Hi All,
Please comment on the review petition below:
IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT: L.B.NAGAR
REVIEW PETITION NO: OF 2010
In
CRLMP. NO: 316 OF 2009
Between:
… Petitioner
And
… Respondent
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOR
Being aggrieved by the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in MC.No.CCC/2009, the respondent preferring this revision, challenging the correctness and legality of the order on the following amongst other grounds:-
G R O U N D S
- Hon’ble court failed to notice (based on the documents, from petitioner worked hospital, submitted on 15-04-2010 as part of memorandum) that petitioner has earning experience of equal amount that the Hon’ble court ordered as interim maintenance even before and after the petitioner’s marriage till petitioner joined the respondent at Bangalore for less than a month.
- Hon’ble court failed to appreciate the bank transaction of amount approximately Rs.1,00,000/- from respondent to petitioner after marriage and before petitioner joined the matrimonial home (refer: point no.26 in counter filed on 18-12-2009 in MC.CCC of 2009). Further submit Hon’ble court failed to appreciate the transaction (from respondent to petitioner) proofs in support of this ground. Further submit that while petitioner is having amount in her bank account received from respondent provide information that prima facie case is not made out.
- Hon’ble court failed to appreciate the letter received from Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, under Right To Information Act-2005 saying that the petitioners allegations are said to be false based on the evidences submitted to police. Further submit that Hon’ble Court failed to appreciate that this letter discloses no prima face case of cruelty is established.
- Hon’ble court failed to appreciate the respondent argument, in the written submitted on 26-03-2010, that petitioner is rich person and is owner of Rs.40,00,000/- worth agriculture land as admitted in the petition, while respondent do not have any property on him name. Further submit this Hon’ble Court failed to notice that petitioner did not disclose the income from the huge worth agriculture property.
- Hon’ble court failed to appreciate the respondent argument that petitioner is capable of working but willingly not doing job and doing Post Graduation by spending more than Rs.2,00,000/- per year, in total more than Rs.4,00,000/- for the entire course without respondent consent reveals the petitioner has no issues in maintaining herself even without working for money to maintain herself.
- Hon’ble court failed to appreciate the fact that petitioner is capable of working and has working and earning experience prior to and after marriage i.e., petitioner joined the respondent at Bangalore. Further submit that Hon’ble court failed to appreciate the documentary proofs, collected from petitioner worked hospital and submitted in this Hon’ble court on 15-04-2010 in support of this ground.
- Hon’ble court failed to appreciate the fact that no evidence is submitted in support of petitioner’s allegations though possible to produce upon the allegations is true reveals the prima face case is false.
- Hon’ble court failed to appreciate the point that respondent is interested to lead life with petitioner and would like to maintain petitioner. Further submit that
- Hon’ble court failed to notice that petitioner joined the respondent after 6 months to the marriage and did not meet the responsibilities of wife and is asking for maintenance from respondent. Further submit that the order made the respondent to fell that this is the punishment for marriage.
PRAYER
Pray Hon’ble court to review the order and dismiss the CRLPM. NO. BBB/2009 and other orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper be passed in the nature and circumstances of the case.
DATE:
PLACE: RESPONDENT
(Party-In-Person)
