Friday, December 31, 2010
First Appeal in 30 days if deemed refusal
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT – 2005
[First Appeal u/s 19(1)]
From To
------------------------Date:??/??/??--------------------------------
Sir,
Ref: (1) My original RTI Application dated ??-??-?? sent u/s 6 of RTI – Act.
Vide reference cited, my RTI application did not receive the attention from the PIO, let alone any disposal. As such, I prefer my first appeal on the following grounds:
The PIO did not respond to my application within or beyond the stipulated time limit, as required u/s 7(1)
The PIO, He did not refund the application fee in terms of section 7(6).
In view of the above, as well as his failure to give any decision/disposal on my application on the part of the PIO, it is a deemed refusal on his part as provided u/s 7(2).
The PIO displayed total ignorance in sensitivity on the matter.
In the light of the foregoing I request you to kindly address my first appeal and arrange the needful in conformity with RTI Laws.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely
sd/-
(Name)
To RE-OPEN your FILE, IF DISMISSED - File party in person
IN THE HONOURABLE COURT OF THE JUDGE FAMILY COURT
City /District
O.P. No: No/YEAR
BETWEEN:
Mr./Mrs ??????
S/o or W/o ??????
Occ:??????, AGE:??,
R/o: ????????? ...Petitioner
AND:
Mr./Mrs ??????
S/o or W/o ??????
Occ:??????, AGE:??,
R/o: ?????????
...Respondent
PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 9 CPC
May it please your Honour:
I, ??????, S/o or W/o ??????, the Petitioner herein and I have been attending the suit proceedings as party in-person to the best of my ability and most respectfully.
I submit that my last hearing was slated for ??/??/????. Being on out station trip along with my parents for the preceding week, I even return to the station on ??/??/???? by cut-shorting my visit, only with a view to put my appearance in the court on the designated date i.e. on ??/??/????. However, during my return I got a severe viral fever, due to which I was incapacitated immediately on my return rendering me to bed return. As such, I could not attend the suit proceedings on ??/??/????, inspite of returning from the journey specifically for the purpose. Subsequently, when I went to the court office to acquaint myself with the position of my case, to my surprise and dismay I was told that case was dismissed due to default.
OR YOUR CONVENIANCE REASON
In this connection, I respectfully submit that my absence on the designated date was due to my incapacitation, but not advertent. As such, I pray the Honourable Court to condone my absence due to the reason aforesaid mitigating circumstances and due to reasons beyond my control.
I request the Honourable Court to kindly re-open the case and afford me the opportunity to appear again in the interest of natural justice.
I shall be very grateful for such kind jesture and shall not give any further cause for the recurrence such absences in future.
Place: ?????????
Date:??/??/???? PETITIONER
AFFIDAVIT VERIFICATION BY PETITIONER
I, ??????, S/o: or W/o ??????, , Occ: ???????, AGE:??,
R/o: ????????? do hereby state and affirm under oath as follows:
1. I am the Deponent herein and as such I am well aware of the facts and circumstance of the case.
2. I submit that I filed the above affidavit petition to re-open the file.
3. I further submit that the contents of the petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and hence I verify the same to be correct.
3. I further submit that the contents of the petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and hence I verify the same to be correct.
Place: ??????
Date:??/??/ ???? DEPONENT
Affidavit Evidence - File party in person
IN THE HONOURABLE COURT OF THE JUDGE FAMILY COURT
City /District
O.P. No: No/YEAR
BETWEEN:
Mr./Mrs ??????
S/o or W/o ??????
Occ:??????, AGE:??,
R/o: ????????? ...Petitioner
AND:
Mr./Mrs ??????
S/o or W/o ??????
Occ:??????, AGE:??,
R/o: ????????? ...Respondent
AFFIDAVIT CHIEF
I, ??????, S/o pr W/o, ?????? the Petitioner herein solemnly affirm and state the following:
STORY FROM CAUSE OF ACTION IN ORIGINAL PETTION
Hence this petition
In view of the foregoing, I respectfully pray that Honourable Court to pass a decree in my favour as prayed.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
S. No. | DATE | DESCRIPTION |
1 | Wedding invitation | |
2 | FIR Copy filed by the respondent | |
3 | Address proof of last resided place |
Place: ?????????
Date:??/??/???? PETITIONER
AFFIDAVIT VERIFICATION BY PETITIONER
I, ??????, S/o: or W/o ??????, , Occ: ???????, AGE:??,
R/o: ????????? do hereby state and affirm under oath as follows:
1. I am the Deponent herein and as such I am well aware of the facts and circumstance of the case.
2. I submit that I filed the above petition against the Respondent for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act.
3. I further submit that the contents of the petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and hence I verify the same to be correct.
Place: ??????
Date:??/??/ ???? DEPONENT
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Saturday, December 25, 2010
RTI on non-rti application
RTI ACT - 2005
[Application U/s 6 ]
From To[Application U/s 6 ]
-------------------------------Date:??/??/??-----------------------------
Sir,
Ref:(1) My original appplication dated sent for ??????(copy enclosed)
Adverting to refernce cited, I did not receive the attention from the Officer/??????/???? let alone my disposal. As such, I request some more information/records pertaining to my
Ref:(1) My original appplication dated sent for ??????(copy enclosed)
Adverting to refernce cited, I did not receive the attention from the Officer/??????/???? let alone my disposal. As such, I request some more information/records pertaining to my
complaint/application/non-rti application/??????
Kindly Inform/Clarify/Furnish/Provide with certified copies
1). The daily progress made on my application dated ??/??/?? till date.
2). The names, designations and office addresses of the officials with
whom my application was lying during this period and date wise period
with each official and details of action taken by concerned officer(him/her).
whom my application was lying during this period and date wise period
with each official and details of action taken by concerned officer(him/her).
3). The record copy of receipt/acknowledgement and dispatch of my application
to the offices of each of these officials.
4). According to your rules or citizens charter or any other order, number of
days in which such a matter should have been dealt with and resolved. Please
also provide a copy of these rules.
days in which such a matter should have been dealt with and resolved. Please
also provide a copy of these rules.
5). If the officials/employees have not adhered to the time limit mentioned in
rules and are guilty of flouting these rules, please give a copy of your policy
on conduct rules and details of action taken by the controlling authority against
erring officials/employees.
rules and are guilty of flouting these rules, please give a copy of your policy
on conduct rules and details of action taken by the controlling authority against
erring officials/employees.
6). In case no action has been initiated for dereliction of duties against erring
officials, the reasons be made known to me, with name and contact details of
controlling authority of these officials/employees.
officials, the reasons be made known to me, with name and contact details of
controlling authority of these officials/employees.
7). When I am likely to receive reply to my said application.
8). The copy of file notings made and held, on my said application.
9). The number of complaints which were received by against your office in last
one year, from the affected citizens.
one year, from the affected citizens.
10). The number of employees of your office against whom disciplinary/departmental
action was initiated in last one year
action was initiated in last one year
11). The name and designation of the PIO and First Appellate Authority of
your organization.
your organization.
12). The name, postal and email address, phone numbers and website details
of the hierarchy and chain of command from your office and up to the
Chief/Principal Secretary at the State Secretariat.
of the hierarchy and chain of command from your office and up to the
Chief/Principal Secretary at the State Secretariat.
13). The copy of citizen charter of government/your office.
14). On receipt of information under this application, I intend to carry out inspection of case-file and all the connected records for perusal and
taking notes at a mutually convenient place and time, including your
office files. I may also be seek assistance of any representative during
inspection.
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(NAME)
Encl: As StatedDecision to withdraw license of non-aided private school for non compliance
Central Information Commission
Block-IV, 5th Floor,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
Website: http://www.cic.gov.in/
(Adjunct to Decision No. 714/IC(A)/2007 dated, 14th May, 2007)
Decision No. 1231 /IC(A)/2007
F. No. CIC/MA/A/2007/00104
Dated, the 12th September, 2007
Name of the Appellant: Shri D.K. Chopra.
Name of the Public Authority: Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi
Facts: 1. The appellant had asked for certain information, which were furnished, except the minutes of the Managing Committee (MC) of Purna Prajna Public School, Vasant Kumj, New Delhi. The Commission examined the appeal and made the following observations in it’s decision No. 714/IC(A)/2007 dated 18th May, 2007:-
• The PIO is directed to obtain, u/s 2(f) of the Act, the minutes of the Managing
Committee meetings from March 2002 to March 2007 from the school and provide a
copy to the appellant.
• The information sought as above should be furnished within 15 working days from the
date of issue of this decision.
2. Subsequently, the appellant informed the Commission that the PIO has not complied with the above decision. The PIO, in turn, stated that he had no legal authority to obtain the information from the school.
3. Both the parties were therefore issued notices for a hearing again in the matter of non-compliance of above decision. The parties were heard on 20th August , 2007 and 12th September, 2007. A representative of the PIO reiterated that under Delhi Education Act, the documents which could be obtained, are specified under Annexure-II in which the document, namely minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee of schools is not included. The Department of Education was therefore unable to acquire the minutes of the Managing Committee from the concerned school as directed by the Commission. Though an official of the respondent is a member of the MC, the PIO has however no access to the minutes of MC, it was contended.
Decision:
4. The main issue that emanate from the foregoing is that the Government of Delhi has no control on the functioning of un-aided schools and that it cannot access the minutes of MCs under any law, which is un-acceptable to the Commission.
5. A major objective of the RTI Act is to ensure transparency and accountability in functioning of the institutions, particularly the service providers that have considerable interface with a larger section of people. The documents, in question, contain such information that foretell about the health and vitality of the schools, which are responsible for preparing our children to lead the nation. Moreover, the information asked for is an outcome of deliberations of the major stakeholders – school authorities, teachers, representatives of PTA and the Government of Delhi. The minutes of MCs are thus already in public domain, as these are circulated among the members. How can it be treated as confidential or secret? Unfortunately, the Principal of the school and the PIO have connived to withhold the minutes of the MCs for reasons that contravene with the larger purpose of creating an information regime for good governance.
6. As the activities of the functionaries of the education sector have intense and pervasive influence on every human activity, the decisions taken by the Managing Committees have considerable implications for promoting quality education and the well-being of the entire society. Such documents, therefore, cannot be claimed as secret information by any school which performs a governmental function. The Principal of the school and the PIO have thus failed to appreciate the intent and purpose of the Act which seeks to promote people’s involvement in decision making processes and implementation of programs.
7. All the aided or unaided schools are performing governmental functions to promote high quality of relevant education. An official of the GNCT of Delhi is nominated by the Directorate of Education as a member of the Management Committee of all the schools. The nominated member of the Directorate of Education is therefore the custodian of the minutes of the MCs under section 5(4) of the RTI Act. And, there is no reason why such minutes, reflecting the aspects of governance of the school, should not be put in public domain. The Government has the control on the functioning of the schools and, therefore, it has access to the information asked for. And, so has a citizen.
8. Not only the land allotted to private educational institutes are provided at subsidized rates, but also the fees paid by the students/parents enjoy income-tax concession. There is thus some element of indirect Government funding in the activities of even private and un-aided schools. In view of this, the respondent, which is represented through its officials on the Managing Committee, is surely the custodian of the information asked for by the appellant. The decisions of the MCs have significant bearing on the life and career of the students as well as their parents / guardians and, therefore, there is no reason why the minutes of the Managing Committee should not be disclosed to the affected persons i.e. the citizens.
9. The PIO’s contention that the minutes of the MCs are not included in Annexure-II of Delhi Education Act and, therefore, he cannot acquire them is not acceptable, as Section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005 has an overriding effect on all such provisions that come in the way of promotion of transparency in functioning of the schools, the activities of which are governmental in nature. The PIO is directed again to furnish the information at the earliest under intimation to the Commission.
10. The then PIO Dr. R. A. Yadav and the present PIO Mrs. S. Kaur, DDE are also held in violation of section 7(1) of the Act. They are therefore directed to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- should not be imposed on them us 20(1) of the Act, for their deliberate attempt to deny the information asked for by the appellant. Inspite the direction given by the Commission, they have made no worthwhile effort to acquire the document from the school or the nominated member of the respondent. They should submit their written submission and also appear for a personal hearing before the Commission on 12th October, 2007 at 2.00 p.m. (at 2nd floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place).
11. In view of lackadaisical attitude of the concerned PIO and the Principal of the school towards the implementation of the RTI Act, the Commission’s order of dated 18.5.2007 has not been complied with, which is unfortunate The Director (Edu.), Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi is therefore directed to initiate appropriate action against the school, including cancellation/withdrawl of it’s recognition, as the school has chosen to function in a manner which is not duly transparent and is, thus, inconsistent with the ethos and purpose of the RTI Act. An action taken report should be submitted to the Commission at the earliest.
12. Moreover, because of non-compliance of decision of the Commission of 18th May, 2007, at least two additional hearing were unnecessarily conducted at the instance of the respondent. And, the appellant had to attend the hearing, which resulted in incurring of avoidable expenditure on travel, loss of resources and time. The Director (Education), on behalf of the Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi should explain as to why a suitable compensation, u/s 19(8) (b) of the Act, should not be awarded to the appellant for the detriment suffered by him. On behalf of the Directorate of Education, the Director of Education should explain on the date and time, as mentioned above, and may also appear for personal hearing in the matter.
13. The Commission is constrained to observe that a large number of officials of the Directorate of Education, in general, and the PIOs/Appellate Authorities, in particular, have failed to appreciate the spirit of the Act for promotion of openness in their functioning. The Director (Edu.), Dte. Of Education is therefore directed to organize education & training program for its officials, as mandated u/s 26 of the Act, in order to equip them for effective implementation of the provisions of the Act.
14. The compliance of the decision, as above, would be reviewed by the Commission in due course.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(L.C. Singhi)
Additional Registrar
Name and address of parties:
1. Shri D.K. Chopra, A/A 1039, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.
2. Mrs. Salinder Kaur, PIO & DDE(SWE), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Education,
O/o Dy. Director of Education, District South West-A, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
3. Dr. R.A. Yadav, DD(Inspection) (the then CPIO in this case), Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.
4. Shri Vijay Kumar, Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.
5. Dr. (Mrs.) R. Kohli, Principal, Poorna Prajna Public School, D-III, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110070.
Block-IV, 5th Floor,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
Website: http://www.cic.gov.in/
(Adjunct to Decision No. 714/IC(A)/2007 dated, 14th May, 2007)
Decision No. 1231 /IC(A)/2007
F. No. CIC/MA/A/2007/00104
Dated, the 12th September, 2007
Name of the Appellant: Shri D.K. Chopra.
Name of the Public Authority: Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi
Facts: 1. The appellant had asked for certain information, which were furnished, except the minutes of the Managing Committee (MC) of Purna Prajna Public School, Vasant Kumj, New Delhi. The Commission examined the appeal and made the following observations in it’s decision No. 714/IC(A)/2007 dated 18th May, 2007:-
• The PIO is directed to obtain, u/s 2(f) of the Act, the minutes of the Managing
Committee meetings from March 2002 to March 2007 from the school and provide a
copy to the appellant.
• The information sought as above should be furnished within 15 working days from the
date of issue of this decision.
2. Subsequently, the appellant informed the Commission that the PIO has not complied with the above decision. The PIO, in turn, stated that he had no legal authority to obtain the information from the school.
3. Both the parties were therefore issued notices for a hearing again in the matter of non-compliance of above decision. The parties were heard on 20th August , 2007 and 12th September, 2007. A representative of the PIO reiterated that under Delhi Education Act, the documents which could be obtained, are specified under Annexure-II in which the document, namely minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee of schools is not included. The Department of Education was therefore unable to acquire the minutes of the Managing Committee from the concerned school as directed by the Commission. Though an official of the respondent is a member of the MC, the PIO has however no access to the minutes of MC, it was contended.
Decision:
4. The main issue that emanate from the foregoing is that the Government of Delhi has no control on the functioning of un-aided schools and that it cannot access the minutes of MCs under any law, which is un-acceptable to the Commission.
5. A major objective of the RTI Act is to ensure transparency and accountability in functioning of the institutions, particularly the service providers that have considerable interface with a larger section of people. The documents, in question, contain such information that foretell about the health and vitality of the schools, which are responsible for preparing our children to lead the nation. Moreover, the information asked for is an outcome of deliberations of the major stakeholders – school authorities, teachers, representatives of PTA and the Government of Delhi. The minutes of MCs are thus already in public domain, as these are circulated among the members. How can it be treated as confidential or secret? Unfortunately, the Principal of the school and the PIO have connived to withhold the minutes of the MCs for reasons that contravene with the larger purpose of creating an information regime for good governance.
6. As the activities of the functionaries of the education sector have intense and pervasive influence on every human activity, the decisions taken by the Managing Committees have considerable implications for promoting quality education and the well-being of the entire society. Such documents, therefore, cannot be claimed as secret information by any school which performs a governmental function. The Principal of the school and the PIO have thus failed to appreciate the intent and purpose of the Act which seeks to promote people’s involvement in decision making processes and implementation of programs.
7. All the aided or unaided schools are performing governmental functions to promote high quality of relevant education. An official of the GNCT of Delhi is nominated by the Directorate of Education as a member of the Management Committee of all the schools. The nominated member of the Directorate of Education is therefore the custodian of the minutes of the MCs under section 5(4) of the RTI Act. And, there is no reason why such minutes, reflecting the aspects of governance of the school, should not be put in public domain. The Government has the control on the functioning of the schools and, therefore, it has access to the information asked for. And, so has a citizen.
8. Not only the land allotted to private educational institutes are provided at subsidized rates, but also the fees paid by the students/parents enjoy income-tax concession. There is thus some element of indirect Government funding in the activities of even private and un-aided schools. In view of this, the respondent, which is represented through its officials on the Managing Committee, is surely the custodian of the information asked for by the appellant. The decisions of the MCs have significant bearing on the life and career of the students as well as their parents / guardians and, therefore, there is no reason why the minutes of the Managing Committee should not be disclosed to the affected persons i.e. the citizens.
9. The PIO’s contention that the minutes of the MCs are not included in Annexure-II of Delhi Education Act and, therefore, he cannot acquire them is not acceptable, as Section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005 has an overriding effect on all such provisions that come in the way of promotion of transparency in functioning of the schools, the activities of which are governmental in nature. The PIO is directed again to furnish the information at the earliest under intimation to the Commission.
10. The then PIO Dr. R. A. Yadav and the present PIO Mrs. S. Kaur, DDE are also held in violation of section 7(1) of the Act. They are therefore directed to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- should not be imposed on them us 20(1) of the Act, for their deliberate attempt to deny the information asked for by the appellant. Inspite the direction given by the Commission, they have made no worthwhile effort to acquire the document from the school or the nominated member of the respondent. They should submit their written submission and also appear for a personal hearing before the Commission on 12th October, 2007 at 2.00 p.m. (at 2nd floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place).
11. In view of lackadaisical attitude of the concerned PIO and the Principal of the school towards the implementation of the RTI Act, the Commission’s order of dated 18.5.2007 has not been complied with, which is unfortunate The Director (Edu.), Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi is therefore directed to initiate appropriate action against the school, including cancellation/withdrawl of it’s recognition, as the school has chosen to function in a manner which is not duly transparent and is, thus, inconsistent with the ethos and purpose of the RTI Act. An action taken report should be submitted to the Commission at the earliest.
12. Moreover, because of non-compliance of decision of the Commission of 18th May, 2007, at least two additional hearing were unnecessarily conducted at the instance of the respondent. And, the appellant had to attend the hearing, which resulted in incurring of avoidable expenditure on travel, loss of resources and time. The Director (Education), on behalf of the Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi should explain as to why a suitable compensation, u/s 19(8) (b) of the Act, should not be awarded to the appellant for the detriment suffered by him. On behalf of the Directorate of Education, the Director of Education should explain on the date and time, as mentioned above, and may also appear for personal hearing in the matter.
13. The Commission is constrained to observe that a large number of officials of the Directorate of Education, in general, and the PIOs/Appellate Authorities, in particular, have failed to appreciate the spirit of the Act for promotion of openness in their functioning. The Director (Edu.), Dte. Of Education is therefore directed to organize education & training program for its officials, as mandated u/s 26 of the Act, in order to equip them for effective implementation of the provisions of the Act.
14. The compliance of the decision, as above, would be reviewed by the Commission in due course.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(L.C. Singhi)
Additional Registrar
Name and address of parties:
1. Shri D.K. Chopra, A/A 1039, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.
2. Mrs. Salinder Kaur, PIO & DDE(SWE), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Education,
O/o Dy. Director of Education, District South West-A, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
3. Dr. R.A. Yadav, DD(Inspection) (the then CPIO in this case), Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.
4. Shri Vijay Kumar, Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.
5. Dr. (Mrs.) R. Kohli, Principal, Poorna Prajna Public School, D-III, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110070.
Memo on IPC-498a not to arrest accused/victims
Not arrest in 498a cases,
Memo on 498a from CP - Hyderabad.
Not to arrest accused/victims without orders of DCP
Friday, December 24, 2010
Affidavit to re-open the Petition by party in person
IN THE HONOURABLE COURT OF THE JUDGE FAMILY COURT
Location (City/Village)
O.P. No:??????/YEAR
BETWEEN:
Mr. ?????? S/o: ????????
Occ:?????, AGE:??,
R/o: ?????
….Petitioner
….Petitioner
AND:
Mrs. husband surname 498a wife name (aka: inlaws surname 498a wife name)
W/o: ??????
Occ: ?????, AGE:?? ,
R/o:?????
....Respondent
....Respondent
AFFIDAVIT PETITION
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PETITIONER
The description and the address of the petitioner for the purpose of issuing notices, summons etc., for the above Petitioner is same as mentioned in the above cause title.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is Mrs. W/o: ??? OCC: ?????, AGE:??, HINDU
Mrs. husband surname 498a wife name (aka: inlaws surname 498a wife name)
R/o: ???
III. May it please your Honour:
I, B. N .Reddy, the Petitioner herein respectfully submit that I am working for a private company in Hyderabad. I could not attend the adjounament on 20/12/10 due to job schedule.
IV. VALUATION
The Petitioner is paying a court fee of Rs. 10/- which is sufficient as per the Act.
V. PRAYER
It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to to re-open the file
Place: ??????
Date:?????? PETITONER
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE JUDGE FAMILY COURT
Location (City/Village)
O.P. No: ??????/YEAR
BETWEEN:
Mr. ?????? S/o: ????????
Occ:?????, AGE:??,
R/o: ?????
….Petitioner
….Petitioner
AND:
Mrs. husband surname 498a wife name (aka: inlaws surname 498a wife name)
W/o: ??????
Occ: ?????, AGE:?? ,
R/o:?????
....Respondent
....Respondent
AFFIDAVIT VERIFICATION BY PETITIONER
I, , do hereby state and affirm under oath as follows:
Mr. ?????? S/o: ????????
Occ:?????, AGE:??,
R/o: ?????
Place: ????????
1. I am the Deponent herein and as such I am well aware of the facts and circumstance of the case.
2. I submit that I filed the above affidavit petition to re-open the file
3. I further submit that the contents of the petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and hence I verify the same to be correct.
Date:??????? DEPONENT
Affidavit before getting Order/Judgement by party in person
IN THE HONOURABLE COURT OF THE JUDGE FAMILY COURT
Location (City/Village)
O.P. No:??????/YEAR
BETWEEN:
Mr. ?????? S/o: ????????
Occ:?????, AGE:??,
R/o: ?????
….Petitioner
….Petitioner
AND:
Mrs. husband surname 498a wife name (aka: inlaws surname 498a wife name)
W/o: ??????
Occ: ?????, AGE:?? ,
R/o:?????
....Respondent
....Respondent
AFFIDAVIT for PETITION FILED U/S 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT 1955
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PETITIONER
The description and the address of the petitioner for the purpose of issuing notices, summons etc., for the above Petitioner is same as mentioned in the above cause title.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is Mrs. W/o: ??? OCC: ?????, AGE:??, HINDU
Mrs. husband surname 498a wife name (aka: inlaws surname 498a wife name)
R/o: ???
III. May it please your Honour:
I, B. N .Reddy, the Petitioner herein respectfully submit that I am working for a private company in Hyderabad. I respectfully submit that the Respondent is staying away from me without informing as well as for no valid reasons whatsoever. Thus far, the Respondent has not let me know of her intentions as well as her future plans. She neither responded to my RCR petition nor acknowledged.
Since the acts of the Respondent have arrested my married life. I pray this Hon’ble Court to seek restitution of my conjugal rights. I am left with no other option but to approach this Hon’ble Court for redressal of my grievances.
IV. CAUSE OF ACTION The cause of action for this Petition arose on ??????, when the respondent left petitioner’s residence to her parental home but never returned thereafter.
V. JURISDICTION
The Petitioner as well as the Respondent were residing at ??????, when the cause of action arose and thus this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try and adjudicate this Petition.
VI. VALUATION
The Petitioner is paying a court fee of Rs. 10/- which is sufficient as per the Act.
VII. PRAYER
It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree and/or order in favor of the Petitioner, as hereunder:
(a) To direct/order the respondent to join the Petitioner at his residence in ?????? so as to enable him to lead the happy married life.
(b) Pass any other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem appropriate in the interest of Justice.
Place: ??????
Date:?????? PETITONER
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
S. No. | DATE | DESCRIPTION |
1 | Wedding invitation held @ ????? | |
2 | FIR Copy filed by the respondent | |
3 | Address proof of last resided place |
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE JUDGE FAMILY COURT
Location (City/Village)
O.P. No: ??????/YEAR
BETWEEN:
Mr. ?????? S/o: ????????
Occ:?????, AGE:??,
R/o: ?????
….Petitioner
….Petitioner
AND:
Mrs. husband surname 498a wife name (aka: inlaws surname 498a wife name)
W/o: ??????
Occ: ?????, AGE:?? ,
R/o:?????
....Respondent
....Respondent
AFFIDAVIT VERIFICATION BY PETITIONER
I, , do hereby state and affirm under oath as follows:
Mr. ?????? S/o: ????????
Occ:?????, AGE:??,
R/o: ?????
1. I am the Deponent herein and as such I am well aware of the facts and circumstance of the case.
2. I submit that I filed the above affidavit against the Respondent for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act.
3. I further submit that the contents of the petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and hence I verify the same to be correct.
Place: ????????
Date:??????? DEPONENT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)