IN THE COURT OF S.D.J.

M UDALA,MAYURBHANJ

I.A No-………………./ 2018

(Arising out of C.M.C No:-89/17)

1) Sudha Sabitri Panda

2) Rani Nanda (Smruti Samparna Nanda)……………………Petetioner .

Vrs.

Nrusingha Narayan Nanda & Others………………….Opposite Parties.

OBJECTION TO PETETION u/s-23 (1) of P.W.D.V. Act BY THE

OPPOSITE PARTIES.

The opposite parties named above most respectfully beg to submit as

follows :-

1. That , the averments made in para-5 by the petetioner is far from truth.
The actual fact is petetioner no-1 with her minor child (petetioner no-2)
and with her all belongings deserted her matrimonial society in the
broad day light without any rhyme or reason on 26. 04 2014 and settled
in her mother’s house at Udala. Her mother is a classical teacher at
Dihirkaul Govt HighSchool.
Page | 1
2. That the petetioner filed this D.V against the opposite parties with
malafied intention to harash the opposite parties and humstrung their
social status in convinience with the perosons backing her .

3. That , after final desertation by the petetioner along with her child
utmost efforts by the opposite parties, relations, friends were taken to
bring them back to her matrimonial society but failed.

4. That, since there was no alternative, the opposite party husband filed a
suit for restitution of conjugal rights in the Hon’ble Court of Civil Judge
( Sr. Division) Udala vide MAT Suit No:-31/2017 which was also failed
after series of concilations by the Learned Court and was closed on
09.12.2017. Even she failed to file her show cause on the main
petetion after consuming a good deal of time, because she had nothing
to defend for her fault regarding her withdrawal from the matrimonial
society without reasonable excuse.

5. That, in the mean time 4 years have been elapsed and now she has
filed this case with ill-motives when the opposite party husband has
already filed Devorce Petetion on 18.12.2017 vide MAT Suit No:-
143/17 for decree of the same in the Honourable Court of Civil Judge
(Sr. Division) Udala which is now subjudiced.

6. That, the “Bar of limitation under section 468 Cr.P.Code if applies

when cognizance of complaint is taken under section 1 of
Domestic Violence Act.- In Shaikh Ishaq v Shayeen Ishaq 2012 Cr
LJ 4518 (Bom), admittedly , a complaint under sec.12 of the Act was

Page | 2
 filed more than three years after the alleged desertation. In the
circumstances it was urged that the procedure for trial would be
governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 and that being so ,
sec.468 of the Code would be a bar in entertaining a complaint in case
it was filed more than three years after accural of cause of action .”

7. That, the averments made by the petetioner regarding job and salary of
the opposite party husband is a big false and fabricated. He is now
total dependent on his ailing father being frustrated since, last four
years although highly educated and talented. He is leading a life of
mendicant. As regrads outcome from cultivable land is not a fact that is
totally barren.

8. That, the averments in Para-06 of the petetion are false submission

through affidavit to draw the sympathy of the Learned Court. The
actual fact is the petetioner is a lecturer in Botany in +2 Science Block
Grant College, Dukura, and getting handsome remeunerations besides
she is also a tutor in different tutorials in and around Udala. She is not
dependent on anybody rather a helping hand to her parental family.

Where as,the opposite party father-in-law only bread earner

of the family who is counting his days out of severe peptic cancer
(Carsinoma) and under intensive treatment round the clock. He is also
scheduled to retire from his job on 28.02.2019 as a Classical Teacher.

Page | 3
9. That, the averments made in para-07 by the petetioner are totally
false,fabricated,afterthoughts,conspiracy with ulterior motives to extract
lump sump cash ,property from the opposite parties.

10. That, in this connection, the opposite parties submit and request the
Honourable Court to persue the WRITTEN SHOWCAUSE and
PETETION FOR NON-MAINTAINABILITY being the part and parcle of
this I.A.

11. That, the petitioner required Rs.20000/ towards litigation expenses

from the opposite parties is baseless submission. There is ample of
provisions to take help from the LEGAL AID AUTHORITY when
someone is incapable to initiate/defend litigation.Being a highly
educated lady she must be aware of the said facilities.

12. That, the opposite parties neither committed any offenece or civil
wrong to be procecuted / proceeded against or subject to pay any
interim, litigation expenses to the petetioners who has filed this
D.V.with ill- motives to harash the opposite parties.

Page | 4
 PRAYER

Hence, it is earnestly prayed that this Honorable Court may

kindly be pleased to reject and dismiss the petition filed by the
petitioner No-01 for Interim maintainance of Rs.7000/ and Rs.3000/ to
petitioner No-02 (who is a non-party to the main suit) Rs.20000/
towards litigation expenses for which act the opposite parties shall
ever pray.

AFFIDAVIT
I, Nrusingha Narayan Nanda,aged about 36 years, S/O. Ranjan Kumar
Nanda of village B.C.Pur , P.O - Athapada / P.S Udala,
Dist.Mayurbhanj, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:-

1. That, I am the opposite party No.1 of this case and looking after the
case on behalf of other opposite parties.
2. That, the statement / facts, made above, are all true and correct.

VERIFICATION

I , Nrusingha Narayan Nanda the deponent, do hereby declare that ,

the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge and belief
and I sign on this, the 12th day of March 2018 being present at Udala
Court premises.

Page | 5