IN THE COURT OF THE LD PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE,

EAST DISTRICT, MAVAL COURTS , PUNE

Divorce Petition Case No…..of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF

Dr.Mohan Yadav Petioner no.1

AND

Mrs.Sangita Petitioner no.2

COURT FEE

UIN No.: DLCT1705A22120189 (Rs.15, fifteen rupees only)

IN THE COURT OF THE LD PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE,

EAST DISTRICT, MAVAL COURTS , PUNE

Divorce Petition Case No…..of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF

Dr.Mohan Yadav Petioner no.1

AND

Mrs.Sangita Petitioner no.2

MEMO OF PARTIES

Dr. Mohan Yadav age 34 years, occupation -

Docter,Petitioner no.1

resident of 100 Kalyan Society ,PUNE 411030

Versus

Mrs.Sangita

age 28 years, occupation Docter, Petitioner no.2

resident of C/o Shri BRIJ Savali Bungalow, Jawahar Road, Gulbarga,
Karnataka

ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONER NO.1

D Raja (D/3218/1999),A Krishna (DI7777/2017), Varsha

Sharma (D/4424/2021)

#12, First Floor, Bhagwan das Nagar, pune- 411030

Ph:9810910345

DATE.

PLACE-PUNE

PETITION FOR DIVORCE UNDER SECTION 13 b(1) OF THE HINDU

MARRIAGE ACT 1955

The petitioner abovenamed most respectfully submits :

1.That the petitioner was married to the respondent at Gul barga on

according to the Hindu religion, vaidic rites and ceremonies.True copy
of identity of petitioner no,1 and true copy o permanent address is
filed herewith as Annexure A3.

2.That the respondent, prior to the marriage, was known by her

maiden name as Miss Mona, while there is no change resulted by the
marriage in the name of the petitioner.
 3.That the petitioner being the ordinary resident of the Pune City
and having habitation at the address given in the title part, after the
said marriage, the respondent accompanied the petitioner to Pune
and started cohabitation .

4.That, however, right from the beginning, the respondent was

reluctant to reside at Pune and not so responsive to cohabit with the
petitioner, and every now and then, on one or the other pretext, she
used to go to the place of her parents and stay there for long
stretches of time. Having come to Pune for the first time, on March
23,2023 the respondent went back to her parental home
immediately march 26,2023 on , and thereafter, she did not turn up
till august 25,2023 , and then also stayed with the petitioner only for
a period of about ten days, and she went back to Gulbarga to her
parents. Thereafter, the respondent did not turn up till , and having
come to Pune on , after song a time, she lived at Pune only upto , and
again, on , she left Pune for her parental home, and, thereafter, she
have never turned up as yet.

5. That during this period, every time, the respondent pleaded

some or the other excuse to go from Pune early and then sent
messages and letters advancing lame excuses for her prolonged
stays at Gulbarga, and, thus, right from the beginning, the
respondent did never realise her marital obligations, nor did she
ever bother to consider the feelings of the petitioner and the
members of his family for the reasons best known to herself.
6. That the petitioner is a young man practising medical profession,
and the very idea of marrying the respondent was that, if both of
them being medical practitioners start a joint practice, they can
do something in life with a greater advantage.

7. That, however, despite all the educational background, the

respondent had been so non-considerate and negligible towards
the planning of the future and establishing a joint practice that
she has done everything to disturb the mental peace and well
being of the petitioner and nothing to plan the future joint life.

8. That the petitioner and the members of his family, despite all
these responsible defects on the part of the respondent and in
the hope that the. respondent by herself or the members of her
family would realise the situation and one day or the other, the
wiser counsel would prevail and she would behave in a more
responsible way and discharge her matrimonial obligations
properly. However, all these hopes proved to be in vain.

9. That the respondent, right from the beginning, appears to have

some plans of harassing the petitioner, and this would be clear
from the letters, which she had written either to this petitioner
or his father, and from these letters, it would appear that though
the petitioner and the members of his family were eager to have
her back and were all along inviting her to be at Pune, the
respondent was under the pretext of innocence and education
 writing such letters and pleading such excuses for her delayed
stays there that from them, the petitioner and the members of
his family became apprehensive about the true intentions of the
respondent, and, hence, the petitioner attempted to persuade
the respondent to resume cohabitation and besides writing
letters had deputed his relations to visit the respondent and her
parents.

10. That accordingly, the petitioner’s paternal uncle and the

petitioner’s mother’s sister’s son, viz. Shri Arya and Romil, and
these relations had gone to the respondent’s father’s house, and
they saw the respondent’s brother and mother. However, though
the respondent was very much present there, she refused to see
these relations, and the mother and the brother did not tell
these relations of the petitioner that nothing could be done by
them in the matter, and they would convey the petitioner’s
message to the respondent, and, thus, in a most indecent
manner, the respondent had sent back the said relations. Yet, the
petitioner did not lose either head or heart, and with a view to
trying again, the respondent deputed the abovementioned two
persons and his brother, Dr. ASP and two others.

That these people visited the place of the respondent's

father.However, they were told that the respondent was out of
station, and the parents and the brother of the respondent were not
in a position either to tell her whereabouts, or the time when she
would be back, and hence, these relations had to come back to Pune.

12.That it is the reliable information of the petitioner that the

respondent lives with her parents only, but the respondent as well as
her parents and brother were playing these tricks and telling lies just
to thwart the sincere attempts of the petitioner for cohabitation.

13.That helpless in the matter, yet sincere in his intentions and

attempts, the petitioner, through his lawyer, sent a notice, on Januar
y 21,2024 to the respondent, a copy whereof was sent to the
respondent under certificate, besides the original being sent by
registered post acknowledgement due. The copies sent under
certificate of posting were duly delivered to the respondent.
However, she had not accepted the notice sent by registered post
acknowledgement due. and accordingly, the envelope was received
back with postal remarks "Addressee out of station", and in the
situation, the said notice was again dispatched in the similar manner
and received back with the similar remarks, and, thus, this is clear
that the respondent having already learnt that the petitioner had
taken the matter seriously and was inclined to take further action, if
the respondent were not to resume cohabitation, the respondent has
evaded the service of the said notice.

14.That the petitioner had all along been very kind, sincere and loving
husband. However,the respondent did not at all respond or
reciprocate these feelings dutifully, and during the total period of
matrimony, the respondent has hardly lived at the petitioner's place
for a period of sixteen days, and since , she has deserted the
petitioner, and hence, this petition.

15.That the petitioner’s father had made for the respondent

ornaments weighing about 65 gms, and the respondent had taken all
these ornaments with herself, and the petitioner learns that
presently she is employed as a doctor drawing a handsome salary,
and the respondent's father and brother are rich people, and
perhaps, it is the wealth and the means available to her that she has
been deserting the petitioner.

16.That the cause of action for the present petition first arose on and,
again, on when the period of two years of desertion was completed,
and, hence, there is no undue delay in the presentation of this
petition.

17.That the parties, after the said marriage, last resided together at
Pune within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Court, and
hence, this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction top try and decide this
petition.

18.That the parties hereto have been residing separately for the last
more than two years, and hence, this petition is maintainable.

19.That this petition being chargeable with a fixed rate of court fee,
the same is paid herewith.
PRAYER

That the petitioner, therefore, prays that -

(a) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent be

dissolved by a decree of divorce;

(b) If the Hon'ble Court were to decline the relief prayed for in
clause (a) above, alternatively, the petitioner prays that a decree for
judicial separation be passed; and

(c) Any other orders in the interest of justice be kindly passed.

Pune,

Sd/-

Dated: PETITIONER

VERIFICATION

I, Dr. Mohan Yadav , the present petitioner, do hereby state on

solemn affirmation that the contents of this petition in paras 1 to 20
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and so I
have signed hereunder.

Sd/-

* Subject to the permission of the Court, as the parties shall not be

allowed to be-
represented by legal practitioners, vide the Family Court Act 1984.