is/are within time. 2. The petitioner is barred by time and there is delay of days in filing the same against order dt. and petition for condonation of days delay had been filed. 3. There is delay of days in refilling the petition and petition for condonation of days delay in refilling has been filed. New Delhi. Dated. . .2013. BRANCH OFFICER.
  13. 13. LISTING PERFORMA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 1. Nature of the Matter ………CIVIL ……………………………………… 2. Name(s) of Petitioner(s) OM PRAKASH PODDAR 2-a Email I.D. om.poddar@gmail.com 3. Name(s) of Respondent(s): RINA KUMARI 3-a Email I.D. Not know. 4. Number of the case S.L.P.(C) No. of 2013. 5. Advocate for Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Petitioner in Person 5-a Email I.D. om.poddar@gmail.com 6. Advocate for Respondent(s)… 6-a Email I.D. Not know. 7. Section …………XIV…………………………………………………………………. 8. Date of the impugned order…22.01.2013……………………. 8A. Name of Hon’ble Judge Hon’ble Justice Pradeep NandraJog and Justice Ms Veena Birbal 8B. In Land Acquisition Matters:- (i) Notification /Govt. Order No.(u/s 4, 6) ……N.A.……………………………………………. Dated ……N.A.……………. issued by Centre/ State of……N.A.……… (ii)Exact purpose of acquisition & village involve ……………N.A.……………………………. 8C. In Civil Matters:-
  14. 14. (i) Suit No., Name of Lower Court HMA No.678/2010 Family Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi Date of Judgment……………16.12.2011.……………………………………… 8D. In Writ Petition:- “Catchword” of other similar matters- ……………N.A.………… 8E. . In the case of Motor Vehicle Accident Matters: Vehicle No …………………………………N.A.……………………………………………... 8F In Service Matters (i) Relevant service rule, if any ………………N.A.…………… (ii) G.O./Circular /Notification, if applicable or in question …………N.A. ……………... 8G. In Labour Industrial Disputes Matters: I.D. Reference /Award No., If applicable ………………N.A.……………………………… 9. Nature of Urgency……………Direction to High Court of Delhi has been prayed for ……………………………… 10. In case it is a Tax Matter: (a) Tax amount involved in the matter………N.A. ……… (b)Whether a reference statement of the case was called for or rejected…NA..………. (c) Whether similar tax matters of same parties filed earlier (may be for earlier/other Assessment year)? ………………N.A. ………………………………………………… (d) Exemption Notification /Circular No. ……N.A.…… 11. Valuation of the matter ………N.A.…………………………………………… 12. Classification of the matter: (Please fill up the number & name of relevant
  15. 15. category with sub category as per list circulated.) No. of Subject Category with full name….. 16 Family Law Matters No. of sub- Category with full name. 1607 Matters under Hindu Marriage Act 13. Title of the Act Involved (Center/State): Center 14. (a)Sub-classification (indicate Section/Article of the statute) Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (b) Sub-section involved: 13(1)(ia) (c) Title of the Rules involved (Center/State)…… State…… (d) Sub-classification (Indicate Rule/Sub-Rule of the statute) .DO 15. Point of law and question of law raised in the case : Whether the High Court delayed to struck down the earlier judgment and order given by the above said Trial court? 16. Whether matter is not to be listed before any Hon’ble Judge? Mention the name of the Hon’ble Judge ……N.A. …………………………….. 17. Particulars of identical/similar cases, if any (a)Pending cases…………N.A.……………………………………….... (b)Decided cases with citation ……………N.A.…………………… 17A . Was S.L.P. /Appeal /Writ filed against same impugned Judgment /Order earlier? If yes, Particulars ……………………N.A. ………………………………………………………
  16. 16. 18. Whether the petition is against interlocutory/final order/decree in the case…interlocutory order 19. If it is a fresh matter, please state the name of the High Court and the Coram in the Impugned Judgment/Order …High Court of Delhi, New Delhi in the court of Hon’ble Justice Pradeep Nandra Jog and Justice Veena Birbal 20. If the matter was already listed in the Court: a) When was is listed? 23.04.2012 b) What was the Coram? Justice G. S. Shinghvi and Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhyaya c) What is the direction of the Court. Dismissed 21. Whether a date was has already been fixed either by Court or on being mention, for the hearing of matter? If so, please indicate the date fixed ……N.A.……………………………………. 22. Is there a Caveator? If so, whether a notice has been issued to him?…N.A.…………………. 23. Whether date entered in the Computer? ………NA..………………………………………... 24. If it is a criminal matter, please state: (a) Whether accused has surrendered …………N.A.………………… (b) Nature of Offence, i.e., Convicted under Section with Act …………N.A.…………… (c) Sentence awarded ………N.A.………………………………………………………… (d)Sentence already undergone by the accused……N.A.…………
  17. 17. 24 (e) (i) FIR /RC/etc …N.A…………… Date of Registration of FIR etc. N/A Name & place of the Police Station.. NA. (ii) Name & Place of Trial Court Learned Session Judge. ….NA (iii)Case No. in Trial Court and Date of Judgement……..NA (iv) Name & Place of 1st Appellate Court…NA Case No. in 1st Appellate Court & date of Judgement…….NA [OM PRAKASH PODDAR] Petitioner in Person Dt.04.02.2013.
  18. 18. SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES The Petitioner is filing the present special leave petition against the interim impugned order dated 22.01.2013 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Mat Appeal No. 7 0f 2012 whereby and where the Hon’ble High Court has directed to admit and list in due course without specifying the time limit and without considering that the real issue involved in this case for consideration of life and liberty of the petitioner at stake which has resulted in failure of justice. 24.6.2004 Marriage between the Petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 24.6.2004 at (Katihar), Bihar with misrepresentation of bride and forcibly under life threat at gun point. There after the Petitioner has been kept under force by the Respondent’s family and the associates till date. Force never ceased to operate. 15.4.2005 Father of the Respondent came and took
  19. 19. the Respondent along with her to his Government residence at Dhanbad (Bihar), now in Jharkhand and never came back to the matrimonial home. 15.11.2007 Petitioner has lost his handicapped father due to lack of care and support and persistent threatening from the Respondent and her family, who was undergoing treatment at AIIMS and died on 15.11.2007. Petitioner has now reduced to two member family. The Respondent and his family did not even visit and participate in the last rituals of the Petitioner’s father. Copies of handicapped certificate and cremation certificate of father of the petitioner dated 04.12.2000 and 17.11.2007 respectively are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure: P-1 (Colly) (pages 18 to 22). 30.03. 2010 Respondent with mal intention and to harass and humiliate the Petitioner has filed a false and frivolous case against the Petitioner and his mother.
  20. 20. Respondent has filed an application under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, vide case no. 9P/2010 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai on 30th March 2010 later forwarded in the court of First Class Judicial Magistrate, Mr. Atul Kumar Pathak, Begusarai Court, Bihar on 6th June 2010. 25.10.2010 Petitioner filed a petition U/s 13 (1) (ia) of the HMA, 1955 vide H.M.A Case No. 700 of 2010 seeking a decree of divorce before the court of Ld. Principal Judge Family Courts, Dwarka, Delhi without the knowledge of mal intention of Respondent. Petitioner has come to know about the respondent’s mal intention on the date of hearing of HMA suit no. 700/2010 on 9/02/2011 16.11.2010 Mother of the Petitioner suffered with severe Asthma stroke and needed ICU health care. Mother who is chronic asthmatic, COAD and surviving on only
  21. 21. 43% of oxygen and rest 47% is C02 in her blood, as per ABG report. At the same time she is thyroid patient. She has been advised to keep on home oxygen. Petitioner has to render all domestic help 24x7 to his mother. Copies of medical certificate of mother of the Petitioner dated 16.11.2010 is attached herewith and marked as Annexure: P-2 (pages to ). 30.5.2011 Petitioner was stopped and beaten by the goons of the Respondent family at the entry gate of Trial Court on 30.5.2011. Copies of the police complaint dated 30.5.2011 made by the Petitioner in this regard is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure: P-3 (pages to ). 30.05.2011 On the same date Ms Deepa Sharma, Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi stopped the whole court proceedings and did not sit and chair any of the cases, in turn, the order sheet being generated alleging
  22. 22. the petitioner for requesting for adjournment of the court proceedings. A Copy of Order dated 30.05.2011 is attached herewith and marked as Annexure: P-4 (pages to ). 06.06.2011 As a result of that the Respondent was being Ex-parte on 06.06.2011 by the Principal Judge, Ms Deepa Sharma. A copy of Order dated 06.06.2011 is attached herewith and marked as Annexure: P-5 (pages to ). 25.07.2011 Petitioner has filed three RTIs and two appeals (which are pending before Ms. Poonam A. Bamba’s court, Rohini court, Delhi) against the unconstitutional and undemocratic act of Principal Judge, Ms Deepa Sharma. Copies of unsatisfactory RTI reply furnished by the O/o Principal Judge Family Court on 30.08.2011 filed by the Petitioner on 25.07.2011 in this regard is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure: P-6 (pages to ). 01.08.2011 That during the course of proceedings,
  23. 23. Petitioner led his Evidence by way of Affidavit on 01.08.2011. Petitioner in order to strengthen his case also led the evidence of his Mother – Asha Devi, Sister- Sneh Lata and Friend – Digvijay Singh on 27.08.2011 and 07.09.2011. Copies of Ex-parte evidence of Petitioner dated 01.08.2011, Evidence by way of Affidavit dated 27.08.2011 and 07.09.2011 are attached herewith and marked as Annexure: P-7 (Colly) (pages 39 to 60). 07.09.2011 That 07.09.2011 was fixed for coming up for ex-parte evidence. However, Principal Judge refused to tender ex- parte evidence and chose to transfer the case to Mr. Deepak Jagotra’s Family court in Dwarka. Thus, the Case was transferred to the court of Mr. Deepak Jagotra, Judge Family Courts, Dwarka, Delhi and was renumbered as H.M.A Case No. 678 of 2010. A Copy of Order dated 07.09.2011 is attached herewith and marked as Annexure: P-8 (pages 61 to 61).
  24. 24. 16.12.2011 That the court of Mr. Deepak Jagotra, Judge Family Courts, Dwarka, Delhi in H.M.A Case No. 678 of 2010 vide its Order erred in holding that the Petitioner has failed to show even a single incident of alleged cruelty caused by the Respondent, Although Petitioner had produced four witnesses but Petitioner’s witnesses were being negated on the ground of “identical statement”. Further, his witnesses were being falsified and blamed no legs to stand and thus baseless and he has made up ground for the sake of making out a case against the Respondent, however, passed a decree of Judicial separation on the ground of desertion by the Respondent. Copies of judgment dated 16.12.2011 passed in HMA Case No. 678 of 2010 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure: P-9 (pages to ). 05.01.2012 That the Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee to file an appeal.
  25. 25. 07.02.2012 That the Legal Aid counsel filed an appeal concealing the material facts of Judicial nexus with the respondent and abuse of Trial court process without the consent of Petitioner. Copies of receiving of complaint letter to the Secretary, DHCLSC dated 07.02.2012 with email communication dated 30.01.2012, 31.01.2012, 01.02.2012 and 02.02.2012 wherein Legal Aid Advocate has admitted the fact of concealing the material facts are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure: P-10 (Colly) (pages 74 To 90). 08.02.2012 That the court of Hon’ble Justice Veena Birbal of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Mat Appeal case No. 7 of 2012 vide its order given a long date after 5 months as the next date of hearing on 06.07.2012 without considering the eight year long criminal conspiracy by the respondent and her associates which has resulted in untimely death of the handicapped father of the
  26. 26. Petitioner further which may result in untimely death of the bedridden mother of the Petitioner and subsequently abuse of Trial court process which has resulted in failure of justice. 02.03.2012 Hence the Special Leave to appeal (Civil) No.9854/2012 with application for and prayer for interim relief has been filed by the petitioner on 02.03.2012. 23.04.2012 The Special Leave to appeal(Civil) NO. 9854/2012 has been dismissed on the ground of interim order of the High Court. A Copy of Order dated 23.04.2012 is attached herewith and marked as Annexure: P-11 (pages to ). 26.04.2012 A complaint against Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee (DHCLSC) has been filed to the Chairman, Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee (DHCLSC) for allowing its Legal Aid Advocate to institute a concealed petition before
  27. 27. Delhi High Court even after a complaint against legal Aid Advocate to the Secretary on 07.02.2012. Copies of complaint letter with speed post receipt addressed to the Chairman, DHCLSC dated 26.04.2012 and delivered on 03.05.2012 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure: P-12 (pages To ). 06.07.2012 Legal Aid Advocate, DHCLSC, Mr. Jai Bansal has moved an adjournment slip on behalf of the petitioner without the knowledge of petitioner. Petitioner was present in person but the Justice did not hear the plea for final order and court being adjourned. Petitioner has filed RTI against this act on 12.07.2012. RTI reply by PIO, Delhi High Court dated 27.08.2012 and a copy of order dated 06.07.2012 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure: P-13 (Colly) (pages 96 To 99). 28.08.2012 An unsatisfactory RTI reply has been furnished by the PIO, Delhi State
  28. 28. Legal Service Authority (DSLSA). First Appellate Authority, DSLSA has further dismissed the appeal on 17.09.2012. Second appeal dated 07.10.2012 to the second Appellate Authority is pending before the Chief Information Commissioner(CIC), New Delhi vide diary no.180751 dated 16.11.2012. Copies of RTI reply by PIO DSLSA dated 28.08.2012, RTI reply by First Appellate Authority, DSLSA dated 24.09.2012 and RTI application to the Second Appellate Authority dated 07.10.2012 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure: P-14 (colly) (pages To ). 18.10.2012 Petitioner has been shown present in person on 18.10.2012 in the order sheet of 18.10.2012, while the petitioner was in Bihar on that date of hearing. Justice Ms Veena Birbal finally discovered after 1 year that this appeal has to be heard by the Division bench of this court. Subject to order of the Chief Justice, list the present appeal before the Division
  29. 29. Bench. A copy of order dated 18.10.2012 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure: P-15 (pages To ). 06.11.2012 Adverse orders are deferred by the Division bench as Legal Aid Advocate appeared and informed the Bench that legal aid to the petitioner has been withdrawn in view of the undesirable conduct of the petitioner without any prior notice/information to the petitioner. Bench directed the petitioner to make an alternative arrangement. A copy of order dated 06.11.2012 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure: P-16 (pages To ). 07.12.2012 Petitioner has filed two applications to appear and argue in person and another application for placing additional documents on record disclosing the concealed materials by the legal aid advocate to present the complete dimensions of the case. However, division bench dismissed and
  30. 30. declined to entertain this MAT.APP. 7/2012 Page 1 of 2 applications on the ground of unnecessary imputations have been made by the petitioner and it must be the conduct of the petitioner which has led to legal aid being withdrawn to the petitioner. A copy of order dated 07.12.2012 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure: P-17 (pages To ). 31.12.2012 Unnecessary mental harassment and police atrocities have been inflicted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Barsoi, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan and DSP Katihar, Mr. Jugal Kishore Sinha, Bihar. Copies of police complaint made by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police (SP), katihar, Bihar dated 31.12.2012, 29.09.2011, 03.08.2011, 16.07.2011 and 07.04.2011 in this regard are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure: P-18 (colly) (pages 117 To 134). 22.01.2013 Order dated 22.01.2013 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has directed to
  31. 31. admit and list the aforesaid petition in due course without specifying the time limit and without considering that the real issue involved in this case for consideration of life and liberty of the petitioner at stake which has resulted in failure of justice. 28.01.2013 Petitioner has approached the President of India helpline against the order dated 22.01.2013 vide Grievance Registration No. PRSEC/E/2013/01857 dated 28.01.2013. Copies of complaint to the President of India helpline vide Grievance Registration No. PRSEC/E/2013/01857 dated 28.01.2013 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure: P-19 (pages 135 To 138). 04.02.2013 Hence the Special Leave Petition.
  32. 32. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI MAT.APP. 7/2012 OM PRAKASH PODDAR ..... Appellant Represented by: Appellant in person. versus RINA KUMARI ..... Respondent Represented by: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL O R D E R 22.01.2013 MAT.APP. 7/2012 1. ADMIT. 2. List in due course. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. VEENA BIRBAL, J. JANUARY 22, 2013 //dk// $ 8
  33. 33. F O R M – 28 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (Order XVI Rule 4(1) (a) CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India) S.L.P. (Civil) No. of 2013 POSITION OF THE PARITES BEFORE THE HIGH COURT BEFORE THIS COURT BETWEEN Om Prakash Poddar S/o Late D.N Poddar, R/o RZF – 893, Netaji Subhas Marg Raj Nagar – II, Palam Colony New Delhi - 110077 PETITIONER VERSUES Rina Kumari D/o Surendra Narayan Poddar, RC, Marketing Division, Indian Oil Corporation, Barauni Refinery,
  34. 34. P.S. Barauni, Distt: Begusarai, Bihar RESPONDENT To Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and His Companion Judges of the Supreme Court of India. The Special Leave Petition of the Petitioner most respectfully showeth :- 1. The petitioner is filing the present special leave petition against the interim impugned order dated 22.01.2013 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Mat Appl No. 7 0f 2012 whereby and where the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has directed to admit and list in due course without specifying the time limit and without considering that the real issue involved in this case for consideration of life and liberty of the petitioner at stake which has resulted in failure of justice. 2. QUESTION OF LAW: The following questions of the law arise for consideration by this Hon'ble Court :
  35. 35. i. Whether the courts have committed patient in not adhereing the time limit as laid down by this Hon’ble court in the case V. Bhagat Vs D. Bhagat (Mrs.) reported in (1994) 1 SCC 337 resulted in miscarriage of justice. ii. Whether the consideration for disclosure of all the issues concealed by the Legal Aid, Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee is obligatory to the litigants. iii. Whether withdrawing legal Aid by the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee without any prior notice and information to the petitioner infringing the fundamental right of the petitioner. iv. Whether filing a Mat appeal concealing the material facts by the legal Aid, Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee amounts to abuse of court process as laid down by this Hon’ble court in the case of prestige Lights Ltd vs State Bank of India (SBI).
  36. 36. Reported in 2007 SC. v. Whether moving adjournment slip on behalf of the petitioner without the consent and intimation to the petitioner by the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee is illegal. vi. Whether the petition filed u/s 13 (1)(ia) of HMA, 1955 for decree of divorce and Judgment passed a decree of judicial separation u/s 10 of HMA 1955 without the consent of Petitioner while the respondent was ex parte is bad in the eyes of law and resulted in miscarriage of justice. vii. Whether the Trial court has committed a grave error by stopping the whole court proceeding to terrorize the mind of the Petitioner and in turn generating a false order sheet alleging the Petitioner for requesting for adjournment of the court proceedings amounting to the unconstitutional and undemocratic act
  37. 37. of Principal Judge, Ms Deepa Sharma of Trial court. viii. Whether stopping and beating the Petitioner at the entry gate of trial court by the goons of respondent is unlawful and indicator of mafia state. 3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2) The petitioner states that no other petition seeking leave to appeal has been filed by him against the interim impugned judgment and order dated 22.01.2013 passed by the Hon’ble High court of Delhi at New Delhi in MAT. APPL. Petition No. 7 of 2012. 4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6 The annexures P-1 to P-19 produced along with the SLP are true copies of the pleadings/documents which formed part of the records of the case in the Court/Tribunal below against whose order the leave to appeal is sought for in this petition.
  38. 38. 5. GROUNDS Leave to appeal is sought for on the following grounds. i. Because the Hon’ble High Court has committed failure and kept the case open for more than 1 year without any material proceedings and did not exercise its jurisdiction to consider the gravity and seriousness of the case in MAT. APPL. No. 7 of 2012. Petitioner does not have any male or female member and is alone with ailing bedridden and on home oxygen old age mother. Petitioner has been kept captive without any source of income. Moreover, petitioner is reeling under criminal conspiracy since 9 years by the respondent and her associates. Because of extreme terror caused by the respondent and her associates petitioner has become homeless and taken shelter in Delhi with his ailing mother.
  39. 39. ii. Because the Hon’ble High Court has wrongly held in the order dated 07.12.2012 vide CM NO.20464/2012 that the petitioner has made unnecessary imputations in this application and it must be the conduct of the petitioner which has led to legal aid being withdrawn to the petitioner. iii. Because the Hon’ble High court has failed to adhere the time limit as laid down by this Hon’ble court mentioned supra resulting of miscarriage of justice and causing irreparable loss and injury. iv. Because the judgment dated 16.12.2011 passed by the court of Mr. Deepak Jagotra, Judge Family Courts, Dwarka, Delhi in H.M.A Case No. 678/2010 is bad in the eyes of law and hence the same is liable to be struck down by the Hon’ble High Court. v. Because the Respondent was Ex-parte in H.M.A Case No. 678/2010, yet the
  40. 40. judgment passed in favour of Respondent. vi. Because the crux of the whole episode is based on two pillars i.e. Forced/Fraudulent Marriage and Criminal conspiracy. vii. Because the marriage between the Petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 24.6.2004 at (Katihar), Bihar with misrepresentation of bride and forcibly under life threat at gun point. viii. Because the Father of the Respondent came and took the Respondent along with him to his Government residence at Dhanbad(Bihar) on 15.04.2005 now in Jharkhand. Respondent never came back to the matrimonial home. ix. Because the Petitioner has been kept under force by the Respondent’s family and the associates till date. Force never ceased to operate.
  41. 41. x. Because the Petitioner has lost his handicapped father due to lack of care and support and persistent threatening from the Respondent and her family, who was undergoing treatment at AIIMS and died on 15.11.2007. Petitioner has now reduced to two member family. The Respondent and his family did not even visit and participate in the last rituals of the Petitioner’s father. xi. Because there is an ill motive and a well planned criminal conspiracy of respondent family to kill Petitioner’s last member of the family i.e. ailing mother who is completely bedridden and undergoing treatment with AIIMS in the similar fashion as they had killed his handicapped father. Mother who is chronic asthmatic, COAD and surviving on only 43% of oxygen and rest 47% is C02 in her blood, as per ABG report. At the same time she is thyroid patient. She has been advised to keep on home oxygen. Petitioner has to render all domestic help 24x7 to his mother.
  42. 42. xii. Because the Respondent and her associates have kept the Petitioner unmarried and unemployed at the age of 39. They have virtually finished his everything and kept him in captive since 9 years. Petitioner and his ailing mother are reeling under traumatic situation with acute depression and anxiety. Petitioner house has been turned into symmetry ground. The concept of Family has been assailed. The institution of marriage has been abused. xiii. Because the Trial Court below committed a grave error in holding that the Petitioner has failed to show even a single incident of alleged cruelty caused by the Respondent when in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced clearly shows the brutal, unacceptable and unchanging acts and behaviors of the Respondent and the threats and acts amounting to mental cruelty against the Petitioner and his family members which has made it impossible
  43. 43. for the Petitioner to live with the Respondent. xiv. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that it is a settled legal position that there cannot be condonation if the offending spouse continues to indulge in the commission of further acts of cruelty either physical or mental. 6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF: No interim relief sought; 7. MAIN PRAYER : It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may please to:- i. Grant Special Leave to Appeal against the interim impugned order dated 22.01.2013 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Mat. Appl. No. 7 0f 2012. ii. Pass any other further orders/directions, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
  44. 44. against the Respondent and in favor of the Petitioner. 8. INTERIM RELIEF: No interim relief sought; DRAWN & FILED BY: PETITIONER IN PERSON NEW DELHI: FILED ON : 04.02.2013. Settled by: Petitioner
  45. 45. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)NO.9483 OF 2013. IN THE MATTER OF: OM PRAKASH PODDAR … PETITIONER VERSUS RINA KUMARI …RESPONDENTS CERTIFICATE Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the pleadings before the Court/Tribunal whose order is challenged and the other documents relied upon in those proceedings. No additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken therein or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified that the copies of Annexures to the Special Leave Petition are necessary to answer the question of law raised in the Special Leave Petition or to make out grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition for consideration of this Hon'ble Court. This
  46. 46. certificate is given by the Petitioner whose affidavit is filed in support of the Special Leave Petition. (OM PRAKASH PODDAR) PETITIONER IN PERSON FILED ON: 04.02.2013.
  47. 47. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION[C] NO 9483 OF 2013 IN THE MATTER OF: Om Prakash Poddar …Petitioner VERSUS RINA Kumari …Respondent AFFIDAVIT I, Om Prakash Poddar S/o Late D. N. Poddar, aged 39 years, R/o RZF/893, Neta Ji Subash Marg, Raj Nagar Part-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi - 77, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- 1. That I am the Petitioner in the above matter and well conversant with the facts of the case as such competent to swear this affidavit. 2. That the contents of the accompanying Special Leave Petition [para 1 to 8.], [Page to ] and List of Dates (Page B to N’], and I, As. and application for seeking permission to appear and arguing in-person and application for direction to the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for early date of hearing and disposal of the case having understood the contents thereof I say that the facts state therein are correct which are based on the official record.
  48. 48. 3. That the Special Leave Petition Paper Book contains total pages.’ 4. That the annexures are true copies of their respective originals. DEPONENT VERIFICATION: I, the above-named deponent do hereby verify that the facts stated in the above affidavit are true to my knowledge and belief. No part of the same is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Verified at New Delhi on this the 4th day of February, 2013. DEPONENT
  49. 49. ANNEXURE P-1(colly) CONECESSION CERTIFICATE Appendix No.1/36 Form for the purpose of grant of rail concession to orthopedically Handicapped/Paraplegic/persons/ Patients to be used by the Government Doctor. That shri Mr. D.N.Poddar 10537/2000 whose particulars are mentioned below is bonafide Orthopedically Handicapped/Paraplegic person/patient and CANNOT TRAVEL WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF AN ESCORT. Particulars of the Orthopedically Handicapped/Paraplegic person/patient: (a) Address.. Sonaili, Katihar, Bihar (b) Father’s/Husband’s Name.. Late G. Poddar (c) Age.. 67 (d) Sex.. M (e) Nature of Handicap (To be written by Doctor whether the disability is Temporary or permanent).. Permanent (f) Cause of loss of functional capacity.. Left above knee amputation (g) Signature or Thumb impression of Orthopaedically handicapped/paraplegic
  50. 50. person/patient: (not necessary for those whose both hands are missing or non functional) Deep Narayan Poddar (Signature of Government Doctor) Place……..AIIMS, New Delhi Date…..4/12/2000 Clear seal of Government Hospital Clinic Strike out where not applicable Note: (1) The certificate should be issued only to those Orthopaedically Handicapped/Paraplegic person/patients WHO CANNOT TRAVEL WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF AN ESCORT. The photo must be signed and stamped in such a way that Doctor’s signature and stamp appears partly on the photo and partly on the certificate. (2) In case of temporary disability, the certificate will be valid for five years from the date of issue. In the case of permanent disability the certificate will remain valid for (1) Five years, in case of person up to the age of 25 years, (2) Ten years, in case of person in the age of 26
  51. 51. to 35 years (3) In case of persons above the age 35 years the certificate will remain valid for whole life of the concerned person. After expiry of the period of validity of the certificate, the person is required to obtain a fresh certificate. A Photostat copy of the certificate is accepted for the purpose of grant of concession. The original certificate will have to be produced for inspection at the time of purchase of concession ticket and during the journey. If demanded (3) No alteration in the form is permitted. Printed by: DASS OPTICIANS)4, Kalkaji, New Delhi-19 DASS HEARING AID CENTRE Tel:6439423,6231423
  52. 52. CREMATION CERTIFICATE I certify that the name of dead body Deep Narayan Poddar Father/husband of dead body’s name Late Govind Poddar Address Sonaili P.S. Kadwa District Katihar State Bihar Age of dead body 70 seventy years approximately name of cremator Om Prakash name of father/husband of cremator Deep Narayan Poddar Address Sonaili P.S. Kadwa, P.O. Sonaili Address Sonaili P.S. Kadwa P.O. Sonaili District Katihar State Bihar Name of Dom/Pandit Tuntun from whom death Fire obtained and cremated mother/father/son/daughter of which description is mentioned in Block Development Officer, Manihari, District Katihar Account No. 14 page No. 95 serial no. 883. Cremation/ buried/Samadhi/Jal Samdhi Today dated 17/11/2007 day Saturday at the time of cremation time hour 2=15 minute the description of death cremation is noted. Om prakash Tuntun Cremator’s name Dom/Pandit signature Signature
  53. 53. Block Development officer, All India Abdul Akhara Manihari, Katihar (Bihar) Varah Panth, of Rayata Jogi Mahant Shri Shri 1008 Baba Paras Nath, Kali Mandir, Purvi Ghat, Manihari Masan Pujari, Manihari, Katihar (Bihar) PREM NATH AGHORI Signature
  54. 54. ANNEXURE P-2 M R 2 Discharge Summary All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi- 110029 DISCHARGE SUMMERY CR. No. 181877 O.P.D.O. Date of Admission/ Discharge D.O.A- 16/11/10 D.O.D- 23/11/10 Name ASHA RANI DEVI AGE 70 YEARS SEX F History and condition on admission A 70 year old female presented under complain of breathlessness, cough, under expectoration, swelling all over the body and 12 days of Uttered seriousness since 1 day. She had the exposures to chullah smoke since 30 years. She is a k/c/o COAD on irregular treatment. o/E- pt is drowsy. Pulse =80/min, BP=110/70mm Hg. Pedal oedemea + on chest examination, B/L Ronchi + The rest of the general & systemic examination was nostril. Hospital course
  55. 55. The pt. was managed under IV antibiotics. (Augmentine, Azithral). Pt. was kept on O2 inhalation through nosal prongs. The investigation reveals that pt. had Hypothyroidism also. She is started on levothyroxine 25 mg OD. Pt is not maintaining saturation & had low PO2 off oxygen, so pt. is discharge under advice to take Home oxygen.
  56. 56. ANNEXURE P-3 To, Date: 30/05/2011 The Chowki Incharge P.P. Dwarka Sector-10, Dwarka Court. New Delhi-110075 Sub: Persistent Life threatening by Sh. Surendra Narayan Poddar and his family members Sir, The applicant most respectfully submits as under:- 1. That (i) Shri Surendra Narayan Poddar, Assistant Manager (RC), Marketing Division, IOC Baruni Refinary, (ii) Ms. Anita Poddar W/O Sh. Surendra Narayan Poddar, (iii) Rina Kumari, D/O Sh. Surendra Narayan Poddar, (iv) Rupam kumari alias Dolly D/O Sh. Surendra Narayan Poddar and (v) Anupam Kumar S/O Sh. Surendra Narayan Poddar all R/O R.H. 5/6, Baruni Refinary, Township, Begusarai, Bihar and also at Jagdish Path, Bailey Road Apartments, 206, Malti Bihari, Patna, Bihar and (vi) Anuja Kumari,
  57. 57. alias Annu, and (vii) her husband (Bank P.O.), both R/O of Pokharia, Begusarai are giving persistent threat to kidnap and kill Shri Om Prakash, aged 37 years, S/O Late Shri Deep Narayan Poddar and Asha Devi, age 64 year, widow of Late Shri Deep Narayan Poddar both R/O Sonaili, Near Durga Mandir, Katihar, Bihar- 855114 and presently residing at RZH-650, Near Kennedy Public School, Raj Nagar, Part-2, Palam Colony, New Delhi-110077. 2. That the goons of the above noted persons have physically assaulted and manhandled the applicant on the date of hearing i.e. 30.05.2011 of the case pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi at the entrance gate of the Court between 10.15 AM to 10.30 AM. 3. That the widow mother Smt. Asha Devi, 64 year old, is a senior citizen and not putting up well and is a patient of chronic Asthma, COPD, Obsessive Sleep Apnea (OSA) and hyperthyroidism and is under treatment with AIIMS and being advised to keep on home oxygen and is also suffering from various old age diseases, is residing at her Sonaili, Near Durga Mandir,
  58. 58. Kadwa, Katihar house alone and reeling under persistent life threat by the above noted family members. 4. That there is a serious security threat of life to shri Om Prakash and his widow mother Asha Devi from the Petrol Pump mafias who have nexus with the Shri Surendra Narayan Poddar, who is Assistant Manager (RC), Marketing Division, Indian Oil Corporation, Baruni Refinary and his above noted family members. 5. That there has been a previous instance of muscle flexing by Shri Surendra Narayan Poddar and his family members as a result of that the applicant has lost his father prematurely on 15th Nov, 2007 and his family has now reduced to two member family i.e. Asha Devi and Om Prakash. 6. That the above said persons have been sending goondas like elements at the house of the complainant/applicant who have been threatening the complainant with dire consequences and have showered that they would kill me and I should immediately withdraw my case from the court or else they would bury me
  59. 59. alive. Due to their threats I have to leave my house frequently and I am living a fugitive life, my life has been made miserable due to their acts and conducts. In view of the above submissions made above it is most respectfully prayed that this act of persistent threatening by the above noted family members has led to traumatic situation and will further prove to be disastrous for Shri Om Prakash and his mother to sustain their life peacefully. I therefore request the concern administration to take necessary action to protect the life and property of Shri Om Prakash and his old age mother in the interest and furtherance of justice. It is prayed accordingly. Applicant Om Prakash
  60. 60. Copy to: 1.SHO., P.S. Dwarka, New Delhi 2.Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi 3.The Hon’ble Chief Justice, Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003 4. Commissioner of Police, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 5.DCP (South West District), New Delhi.
  61. 61. ANNEXURE P-4 Suit No. HMA-700/10 Om Prakash Vs Rina Kumari 30.05.2011 Present: Petitioner in Person. Replication not filed. Petitioner requests for adjournment. At request adjourned for replication and issues on 06.06.2011. Deepa Sharma Principal Judge Family Court Dwarka New Delhi 30.05.2011
  62. 62. ANNEXURE P-5 Suit No. HMA-700/10 Om Prakash Poddar Vs Rina Kumari 06.06.2011 Present: Petitioner in Person. None for the respondent. Written statement has also not been filed by the respondent. Two application for filing the documents filed on behalf of the petitioner along with copies. Case called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of the respondent. Respondent is proceeded ex-parte. For ex-parte evidence, to come up on 07.09.2011. Deepa Sharma Principal Judge Family Court Dwarka New Delhi 06.06.2011
  63. 63. ANNEXURE: P-6 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURTS, DWARKA, NEW DELHI No.4939 RTI/FC/DWK/2011 Dated:30 AUG 2011 To, Sh. Om Prakash Poddar C/O Digvijay Singh, RZH-757 Lane No.14, Raj Nagar Part-2, Palam Colony New Delhi-77 Subject:- Application under section 6(3) of RTI Act-2005. With reference to your application dated 04.08.2011 the requisite information sought from the concerned court are hereunder:- 1. Why the Petitioner is being stopped and refused by the Principal Judge Family Court to file the Self Affidavit of ex-parte evidence on 1st of August, 2011 as the next date of hearing is fixed on 7th September, 2011? Ans-1) As is clear from order sheet dated 06/06/2011, the Ld. Judge did not stop & refused to take self affidavit of application on record
  64. 64. Whatever documents were filled by him, were taken on record along with two applications. It is further clear that on 06.06.2011. the matter was not fixed for the petitioner evidence. 2. Is District Judge not an administrative head of a district? Ans-2) District Judge is the head of District Court. 3. Is Principal Judge. Family Court not coming under the preview of District Judge administratively? Ans-3 Principal Judge, Family Court does not come under the preview of District Judge, administratively. 4. Why the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi is using all possible unconstitutional tools to crush the democratic right of the petitioner when he has the reasonable apprehension in his mind? Ans-4 Principal Judge, Family Courts Dwarka is not using any unconstitutional tools while dealing with the matter.
  65. 65. If you are not satisfied with the reply, you may please appeal to the First Appellate Authority- Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, Ld. Judge-02, Family Courts, Delhi. (SUNITA GOSAIN) PIO/Administrative Officer, Family Courts, Dwarka, New Delhi. No.______ RTI/FC/DWK/2011 Dated: __________ Copy forwarded for information to Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Deputy Secretary & CPIO, Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Justice. PIO/Administrative Officer, Family Courts, Dwarka, New Delhi.
  66. 66. ANNEXURE P-7(colly) BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE; FAMILY COURT; DWARKA COURTS; NEW DELHI H.M.A. NO. 700/2010 NDOH: 07/09/2011 In The Matter Of: - Om Prakash Poddar, S/o late D.N. Poddar, R/o RZH – 650, RZH – Block, Near: Kennedy Public School, Raj Nagar – II, New Delhi – 110077 …… PETITIONER VERSUS Smt. Rina Kumari, W/o Sh. Om Prakash Poddar, D/o Surendra Narayan Poddar, RC, Marketing Division, Indian Oil Corporation, Barauni Refinery, P.S. Barauni, Distt.: Begusarai, Bihar …… RESPONDENT
  67. 67. AFFIDAVIT FOR EX-PARTE EVIDENCE OF OM PRAKASH PODDAR, S/O LATE D.N. PODDAR, R/O RZH – 650, RZH – BLOCK, NEAR: KENNEDY PUBLIC SCHOOL, RAJ NAGAR – II, PALAM COLONY, NEW DELHI – 110077, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS I, the deponent above named, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:- 1.I am the Petitioner in the above case. 2.That the marriage was solemnized with misrepresentation of bride forcibly under life threat on 24th June 2004. (Copy of the letter(s) written by petitioner, Certified Copy of Begusari Court, exhibited in the list of documents and witness by sister of the petitioner ) dt 25/11/04, 20/6/05,7/8/05 & 10/1/08 is ex Pw1/1 mark 3.That the respondent family had shown their Second daughter, Ms Anuja Kumari alias Annu and misrepresented their eldest daughter who had Abnormal Physical and mental growth and
  68. 68. development since childhood at the time of Vermala. (Witness by Mother of the petitioner) 4.That the fraud had been discovered on the day one i.e. on 24th June 2004 itself but the respondent’s family and the associates kept the petitioner and his family under persistent life threat with dire consequences. (Police complaint exhibited in the list of documents) dt 30/5/11, 6/6/11 is ex Pw1/2 5.That the petitioner has made huge hue and cry and made his protest publically since the day one i.e. 24th June 2004 but being suppressed by the respondent’s family and their associates. 6.That there was well planned conspiracy of the respondent’s family to suppress the voice of petitioner against fraud marriage with power, money and goons as petitioner was financially weak and had house in rural area. 7.That Mr. Prabhu Narayan Poddar, employee of SAIL, R/O Bokaro, Mr. R.N. Poddar, Vigilance Officer, R/O Muzaffarpur, Mr. Vishwanath Bubna, a business man and landlord of Sonaili, Katihar, relative of Babulal Bubna, a rice Mill owner in sonaili,
  69. 69. katihar and business man of Begusarai and Mr. Shyamar Bubna, owner of petrol pump in sonaili R/O Sonaili, katihar kept the petitioner and his parents under persistent life threat with dire consequences. 8.That other big shots who were involved to suppress the voice of petitioner against the fraud marriage are Black fellow, Mr. Shah, a businessman and friend of respondent’s father R/O Begusarai, Pappu poddar, cousin brother of respondent, running own coaching Institute in Munirka, New Delhi R/O Rohini, Delhi, Ashok Poddar, maternal uncle of respondent, working with CA firm in Karolbagh, Delhi, R/O Shalimarbagh, Delhi, Arun Poddar, maternal uncle of respondent, a businessman, R/O Bakhri, Khagaria, Ram Karan Mahto, a landlord and businessman, R/O Sonaili, katihar who has link with friend of respondent’s father. 9.That the petitioner has not accepted this fraud marriage at all, till date. 10. That the petitioner or any relatives of petitioner have never ever visited respondent’s place till date, respondent’s family kept their
  70. 70. entire residential address secret for 7 years from the petitioner’s family. 11. That the petitioner had two members in his family, diabetic father had amputation above the knee with permanent disablement and was prescribed for permanent escort and assistant in 2000 and was under treatment with AIIMS, New Delhi, and mother was chronic asthmatic and is under treatment with AIIMS, being advised to keep on Home Oxygen. (Handicapped Certificate and Medical Certificate exhibited in the list of documents) is ex Pw1/3 12. That the petitioner had to save the life of his parents primarily therefore remained under persistent threat by the respondent family and the associates. 13. That the petitioner has lost his father on 15th November, 2007 because of persistent life threat by the respondent’s family and their associates. (Death certificate exhibited in the list of document) is ex Pw1/4 14. That the respondent family is now planning to kill the petitioner’s mother in the similar
  71. 71. fashion as they had killed his father. (police complaint exhibited in the list of documents) dt 19/6/11, 24/6/11, 29/6/11 is ex Pw1/5 15. That the petitioner and his old age mother are reeling under persistent life threat by the respondent family and the associates. (police complaint exhibited in the list of documents) 16. That the respondent family kept the respondent forcibly with the petitioner under persistent life threat for the period of 9 month and 19 days i.e. (25 June 2004 to 14 April, 2005). 17. That the respondent had left with her father to the IOCL Official Quarter, Dhanbad, who came to Delhi with the return ticket for himself and the respondent in Poorva Express New Delhi to Kolkata bound train dated 15th April, 2005 without the consent of the petitioner when the handicapped father of the petitioner virtually was on death bed, urine and stool was passing through catheter and never came back till date. (witness by Friend, sister and mother of the petitioner) 18. That more than 6 years of separation is an admitted case by the respondent i.e. since 17th
  72. 72. April, 2005. (Certified copies of Begusarai court exhibited in the list of document) is ex Pw1/6 19. That the marital intercourse has taken place without the consent of the petitioner since the discovery of the fraud by the petitioner. 20. That the child is born out of respondent’s mother and sister’s conspiracy over telephone 24x7 for a period of 9 months and 19 days. 21. That it was an evil-design of respondent’s mother to use the child as a weapon to crush petitioner and his family members. 22. That I have not in any manner condoned the cruelty of the respondent, further I state that I have not connived in any manner in bringing the actual facts of cruelty of the respondent against me. 23. That I am staying separate from Respondent since 15th April 2005. 24. That I am an unemployed person and depended on mother’s family pension. (Affidavit of income exhibited in the list of document) is ex Pw1/7
  73. 73. The contents of the Ex-parte evidence have been drafted by me and the same are true and correct to my knowledge and belief and are not being repeated for the sake of brevity and may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit. Nothing material has been concealed there from. That, I being the deponent in person is competent to swear this affidavit. DEPONENT VERIFICATION: - VERIFIED at NEW DELHI on this 1st day of August, 2011, that the contents of the above affidavit from para 01 to 24 are true and correct, nothing stated therein is wrong and nothing material has been concealed from this Hon’ble Court. DEPONENT
  74. 74. BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE; FAMILY COURT; DWARKA COURTS; NEW DELHI H.M.A. NO. 700/2010 NDOH: 07/09/2011 In The Matter Of: - Om Prakash Poddar, S/o late D.N. Poddar, R/o RZH – 650, RZH – Block, Near: Kennedy Public School, Raj Nagar – II, New Delhi – 110077 …… PETITIONER VERSUS Smt. Rina Kumari, W/o Sh. Om Prakash Poddar, D/o Surendra Narayan Poddar, RC, Marketing Division, Indian Oil Corporation, Barauni Refinery, P.S. Barauni, Distt.: Begusarai, Bihar …… RESPONDENT AFFIDAVIT OF WITNESS OF DIGVIJAY SINGH, S/O SH. R.K SINGH, R/O RZH – 757, RZH – BLOCK, GALI NO.14, RAJ NAGAR – II, PALAM COLONY, NEW DELHI – 110077, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
  75. 75. I, the deponent above named, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:- 25. I am the friend of the Petitioner in the above case. 26. That the respondent had left with her father to the IOCL Official Quarter, Dhanbad, who came to Delhi with the return ticket for himself and the respondent in Poorva Express, New Delhi to Kolkata bound train dated 15th April, 2005 without the consent of the petitioner when the handicapped father of the petitioner virtually was on death bed, under treatment with AIIMS, New Delhi, urine and stool was passing through catheter and never came back till date. 27. That the petitioner was busy in saving the life of his parents and was reeling under persistent life threat by the respondent’s family and their associates. 28. That the petitioner has lost his father on 15th November, 2007 because of persistent life threat by the respondent’s family and their associates
  76. 76. and lack of nursing care and support by the respondent. 29. That the petitioner and his old age mother are still reeling under persistent life threat by the respondent’s family and their associates. The contents of the Affidavit have been drafted under my instruction and the same are true and correct to my knowledge and belief and are not being repeated for the sake of brevity and may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit. Nothing material has been concealed there from. That, I being the deponent in person is competent to swear this affidavit. DEPONENT VERIFICATION: - VERIFIED at NEW DELHI on this 27th day of August, 2011, that the contents of the above affidavit from para 01 to 05 are true and correct, nothing stated therein is wrong and nothing material has been concealed from this Hon’ble Court. DEPONENT
  77. 77. BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE; FAMILY COURT; DWARKA COURTS; NEW DELHI H.M.A. NO. 700/2010 NDOH: 07/09/2011 In The Matter Of: - Om Prakash Poddar, S/o late D.N. Poddar, R/o RZH – 650, RZH – Block, Near: Kennedy Public School, Raj Nagar – II, New Delhi – 110077 …… PETITIONER VERSUS Smt. Rina Kumari, W/o Sh. Om Prakash Poddar, D/o Surendra Narayan Poddar, RC, Marketing Division, Indian Oil Corporation, Barauni Refinery, P.S. Barauni, Distt.: Begusarai, Bihar ……RESPONDENT AFFIDAVIT OF WITNESS OF ASHA DEVI, W/O LATE DEEP NARAYAN PODDAR, R/O SONAILI, NEAR DURGA MANDIR, SHUKKAR HATT, KADWA, KATIHAR, BIHAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
  78. 78. I, the deponent above named, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:- 30. I am the mother of the Petitioner in the above case. 31. That the respondent family had shown their Second daughter, Ms Anuja Kumari alias Annu to me and to the petitioner in the hotel Arya, Katihar district of Bihar, before marriage. 32. That the respondent family misrepresented the bride at the time of marriage and solemnized marriage with eldest daughter Rina Kumari, by force at gun point, who had abnormal Physical and mental growth and development since childhood. 33. That the fraud had been discovered on the day one i.e. on 24th June 2004 itself but the respondent’s family and the associates kept the petitioner and his parents under persistent life threat with dire consequences. 34. That the petitioner has made huge hue and cry and made his protest publically since the day one
  79. 79. i.e. 24th June 2004 but being suppressed by the respondent’s family and their associates. 35. That there was well planned conspiracy of the respondent’s family to suppress the voice of petitioner against fraud marriage with power, money and goons as petitioner was financially weak and had house in rural area. 36. That Mr. Prabhu Narayan Poddar, employee of SAIL, R/O Bokaro, Mr. R.N. Poddar, Vigilance Officer, R/O Muzaffarpur, Mr. Vishwanath Bubna, a business man and landlord of Sonaili, Katihar, relative of Babulal Bubna, a rice Mill owner in sonaili, katihar and business man of Begusarai and Mr. Shyamar Bubna, owner of petrol pump in sonaili R/O Sonaili, katihar kept the petitioner and his parents under persistent life threat with dire consequences. 37. That other big shots who were involved to suppress the voice of petitioner and his parents against the fraud marriage are Black fellow, Mr. Shah, a businessman and friend of respondent’s father R/O Begusarai, Pappu poddar, cousin brother of respondent, running own coaching Institute in Munirka, New Delhi R/O Rohini,
  80. 80. Delhi, Ashok Poddar, maternal uncle of respondent, working with CA firm in Karolbagh, Delhi, R/O Shalimarbagh, Delhi, Arun Poddar, maternal uncle of respondent, a businessman, R/O Bakhri, Khagaria, Ram Karan Mahto, a landlord and businessman, R/O Sonaili, katihar who has link with friend of respondent’s father. 38. That the petitioner or any relatives of petitioner have never ever visited respondent’s place till date, respondent’s family kept their entire residential address secret for 7 years from the petitioner’s family. 39. That the petitioner had to save the life of his handicapped father primarily therefore remained under persistent threat by the respondent family and their associates. 40. That the respondent family kept the respondent forcibly with the petitioner under persistent life threat for the period of 9 month and 19 days i.e. (25 June 2004 to 14 April, 2005). 41. That the respondent had left with her father to the IOCL Official Quarter, Dhanbad, who came to Delhi with the return ticket for himself and the
  81. 81. respondent in Poorva Express New Delhi to Kolkata bound train dated 15th April, 2005 without the consent of the petitioner when the handicapped father of the petitioner virtually was on death bed, urine and stool was passing through catheter and never came back till date. The contents of the Affidavit have been drafted under my instruction and the same are true and correct to my knowledge and belief and are not being repeated for the sake of brevity and may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit. Nothing material has been concealed there from. That, I being the deponent in person is competent to swear this affidavit. DEPONENT VERIFICATION: - VERIFIED at NEW DELHI on this 7th day of September, 2011, that the contents of the above affidavit from para 01 to 12 are true and correct, nothing stated therein is wrong and nothing material has been concealed from this Hon’ble Court. DEPONENT
  82. 82. BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE; FAMILY COURT; DWARKA COURTS; NEW DELHI H.M.A. NO. 700/2010 NDOH: 07/09/2011 In The Matter Of: - Om Prakash Poddar, S/o late D.N. Poddar, R/o RZH – 650, RZH – Block, Near: Kennedy Public School, Raj Nagar – II, New Delhi – 110077 …… PETITIONER VERSUS Smt. Rina Kumari, W/o Sh. Om Prakash Poddar, D/o Surendra Narayan Poddar, RC, Marketing Division, Indian Oil Corporation, Barauni Refinery, P.S. Barauni, Distt.: Begusarai, Bihar ……RESPONDENT
  83. 83. AFFIDAVIT OF WITNESS OF SNEH LATA, W/O SH. RAM CHANDER PODDAR, R/O TEGHRA, MAIN ROAD, NEAR CONGRESS BHAWAN, BEGUSARAI, BIHAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS I, the deponent above named, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:- 42. I am the eldest sister of the Petitioner in the above case. 43. That the marriage was solemnized with misrepresentation of bride forcibly at gun point under life threat with pool of criminals on 24th June 2004 at hotel Satkar of Katihar district of Bihar . 44. That the marriage was attended by me on the above mentioned date and place. 45. That the respondent family misrepresented the bride at the time of marriage and solemnized marriage with eldest daughter Rina Kumari, by force at gun point, who had abnormal Physical and mental growth and development since childhood.
  84. 84. 46. That the fraud had been discovered on the day one i.e. on 24th June 2004 itself but the respondent’s family and the associates kept the petitioner and his family under persistent life threat with dire consequences. 47. That the petitioner has made huge hue and cry and made his protest publically since the day one i.e. 24th June 2004 but being suppressed by the respondent’s family and their associates. 48. That there was well planned conspiracy of the respondent’s family to suppress the voice of petitioner against fraud marriage with power, money and goons as petitioner was financially weak and had house in rural area. 49. That Mr. Prabhu Narayan Poddar, employee of SAIL, R/O Bokaro, Mr. R.N. Poddar, Vigilance Officer, R/O Muzaffarpur, Mr. Vishwanath Bubna, a business man and landlord of Sonaili, Katihar, relative of Babulal Bubna, a rice Mill owner in sonaili, katihar and business man of Begusarai and Mr. Shyamar Bubna, owner of petrol pump in sonaili R/O Sonaili, katihar kept the petitioner and his parents under persistent life threat with dire consequences.
  85. 85. 50. That other big shots who were involved to suppress the voice of petitioner against the fraud marriage are Black fellow, Mr. Shah, a businessman and friend of respondent’s father R/O Begusarai, Pappu poddar, cousin brother of respondent, running own coaching Institute in Munirka, New Delhi R/O Rohini, Delhi, Ashok Poddar, maternal uncle of respondent, working with CA firm in Karolbagh, Delhi, R/O Shalimarbagh, Delhi, Arun Poddar, maternal uncle of respondent, a businessman, R/O Bakhri, Khagaria, Ram Karan Mahto, a landlord and businessman, R/O Sonaili, katihar who has link with friend of respondent’s father. 51. That the petitioner or any relatives of petitioner have never ever visited respondent’s place till date, respondent’s family kept their entire residential address secret for 7 years from the petitioner’s family. 52. That the petitioner had to save the life of his handicapped father primarily therefore remained under persistent threat by the respondent family and their associates.
  86. 86. 53. That the respondent family kept the respondent forcibly with the petitioner under persistent life threat for the period of 9 month and 19 days i.e. (25 June 2004 to 14 April, 2005). 54. That the respondent had left with her father to the IOCL Official Quarter, Dhanbad, who came to Delhi with the return ticket for himself and the respondent in Poorva Express New Delhi to Kolkata bound train dated 15th April, 2005 without the consent of the petitioner when the handicapped father of the petitioner virtually was on death bed, urine and stool was passing through catheter and never came back till date. The contents of the Affidavit have been drafted under my instruction and the same are true and correct to my knowledge and belief and are not being repeated for the sake of brevity and may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit. Nothing material has been concealed there from. That, I being the deponent in person is competent to swear this affidavit. DEPONENT
  87. 87. VERIFICATION: - VERIFIED at NEW DELHI on this 7th day of September, 2011, that the contents of the above affidavit from para 01 to 13 are true and correct, nothing stated therein is wrong and nothing material has been concealed from this Hon’ble Court. DEPONENT
  88. 88. ANNEXURE P-8 Om Prakash Poddar Vs Rina Kumari HMA No.-700/2010 07.09.2011 Pr: Petitioner in Person. Respondent is Ex Parte. The petitioner has submitted that he has filed one complaint against this court and has made a request to transfer the matter to some other court. At request, the matter is transferred to the court of Sh. Deepak Jagotra, Ld. Judge, Family Court, Dwarka, New Delhi. The petitioner is directed to appear before the transferee court on 09.09.2011 at 10 A.M. Ahlmad is directed to send the file complete in all respects to the transferee court immediately. (DEEPA SHARMA) PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DWARKA, N.D./07.09.2011
  89. 89. ANNEXURE P-9 IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK JAGOTRA, JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI DECREE SHEET IN PETITION FOR DIVORCE/CONJUGAL RIGHTS/PERMANENT ALMONY/EX-PARTE (ORDER XX RULE 7 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURES) HMA No. 678/10 Om Prakash Poddar, S/o late D.N.Poddar R/o RZH-650, RZH-Block Near Kennedy Public School, Raj Nagar-II, New Delhi-110077. Petitioner Versus Smt. Rina Kumari W/o Sh. Om Prakash Poddar D/o Surendra Narayan Poddar, RC, Marketing Division, Indian Oil Corporation, Barauni Refinery, P.S. Barauni, Distt. Begusarai, Bihar. Respondent
  90. 90. Claim for U/s 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Plaint presented on the 25.10.2010. This petition coming on 16.12.2011 for final disposal before me in the presence of: Petitioner in person. Respondent is Ex-parte. It is ordered that the Judicial Separation is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent under the Provision of Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. And it is further ordered that Respondent also pay a sum of Rs. Nil as cost of the proceedings. COST OF PROCEEDINGS S.No. PETITIONER Rs. S.No. RESPONDENT Rs. Stamps for Petitioner 20.00 1. Stamps for exhibits Nil 1. Stamp for power Nil 2. Stamp for petition Nil 2. Stamp for exhibits Nil 3. Advocate fee Nil 3. Advocate fee Nil 4. Substance fee Wits Nil
  91. 91. 4. Substance for Nil 5. Misc. Nil Process 5. Publication fee Nil 6. Service for Nil Process 7. Misc. Nil Total Rs.20.00 Rs. Nil GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE COURT 16.12.2011 (Deepak Jagotra) Judge, Family Courts Dwarka, New Delhi
  92. 92. IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK JAGOTRA: JUDGE, FAMILY COURTS, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI HMA No.678/10 Om Prakash Poddar, S/o late D.N.Poddar R/o RZH-650, RZH-Block Near Kennedy Public School, Raj Nagar-II, New Delhi-110077. …………….Petitioner Versus Rina Kumari W/o Sh. Om Prakash Poddar D/o Surendra Narayan Poddar, RC, Marketing Division, Indian Oil Corporation, Barauni Refinery, P.S. Barauni, Distt. Begusarai, Bihar. ……………Respondent Date of Institution: 25.10.2010 Reserved for Judgment on: 07.12.2011 Date of Judgment: 16.12.2011
  93. 93. JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed on behalf of Om Prakash Poddar, whereby the petitioner seeks dissolution of his marriage with the respondent U/s 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter in short referred to as “the Act”) 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner married with the respondent on 24.06.2004 at Katihar, Bihar according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and one female child was born out of the said wedlock. 3. It is averred by the petitioner that his marriage with the respondent was solemnized fraudulently and forcibly, under life threat given by the respondent’s family members. 4. It is further averred that since the very first day of the marriage, the petitioner protested publically against the marriage but, due to persistent threats and pressure by the respondent’s family the petitioner could not do anything and to bear with the consequences.
  94. 94. 5. It is also averred that the respondent lived forcibly in the marital accord with the petitioner and the petitioner had to remain silent because of his ailing parents. 6. It is further averred that when the father of the petitioner was on his death bed the respondent left the matrimonial home with her father on 15.08.2005 and never returned back. 7. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the records of the case. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has proved his case and further prays that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent be dissolved. 8. Recapitulation of sequence of events are as under: The petitioner has filed the present case on 25.10.2010. Respondent appeared once and thereafter chose not to appear in the matter and was proceeded Ex-parte on 06.06.2011.
  95. 95. 9. Ex-parte evidence was led by the petitioner on 09.09.2011 and closed his evidence on 17.11.2011. In his evidence the petitioner has examined four witnesses including himself, his mother, sister and one friend. 10. In his statement the petitioner has stated that he got married with the respondent on 24.06.2004 and one female child was born out of their wedlock on 20.05.2005. 11. As regards ground of cruelty, the petitioner has miserably failed to show even a single incident of alleged cruelty caused by the respondent against him. 12. The statement was mainly confined to the point that his marriage was solemnized fraudulently with the respondent against his wishes in 2004 under pressure from certain people and he had not accepted the marriage. 13. On the face of it, the aforesaid ground taken by the petitioner has got no legs to stand for the simple reason that he had accepted her and got physically involved with
  96. 96. her and a female child was born on 20.05.2005, which is within one year of the marriage. 14. This itself shows that the ground taken by the petitioner is made up for the sake of making out a case against the respondent. Had he not accepted the marriage, he would not have cohabited with her, more so if it was a forced marriage. Moreover, this in itself is not a ground of cruelty caused by the respondent to the petitioner by any stretch of imagination. Once the petitioner accepts the marriage and the respondent, pursuant to which he cohabits with her, the ground that the respondent was not to his liking becomes a baseless ground. 15. The remaining part of the evidence is confined to the ill-health of the father of the petitioner and a life threat given by the family of the respondent to the petitioner. 16. Averments made in the petition finds no place in affidavit filed by the petitioner in his evidence and none of the averment mentioned in the petition regarding cruelty
  97. 97. has been mentioned in Ex.PW1/A, in the evidence. 17. The natural corollary is that the averments made in the petition are false and cannot be relied upon in order to assess if any cruelty has been cased by the respondent or not. 18. The statement of his mother, sister and his friend are also identical and are confined to the similar statement as given by the petitioner in his evidence. Therefore, statement of PW2 Smt. Asha Devi, PW3 Smt. Sneh Lata and PW4 Sh. Digvijay Singh are also no help to the case of the petitioner in this regard. 19. Cumulatively speaking, no ground whatsoever has been made out by the petitioner in his entire evidence, including PW2, PW3 and PW4 on the ground of cruelty allegedly caused by the respondent, which may have endangered his mental or physical health. 20. As regards ground of desertion, it is stated by the petitioner that since 17.04.2005
  98. 98. the respondent is living separately from him and it is also stated that since that day there has been no cohabitation between them. 21. In this regard, the petitioner has also placed on record a petition filed by the respondent, which is Ex.PW1/3 in which she has mentioned that since 17.04.2005 she has been thrown out of her matrimonial home. Therefore, both the parties states that since 17.04.2005, there has been no relationship of husband and wife between them. 22. Petitioner has also placed on record photocopy of letters dated 20th June, 07th August and 10th January, 2008 sent to the respondent for joining the matrimonial home, but the respondent chose not to join the petitioner in the matrimonial home. 23. The respondent, after appearing in the matter chose not to appear and she even did not file WS, which shows that she is not interested in keeping any kind of relation with the petitioner and it also appears that she intends to bring the cohabitation permanently to an end.
  99. 99. 24. She has also not made any kind of effort to join the matrimonial home at Delhi and she is staying with her father in Bihar for the last more than six years. No reasonable ground or excuse has been coming from the side of the respondent to show as to why she had decided not to live with the petitioner in the matrimonial home. 25. In the absence of any such reason, it shall be construed that she had left the matrimonial home without reasonable cause or excuse to stay away from the petitioner. On the other hand, it shall be taken that the respondent is intending to bring the matrimonial relationship to an end and she is not at all interested in continuing any relationship with the petitioner as husband and wife. 26. It is therefore clear that the respondent has deserted the petitioner for more than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and she has severed all matrimonial relationship with the petitioner.
  100. 100. 27. Though, no specific ground of desertion has been taken by the petitioner in the petition, yet a ground of desertion has been made out by the petitioner. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter, a decree of Judicial Separation is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent under the Provision of Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to record room. Announced in open court On 16.12.2011 (DEEPAK JAGOTRA) JUDGE, FAMILY COURT DWARKA, NEW DELHI
  101. 101. ANNEXURE P-10(colly) Date: 07/02/2012 Ref: F.No.3945/DHCLSC/2012 dated 09/01/2012. From: Om Prakash Poddar R/O RZF-893, Netaji Subhas Marg Raj Nagar Part-2, Palam Colony, New Delhi-10077 Mob: 9968337815 E-mail: om.poddar@gmail.com To, The Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee Room No.33 to 38, Lawyers Chambers, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi- 110003, Sub: Undue delay in filing appeal and misleading information furnished by the Advocate Dear Sir/Madam, This is with reference to the Divorce suit No. 700/2010 later renumbered as 678/2010 by the Family Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi. I am the
  102. 102. petitioner, filed the divorce petition seeking dissolution of marriage with the respondent U/s 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 25.10.2010 in Ms Deepa Sharma, Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi, however, the Judgment is being passed of Judicial Separation U/s 10 of Hindu Marriage Act. Respondent fought (one and half year) proxy war through Ms. Deepa Sharma, Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi. Respondent was Ex- Parte, yet, she took the Judgment in favour of her. It is a sheer case of Judicial Corruption and muscle flexing. Principal Judge, Ms Deepa Sharma, Family Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi had stopped the whole court proceedings on 30th May 2011 on the date of filing of WS by the Respondent and had not sit and chaired any of the cases, in turn, the order sheet had been generated alleging the petitioner for requesting for adjournment of the court proceeding. Consequently, I have approached the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee (DHCLSC) on 4th of January, 2012 for filing an appeal. However, the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee (DHCLSC) has provided me the Advocate Mr. Jai Bansal vide
  103. 103. letter No. F.No.3945/DHCLSC/2012 on 09/01/2012. Now, the request for filing an appeal is pending before DHCLSC since then. Even after my pursuance with number of emails for one month, no action has been taken so far. In view of the above, I need information on the following: 1.Why Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee (DHCLSC) is not filing my appeal? The request is pending with vide letter no. F.No.3945/DHCLSC/2012 dated 09/01/2012. It is pending since 4th of January, 2012. 2.Why the counsel provided by DHCLSC is not willing to file my appeal as per the draft finalized by me on 31st January, 2012. 3.Why the legal Aid counsel took my sign on Vakalatnama and Affidavit with an assurance of finalized draft on 31st January, 2012 at his Supreme Court Chamber and changed his mind in the next morning. (Email of communication with Advocate attached) 4.Why Legal Aid Advocate, Mr. Jai Bansal, Chamber No.105, New Lawyer’s Chamber, Supreme Court of
  104. 104. India, New Delhi has removed the facts and justification for nexus of Judges with the Respondent from the finalized draft of my Matt Appeal without my consent? 5.Why Legal Aid Advocate is willing to conceal the material facts to defend the acts of abuse of court process by the Judges and to present the distorted picture of my case before High Court? 6.Why Legal Aid Advocate has furnished a false Diary No.21996 on 3rd February, 2012 while no case found by this diary no. in the website of Delhi High court? 7.Why Legal Aid Advocate has furnished a false email stating that the case is listed on 8th February in the court of Justice Veena Birbal i.e. court no. 25 of Delhi High Court for arguments on notice to the other parties. While as per the cause list (attached for 8th Feb) no case is listed in my name. 8.Why I have been harassed unnecessarily? Om Prakash Poddar
  105. 105. Enclosures sent through email: 1.Letter of Legal Aid by Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee 2.Email of communication with Advocate attached 3.Cause list for 8th Feb, 2012.
  106. 106. Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com> Matt Appeal 3 messages Jai Bansal <bansal.jai@gmail.com> Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:52 PM To: om.poddar@gmail.com Dear Mr. Om, Enclosed please find the soft copy of the Appeal for your kind perusal and further reference. Please come to my office tomorrow at 4pm in supreme court so we can finalize the petition so it can be filed in a day or two. regards, -- Jai Bansal, Advocate Chamber No. 105, New Lawyers Chamber, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi - 110001 Ph:- 09868566649 Residence Ph: 011 45644812 Email: bansal.jai@gmail.com Jai Bansal <bansal.jai@gmail.com> Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:54 PM To: om.poddar@gmail.com [Quoted text hidden] Matt Appeal.doc 113K Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com> Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:10 AM To: Jai Bansal <bansal.jai@gmail.com> Dear Sir, Thank you very much indeed for sending me the
  107. 107. draft. Please find attached the Matt Appeal file with my comments in red flag. I would request you to kindly incorporate my points as well. I am coming to meet you at the scheduled time and venue. With Best Regards, [Quoted text hidden] -- Om Prakash Poddar ******************************************************* ************* The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. Any dissemination, distribution, copying of or taking of any action in reliance upon this message, other than to/by the addressee, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please destroy it and notify me immediately. . Matt_Appeal_comment.doc 108K Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com> Some points for justification of cruelty Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com> Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:11 AM To: Jai Bansal <bansal.jai@gmail.com> Dear Sir, I just want to add some crucial points in your justification of cruelty para. You may please incorporate these points as focal point of cruelty which impacted my whole family. I have repeatedly put stress on two things prominently: crux of the whole episode is:
  108. 108. 1. Fraudulent marriage and thereafter 2. Criminal conspiracy Sequence of cruelty should be flashed in the following manner: 1.It was a well planned conspiracy of respondent family to ruin our three member family. They came with vested interest. 2. I had three member families. Handicapped and prolong diabetic father who had above the knee amputation and had been prescribed for permanent assistance/escort by AIIMS. Mother who is COPD and surviving on only 43% of oxygen and rest 47% is Co2 in her blood as per ABG report. At the same time she is thyroid patient. She is completely bedridden. I have to render all domestic help 24x7. 3.Under the above circumstances, respondent family intentionally put their physically disabled daughter with fraud planning, just to fulfill the custom/rituals of marriage to get rid of salvation as per the myths of their family and to ruin my small nuclear family. It is itself a form of cruelty. So the cruelty was well planned even before the fraud marriage. After the marriage, cruelty was planned to kill my parents by way of dissociating nursing care and support, persistent mafia threat and not to allow me to begin my own life. Secondly, the cruelty is being aggravated by way of establishing nexus with Principal Judge and exercising muscle flexing against me. Thus, the cruelty has impacted my whole family and not only me, which I have presented through affidavit in ex-parte evidence. That evidence was ignored by the Ld. Judges.
  109. 109. “They are planning to kill my last member i.e. mother in the similar fashion as they had killed my father”. -- Om Prakash Poddar Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com> Some points for justification of cruelty Jai Bansal <bansal.jai@gmail.com> Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 8:42 AM To: Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com> Dear Mr. Poddar, Please incorporate everything in the petition and bring the same with you at the meeting at 4 pm today in my supreme court office. regards, [Quoted text hidden] -- Jai Bansal, Advocate Chamber No. 105, New Lawyers Chamber, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi - 110001 Ph:- 09868566649 Residence Ph: 011 45644812 Email: bansal.jai@gmail.com Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com> Re: Matt Appeal with comments incorporated Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com> Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:23 AM To: Jai Bansal <bansal.jai@gmail.com>
  110. 110. Dear Sir, As per your instruction, I have typed and incorporated my comments. However, highlighted with the yellow color is beyond my knowledge/reach. Please find attached the incorporated and typed (fresh) Matt Appeal documents for filing an appeal on 1st of Feb, 2012. Kindly cross check and fine tune legally of these incorporated points. Kindly also update me with the diary no/case no. with next date of hearing. With Best Regards, On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Sir, Thank you very much indeed for sending me the draft. Please find attached the Matt Appeal file with my comments in red flag. I would request you to kindly incorporate my points as well. I am coming to meet you at the scheduled time and venue. With Best Regards, On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Jai Bansal <bansal.jai@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Om, Enclosed please find the soft copy of the Appeal for your kind perusal and further reference. Please come to my office tomorrow at 4pm in supreme court so we can finalize the petition so it can be filed in a day or two. regards,
  111. 111. -- Jai Bansal, Advocate Chamber No. 105, New Lawyers Chamber, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi - 110001 Ph:- 09868566649 Residence Ph: 011 45644812 Email: bansal.jai@gmail.com -- Om Prakash Poddar ************************************************* ******************* The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. Any dissemination, distribution, copying of or taking of any action in reliance upon this message, other than to/by the addressee, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please destroy it and notify me immediately. . -- Om Prakash Poddar ************************************************* ******************* The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. Any dissemination, distribution, copying of or taking of any action in reliance upon this message, other than to/by the addressee, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please
  112. 112. destroy it and notify me immediately. . Matt_Appeal_comment_incorporated.doc 117K Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com> Some points for justification of cruelty Jai Bansal <bansal.jai@gmail.com> Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:14 AM To: Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com> Dear Mr. Poddar, Enclosed please find the final version of the draft petition. I have removed the RTI application and filing of the complaint against the judge. These things will go adverse to our interest and basically we have to file the case on the merits of the pleadings not on the basis that we have filed a complaint against the judge. As per my opinion these all documents need not to be filed in the appeal hence the same are removed. Further, we are seeking divorce against the Respondent not against the family members of the respondent. Hence writing so much about them is not required in each and every paragraph. Rest facts are same. [Quoted text hidden] Matt_Appeal_comment_incorporated.doc 91K Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com>
  113. 113. Attn: Advocate Mr. Jai Bansal Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com> Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 8:36 PM To: Jai Bansal <bansal.jai@gmail.com> Dear Sir, Please find enclosed the translated copy of letter(s) written and annexed with the original petition. Please also find attached the soft copy of original petition as per your instruction. Reply of your telephonic conversation: Sir, Kindly refer our telephonic discussion you had with me today morning. You informed me that you have struck down my incorporated comments pertaining to Judges Nexus with Respondent and RTI stuff. You further said that it will be rejected if I abuse one Judge in front of the other Judge. I will not be given relief. Sir, I had assessed the matter on the very first day when you defended the acts of Judges and pin pointed against me for RTIs against the Judges. On the same date, I had reminded you that 30th May is the bone of contention and black day for the constitution. You reminded me thrice i.e. 10th of Jan, 31st of Jan and 1st of Feb but I kept silent just to reply you back in writing. Sir, I have nothing personal against any Judges. Sir, Judges are considered to be “God of the earth” “Panch Parmeshwar” Even I thought of so. Sir, 23 years of my stay in Delhi cannot raise any figure against my personality. I have been associated one or the other way with the Government machinery. I have never had conflict with Government machinery in any form. I have always played a defensive role. Our professional training is based on the philosophy of synergy between the institutions of State, Market and Civil society.
  114. 114. Even personally, I have great regard for Ms Deepa Sharma. I am very much sympathetic towards her disturbed personal life. Sir, I did not go for filing court complaint. Even I did not go for filing cases U/s 156(3) against Respondent. However, at the same time, I am absolutely against the Mafia state. Justification for Nexus: Sir, I am not talking in the air. Deepa Sharma conducted investigation against me. Tapped my CV and arranged an interview with the lawyer’s organization in Saket. She got it verified by sending a high court judge’s driver, Mr. Brajesh Yadav, who happened to be resident of same Raj Nagar, Palam Colony and my previous landlord/rent owner. Mr. Brajesh kumar briefed me everything that Deepa Sharma was called on by Retd. Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, Mr. S.B.Sinha at his residence, in New Delhi. Justice sinha with French bearded property dealer of Delhi took the class of Deepa Sharma. The mastermind of whole game is Justice Sinha of Delhi High court. Direction came from the top. Deepa Sharma is just following the instruction of top brass white color criminals, who takes the salary of people but follow the instruction of Mafias. She even tried to prove me mentally challenged and ill. Her man, Mr. Brajesh Yadav asked me to go to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital with decided doctor with his mobile no. in psychiatry department. He further said, if you produce mentally ill certificate before Deepa Sharma then she will decide the case in favour of you on 6th June, 2011 itself. Justification for RTIs:
  115. 115. Nothing to be said much because everything is written in the appeal with reason which is lying with you. But let me answer your pursuance for not to file RTIs against Judges. Sir, I will keep on filing RTIs till you become accountable towards your profession. I will keep on doing advocacy for Judicial Accountability. Sir, I am living in the jurisdiction of Ms Deepa Sharma. She has got all powers and connections. You may please ask her to kill me in the encounter. I am open to face even that. Justification for rejection of my appeal: Sir, I am least bother about the rejection part. I have decided to reach up till Supreme Court of India and then join Naxal outfit. Now, Sir, you have taken my sign and I have submitted you all documents as per your instruction, you also assured me to file as it is finalized on 31st Jan, at your chamber. Suddenly you changed your mind in the next morning. Now the ball is in the court of DHCLSC. Now, it is up to you and DHCLSC as to how you people play it. I am just testing the institutions. However, I am badly shocked by your advocacy for defending judicial corruption. You are the apex court practitioner. Tomorrow, you will be the trend setter. You are the custodian of society, saviors of constitution, and a change maker. What kind of society you want to produce? A Banana State!! People keep great expectation from Apex court. You are supposed to give guidelines and ensure implementation for clean lower court process. Ironically, you are defending the unconstitutional acts of Judges.
  116. 116. God bless you!!! With Best Regards, -- Om Prakash Poddar 2 attachments copy of letters_translated.doc 40K Om_Prakash_-_Vs[1]._- _Rina_kumari_(Divorce)_Final_25_10_2010.doc 105K Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.c om> Attn: Advocate Mr. Jai Bansal Jai Bansal <bansal.jai@gmail.com> Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:39 AM To: Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com> Dear Mr. Poddar, There is nothing unconstitutional or constitutional in filing complaints for no reason against the Judges. Further, there is no point in taking these grounds in appellate court as your case is decided on the merits of the case and will be challanged on the merits of the case. Please do not worry. Lets file the case on the merits of the case, rather than harping on the grounds that do not exist and will not help us for any reason in the appellate court. There is a separate process of filing of complaints against the Judges if your aggrieved by any of their conduct, whatsoever. But
  117. 117. certainly that cannot become a grounds to agitate the same in the appeal of a dismissed case for getting relief from the appellate court. Regards, [Quoted text hidden] -- Jai Bansal, Advocate Chamber No. 105, New Lawyers Chamber, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi - 110001 Ph:- 09868566649 Residence Ph: 011 45644812 Email: bansal.jai@gmail.com
  118. 118. ANNEXURE P-11 ITEM NO.59 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)No(s).9854/2012 (From the judgement and order dated 08/02/2012 in MATA No.7/2012 of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI) OM PRAKASH PODDAR Petitioner(s) VERSUS RINA KUMARI Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for and prayer for interim relief )) Date: 23/04/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA For Petitioner(s) In-Person For Respondent(s) UPON hearing in person the Court made the following O R D E R We have heard the petitioner, who has appeared in person. We do not find any justification to entertain the petitioner's challenge to the order passed by the learned Single Judge who merely issued notice in the miscellaneous appeal filed by the petitioner and fixed the case for 6.7.2012. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. (Parveen Kr.Chawla) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master
  119. 119. Annexure: P-12 Date: 26/04/2012 Ref: F.No.3945/DHCLSC/2012 dated 09/01/2012. From: Om Prakash Poddar R/O RZF-893, Netaji Subhas Marg Raj Nagar Part-2, Palam Colony, New Delhi-10077 Mob: 9968337815 E-mail: om.poddar@gmail.com To, The Chairman, Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee Room No.33 to 38, Lawyers Chambers, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi- 110003, Sub: Abuse of court process by the Legal Aid Advocate Hon’ble Sir/Madam, This is with reference to the complaint to the Secretary of Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee dated 7/02/2012. In spite of my complaint against the abuse of court process by way of concealing the material facts before the Hon’ble High Court by the Legal Aid Advocate on 7th February, 2012 to the Secretary, DHCLSC, a wrong petition has been instituted before the Hon’ble High Court on 08/02/2012 vide case No. MAT APPL 7/2012. However, I had requested to file a petition against the abuse of Trial Court process subsequently finalized the draft petition accordingly. But the abuse of Trial Court matter was removed without my consent and even a MAT appeal being filed to delay the matter instead of filing writ against the abuse of power by the public authority. I was misled by the Advocate and being denied Justice. Case Status in brief:- Delhi Trial court case No. HMA 700/2010 & 678/2010 Delhi High Court Case No. MAT APPL. 7/2012 1. Respondent is ex parte (even did not file WS: written statement)
  120. 120. 2. However, Judgment is being passed in favour of Respondent and against the petitioner. 3. There is an abuse of Trial Court Process. 4. Principal Judge of Trial Court has stopped the whole court proceeding on 30th May 2011 and in turn a false order sheet is being generated alleging the petitioner for requesting for adjournment of the court proceedings. 5. RTI has been filed and unsatisfactory reply has been furnished by the office of the principal Judge of Trial court against the unconstitutional and undemocratic act of PJ of Trial Court. 6. There is an abuse of court process by way of concealing the material facts by the Advocate of Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee. Legal Aid Advocate has admitted this fact in his email communication. Advocate misled me and filed MAT APPL instead of filing Writ against the abuse of power by the public authority. In view of the above, I pray for your kind intervention into this matter to take appropriate action against this act to deliver proper Justice to the Appellant. Appellant Om Prakash Poddar Encl Above: 1. True Copy of Receiving of Complaint letter to the Secretary of Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee. (Pages from 04 to 05) 2. True copy of email communication wherein the Legal Aid Advocate has admitted the fact of concealing and removing the material fact. (Pages from 06 to 18) 3. Order Sheet of 30th May which had been generated without court proceedings. (Pages from 19 to 19) 4. RTI reply from the office of the Principal Judge of Trial Court. (Pages from 20 to 23) ___________________________________________________
  121. 121. Track Result for:ED404576545IN Track More Booked at Booked On Delivered at Delivered on RAJ NAGAR II 27/04/2012 LODI ROAD H.O 03/05/2012Details Date Time Status at Status 27/04/201210:35:47 RAJ NAGAR II Item Booked 27/04/201215:57:47 RAJ NAGAR II Item bagged for NEW DELHI 02/05/201209:07:38NEW DELHI Bag Received 02/05/201209:09:05NEW DELHI Bag Opened 02/05/201214:08:54NEW DELHI Item bagged for LODI ROAD H.O 03/05/201204:58:07NEW DELHI Bag Despatched to LODI ROAD H.O 03/05/201209:14:05 LODI ROAD H.O Bag Received 03/05/201209:14:30 LODI ROAD H.O Bag Opened 03/05/201209:14:31 LODI ROAD H.O Item Received 03/05/201200:00:00 LODI ROAD H.O Item Delivered

×