Objection: 7

Assets ( moveable and im-moveable ) owned by the Deponent : 

 Respondent Megha claims of loan liability which was extended to her by her brother Ankur Khare to the tune of Rs 206527.

Objection :

•         When was this loan given by Ankur to Megha ?

•         What was the purpose of availing this loan ?

•         By when was she expected to repay back this loan ?

•         Was there any agreement or documentation between the borrower and the lender ?

•         How was Megha expected to repay back this loan ,especially when she does not have a source of Income ,atleast in the eyes of law?

•         She has been claiming maintenance since September 2019 @Rs 25000 per month from petitioner Shived . Infact Petitioner Shived,starting from January 2021 ,paid her Rs 50,000 per month continuously till the time arrears got over and it came back to the regular amount of Rs 25000 per month .

•         Rs 25000 per month is decent amount for sustenance in a city like Jabalpur  . What was the necessity to avail this loan ?

•         Was this loan given to her in her bank account ? If so ,did she produce the bank statement ?

In summary this affidavit is a hoax and certainly does not reflect the real source and quantum of her income . She and her brother ,very well knew that submitting accurate detail will expose them not only in the eyes of law but will also bring out the malpractices that the duo are involved in . It was for this reason that they kept of delaying the submission of this affidavit for 2 years ,until she got a strong warning from the Honourable High Court .

It is prayed to the Honourable High Court to deep dive further to know the truth ,both in the interest of justice and in the national interest ,wherein the ex-chequer happens to be the Govt of India.

Prayer:

Therefore, the Applicant humbly requests the Hon’ble Court to kindly consider the abovementioned objections filed by the Applicant along with the Affidavit filed by the Applicant dated 13-10-2022 in the interest of justice and the facts and reasons stated above.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Discuss the case law of Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174 for maintenance of wife?

Ans: According to Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174, an able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court. Conclusion: So, if the husband has liabilities like loans and other legal obligations, he will not be entitled to provide maintenance to earning wife.  Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it was obligatory on the part of the Petitioner-wife to allege and prove that she was unable to maintain herself. According to Shri Rege the expression used in t...
Read more

Q: Discuss the citation of Madras High Court on Hari Har Raj Kalingarayar V. Aarti on 22 June, 2018 ?

Ans: On the misuse of the provisions for claim maintenance, it is opined by Madras High Court on Hari Har Raj Kalingarayar vs Aarti on 22 June, 2018 that it is a matter of deep concern that though the law for maintenance is a valuable and beneficial legislation safeguarding helpless wife, who is unable to maintain herself, but there are some instances where the wife focus her husband as like that of an ATM and the beneficial provisions of law are considered to be utilized as a tool of harassment. 
Read more

Question of law:

1. Whether the honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh has not ignored to consider the guidelines of Deb Narayan Halder vs Smt. Anushree Halder on 26 August, 2003 , it which it is clearly mentioned that the wife can not claim maintenance if she is unable to prove cruelty. The court can not grant maintenance on the basis of conjecture and surmise and the respondent, Smt Megha Khare has made false allegations on petitioner after receiving the notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, restitution of conjugal rights and she has not proved any allegation on petitioner.  2. Where the honourable high court of Madhya Pradesh has erred in not considering the legal maxim ' Salus populi est suprema lex or Suprema lex salus populi which means that the welfare of the people is the supreme law. In other words, it means public welfare is the highest law. The Honorable High Court of Madhya Pradesh neither ordered the respondent, Smt. Megha Khare to prove the cruelty on herself nor considered that...
Read more