Third True Copy of SLP Civil No. 19073 of 2013 before SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Order XVI Rule 4 (1) (a)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 19073 OF 2013 (Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India arising out of the interim Order dated 29.04.2013 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MAT APPL. No. 7 0f 2012)

with A Prayer for interim relief. IN THE MATTER OF: OM PRAKASH PODDAR … PETITIONER

VERSUS RINA KUMARI …RESPONDENT

I.A. NO. OF 2013

APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON

PAPER BOOK (FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

PETITIONER IN PERSON OM PRAKASH PODDAR

FILING INDEX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION[C] NO. 19073 OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

Om Prakash Poddar …Petitioner

VERSUS

Rina Kumari …Respondent

S.N Particulars Copies Court Fees

1. Memo of Appearance 1 5/-

2. Office Report on Limitation 3+1

3. Listing Performa 3+1

4. Synopsis and list of dates 3+1

5. Impugned Order/Judgment 3+1

6. SLP with Affidavit 3+1 252/-

7. ANNEXURES P-1 to P-22 3+1 44/-

8. With Prayer for Interim relief 3+1 20/-

9. Application for permission to

appear and argue in person

3+1 10/-

10. PFS 10/-

Total 341/-

Petitioner in Person

Filed on: 07.05.2013 Om Prakash Poddar

INDEX

S.N Particulars Page No.

1. Office Report on Limitation ‘A’

2. Listing Performa A1-A5 3.

Synopsis and list of dates B-P

4. Interim Impugned Order dated

29.04.2013 passed by the Hon'ble

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in

MAT.APPL. NO.7 of 2012.

5. Special Leave Petition (C) with

Affidavit.

6. Annexure: P-1 (Colly)

(i) Copy of handicapped

certificate Concession

certificate) dated

04.12.2000 issued by AIIMS,

New Delhi and;

(ii) Translated copy of Cremation

Certificate dated 17.11.2007

of father of the petitioner

Issued by Cremation

Authority, Manihari, Katihar,

Bihar.

7. ANNEXURE: P-2(Colly)

(i). A translated copy of complaint

dated 01.06.2010 in the case No.

9p/2010 u/s 12 of Domestic

Violence Act 2005 filed in the

Begusarai court of Bihar by the

respondent;

(ii). An application for

cancellation of N.B.W. dated

04.04.2011 in the case No. 9p/2010

u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act

2005 filed in the Begusarai court

of Bihar by the petitioner;

(iii). A reply for setting aside order

u/s 18,19,20,21 and 22 in the case

No. 9p/2010 u/s 12 of Domestic

Violence Act 2005 dated 04.04.2011

filed in the Begusarai court of

Bihar by the petitioner.

8. ANNEXURE: P-3

Copy of medical certificate

(Discharge Summary) dated 16.11.2010

Issued by AIIMS, New Delhi of Mother

of the Petitioner.

9. ANNEXURE: P-4

Copy of the police complaint

Dated 30.5.2011 to the Chowki

Incharge, P.P. Dwarka, Sector-10,

Dwarka Court, New Delhi-75.

10. ANNEXURE: P-5

A Copy of Order dated 30.05.2011

passed by the Principal Judge,

Family Court, Dwarka Court, New

Delhi in Suit No. HMA-700/10.

11. ANNEXURE: P-6

A copy of Order dated 06.06.2011




12. ANNEXURE: P-7(colly)

(i) Copy of RTI reply dated 30.08.2011

vide letter No.4941

RTI/FC/DWK/2011 Furnished by the

Office of Principal Judge, Family

Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi;

(ii) Copy of RTI reply dated 30.08.2011

vide letter No.4939

RTI/FC/DWK/2011 Furnished by the

Office of Principal Judge, Family

Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi.

13. Annexure: P-8 (Colly)

(i) Copy of Ex-parte evidence of

Petitioner dated 01.08.2011;

(ii) Evidence of friend of the

petitioner by way of

Affidavit dated 27.08.2011;

(iii) Evidence of mother of the


Affidavit dated 07.09.2011 in

Suit No. HMA-700/10 before

Principal Judge, Family

Court, Dwarka Court, New

Delhi;

(iv) Evidence of sister of the


Affidavit dated 07.09.2011 in

Suit No. HMA-700/10 before

Principal Judge, Family

Court, Dwarka Court, New

Delhi.

14. ANNEXURE: P-9





15. ANNEXURE: P-10

Copies of Judgment dated

16.12.2011 Passed by the Family

court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi in

HMA Case No.678 Of 2010.

16. ANNEXURE: P-11 (Colly)

(i) Copy of receiving of

complaint letter to the

Secretary, DHCLSC dated

07.02.2012;

(ii) Email communication dated

30.01.2012 between Legal Aid

Advocate and the petitioner,

(iii)Email communication dated

31.01.2012 between Legal Aid

Advocate and the petitioner,

(iv)Email communication dated

01.02.2012 wherein Legal Aid

Advocate has admitted the

fact of concealing the

material facts.

(v) Email communication dated

02.02.2012 wherein Legal Aid

Advocate has admitted the

fact of concealing the

material facts.

17. ANNEXURE: P-12


Passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in SLP(Civil) NO.

9854/2012.

18. ANNEXURE: P-13

Copy of complaint letter with

speed post receipt addressed to

the Chairman, Delhi High Court

Legal Service Committee dated

26.04.2012 and delivered on

03.05.2012.

19. ANNEXURE: P-14(Colly)

(i) Copy of RTI reply by PIO,

High Court of Delhi dated

27.08.2012;

(ii) A copy of order of High Court

of Delhi dated 06.07.2012 in

MAT. APP. 7/2012.


(i) Copies of RTI reply by PIO

Delhi State Legal Service

Authority, DSLSA) dated

28.08.2012;

(ii) RTI reply by First Appellate

Authority, DSLSA dated

24.09.2012

(iii)RTI application to the

Second Appellate Authority

(CIC), New

Delhi dated 07.10.2012 vide

diary no. 180751 dated

16.11.2012.

21. ANNEXURE: P-16

A copy of order of High Court of

Delhi dated 18.10.2012 in MAT.

APP. 7/2012.

22. ANNEXURE: P-17

A copy of order of High Court of

Delhi dated 06.11.2012 in MAT.

APP. 7/2012.

23. ANNEXURE: P-18

A copy of order of High Court of Delhi

dated 07.12.2012 in MAT. APP. 7/2012.


(i) Copies of police complaint

made by the petitioner to the

Superintendent of Police

(SP), katihar, Bihar dated

31.12.2012 against the police

atrocities through email;

(ii) Copies of police

Complaint made by the

petitioner to the





(iii)Copies of police complaint






(iv)Copies of police complaint






(v) Copies of police complaint





atrocities through email.

25. ANNEXURE: P-20

Copies of complaint to the

President of India helpline vide

Grievance Registration No.

PRSEC/E/2013/01857 dated

28.01.2013.

26. ANNEXURE: P-21


Passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in SLP(Civil) NO.

9483/2013.

27. ANNEXURE: P-22

A copy of application C.M. APPL

NO. 6714/2013 dated 29.04.2013 for

early hearing with receipt of

delivery report of notice of

motion dated 29.04.2013 to the

respondent filed in the Delhi High

Court.

28. Application for seeking permission

to appear and Argue the special leave

Petition in person.

‘A’


CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF :

OM PRAKASH PODDAR … PETITIONER

VERSUS

RINA KUMARI …RESPONDENT

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is/are within time.

2. The petitioner is barred by time and there is

delay of days in filing the same against order

dt. and petition for condonation of days

delay had been filed.

3. There is delay of days in refilling the

petition and petition for condonation of

days delay in refilling has been filed.

New Delhi.

Dated. . .2013.

BRANCH OFFICER.

LISTING PERFORMA


1. Nature of the Matter ………CIVIL ………………………………………

2. Name(s) of Petitioner(s) OM PRAKASH PODDAR

2-a Email I.D. [email protected]

3. Name(s) of Respondent(s): RINA KUMARI

3-a Email I.D. Not know.

4. Number of the case S.L.P.(C) No. of 2013.

5. Advocate for Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)


5-a Email I.D. [email protected]

6. Advocate for Respondent(s)…

6-a Email I.D. Not know.

7. Section …………XIV………………………………………………………………….

8. Date of the impugned order…29.04.2013…………………….

8A. Name of Hon’ble Judge Hon’ble Justice Pradeep

Nandra Jog and Justice V Kameswar Rao

8B. In Land Acquisition Matters:-

(i) Notification /Govt. Order No.(u/s 4, 6)

……N.A.…………………………………………….

Dated ……N.A.……………. issued by Centre/ State

of……N.A.………

(ii)Exact purpose of acquisition & village involve

……………N.A.…………………………….

8C. In Civil Matters:-

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

(i) Suit No., Name of Lower Court HMA No.678/2010

Family Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi

Date of Judgment……………16.12.2011.………………………………………

8D. In Writ Petition:-

“Catchword” of other similar matters- ……………N.A.…………

8E.

.

In the case of Motor Vehicle Accident Matters:

Vehicle No …………………………………N.A.……………………………………………...

8F In Service Matters

(i) Relevant service rule, if any ………………N.A.……………

(ii) G.O./Circular /Notification, if applicable or

in question …………N.A. ……………...

8G. In Labour Industrial Disputes Matters:

I.D. Reference /Award No., If applicable

………………N.A.………………………………

9. Nature of Urgency…………… Interim relief has been

prayed for ………………………………

10. In case it is a Tax Matter:

(a) Tax amount involved in the matter………N.A. ………

(b)Whether a reference statement of the case was

called for or rejected…NA..……….

(c) Whether similar tax matters of same parties

filed earlier (may be for earlier/other Assessment

year)? ………………N.A. …………………………………………………

(d) Exemption Notification /Circular No. ……N.A.……

11. Valuation of the matter ………N.A.……………………………………………

12. Classification of the matter:

(Please fill up the number & name of relevant

category with sub category as per list circulated.)

No. of Subject Category with full name….. 16

Family Law Matters

No. of sub- Category with full name. 1607

Matters under Hindu Marriage Act

13. Title of the Act Involved (Center/State): Center

14. (a)Sub-classification (indicate Section/Article of

the statute) Hindu Marriage Act 1955

(b) Sub-section involved: 13(1)(ia)

(c) Title of the Rules involved (Center/State)……

State……

(d) Sub-classification (Indicate Rule/Sub-Rule of

the statute) .DO

15. Point of law and question of law raised in the case

: Whether the High Court delayed to struck down

the earlier judgment and order given by the above

said Trial court?

16. Whether matter is not to be listed before any

Hon’ble Judge?

Mention the name of the Hon’ble Judge ……N.A.

……………………………..

17. Particulars of identical/similar cases, if any

(a)Pending cases…………N.A.………………………………………....

(b)Decided cases with citation ……………N.A.……………………

17A

.

Was S.L.P. /Appeal /Writ filed against same

impugned Judgment /Order earlier? If yes,

Particulars ……………………N.A. ………………………………………………………

18. Whether the petition is against interlocutory/final

order/decree in the case…interlocutory order

19. If it is a fresh matter, please state the name of

the High Court and the Coram in the Impugned

Judgment/Order …High Court of Delhi, New Delhi in

the court of Hon’ble Justice Pradeep Nandra Jog and

Justice V Kameswar Rao

20. If the matter was already listed in the Court:

a) When was is listed? N.A.

b) What was the Coram? N.A.

c) What is the direction of the Court. N.A.

21. Whether a date was has already been fixed either by

Court or on being mention, for the hearing of

matter? If so, please indicate the date fixed

……N.A.…………………………………….

22. Is there a Caveator? If so, whether a notice has

been issued to him?…N.A.………………….

23. Whether date entered in the Computer?

………NA..………………………………………...

24. If it is a criminal matter, please state:

(a) Whether accused has surrendered …………N.A.…………………

(b) Nature of Offence, i.e., Convicted under

Section with Act …………N.A.……………

(c) Sentence awarded ………N.A.…………………………………………………………

(d)Sentence already undergone by the

accused……N.A.…………

24 (e) (i) FIR /RC/etc …N.A……………

Date of Registration of FIR etc. N/A

Name & place of the Police Station.. NA.

(ii) Name & Place of Trial Court Learned Session

Judge. ….NA

(iii)Case No. in Trial Court and Date of

Judgement……..NA

(iv) Name & Place of 1st Appellate Court…NA

Case No. in 1st Appellate Court & date of

Judgement…….NA

[OM PRAKASH PODDAR]


Dt.07.05.2013.

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

The Petitioner is filing the present

special leave petition against the interim

impugned order dated 29.04.2013 passed by

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

in Mat Appeal No. 7 0f 2012 whereby and

where the Hon’ble High Court has directly

refused to entertain the prayer for early

hearing of the appeal at this stage as it

was admitted only on January 22, 2013

without considering that the real issue

involved in this case for consideration of

life and liberty of the petitioner at

stake which has resulted in failure of

justice.

24.6.2004 Marriage between the Petitioner and

the respondent was solemnized on

24.6.2004 at (Katihar), Bihar with

misrepresentation of bride and

forcibly under life threat at gun

point. There after the Petitioner has

been kept under force by the

Respondent’s family and the associates

till date. Force never ceased to

operate.

15.4.2005 Father of the Respondent came and took

the Respondent along with her to his

Government residence at Dhanbad

(Bihar), now in Jharkhand and never

came back to the matrimonial home.

15.11.2007 Petitioner has lost his handicapped

father due to lack of care and support

and persistent threatening from the

Respondent and her family, who was

undergoing treatment at AIIMS and died

on 15.11.2007. Petitioner has now

reduced to two member family. The

Respondent and his family did not even

visit and participate in the last

rituals of the Petitioner’s father.

Copy of handicapped certificate and

cremation certificate of father of the

petitioner dated 04.12.2000 and

17.11.2007 respectively are annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure: P-1

(Colly) (pages to ).

30.03. 2010 Respondent with mal intention and to

harass and humiliate the Petitioner

has filed a false and frivolous case

against the Petitioner and his mother.

Respondent has filed an application

under section 12 of Domestic Violence

Act, 2005, vide case no. 9P/2010

before Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Begusarai on 31st March 2010 later

forwarded in the court of First Class

Judicial Magistrate, Mr. Atul Kumar

Pathak, Begusarai Court, Bihar on

07.04.2010. A translated copy of

complaint dated 01.06.2010 in the case

No. 9p/2010 by the respondent and

application for cancellation of N.B.W.

dated 04.04.2011 and reply for setting

aside order u/s 18,19,20,21 and 22

dated 04.04.2011 by the petitioner are

annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure: P-2 (Colly) (pages to ).

25.10.2010 Petitioner filed a petition U/s 13 (1)

(ia) of the HMA, 1955 vide H.M.A Case

No. 700 of 2010 seeking a decree of

divorce before the court of Ld.

Principal Judge Family Courts, Dwarka,

Delhi without the knowledge of mal

intention of Respondent. Petitioner

has come to know about the

respondent’s mal intention on the date

of hearing of HMA suit no. 700/2010 on

9/02/2011

16.11.2010 Mother of the Petitioner suffered with

severe Asthma stroke and needed ICU

health care. Mother who is chronic

asthmatic, COAD and surviving on only

43% of oxygen and rest 47% is C02 in

her blood, as per ABG report. At the

same time she is thyroid patient. She

has been advised to keep on home

oxygen. Petitioner has to render all

domestic help 24x7 to his mother.

Copy of medical certificate of mother

of the Petitioner dated 16.11.2010 is

attached herewith and marked as

Annexure: P-3 (pages to ).

30.5.2011 Petitioner was stopped and beaten by

the goons of the Respondent family at

the entry gate of Trial Court on

30.5.2011. Copy of the police

complaint dated 30.5.2011 made by the

Petitioner in this regard is annexed


(pages to ).

30.05.2011 On the same date Ms Deepa Sharma,

Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka

Court, New Delhi stopped the whole

court proceedings and did not sit and

chair any of the cases, in turn, the

order sheet being generated alleging

the petitioner for requesting for

adjournment of the court proceedings.

A Copy of Order dated 30.05.2011 is



06.06.2011 As a result of that the Respondent was

being Ex-parte on 06.06.2011 by the

Principal Judge, Ms Deepa Sharma. A

copy of Order dated 06.06.2011 is



25.07.2011 Petitioner has filed three RTIs and

two appeals (which are pending before

Ms. Poonam A. Bamba’s court, Rohini

court, Delhi) against the

unconstitutional and undemocratic act

of Principal Judge, Ms Deepa Sharma.

Copy of unsatisfactory RTI reply

furnished by the O/o Principal Judge

Family Court on 30.08.2011 filed by

the Petitioner on 25.07.2011 in this

regard is annexed herewith and marked

as Annexure: P-7 (colly) (pages to

).

01.08.2011 That during the course of proceedings,

Petitioner led his Evidence by way of

Affidavit on 01.08.2011. Petitioner in

order to strengthen his case also led

the evidence of his Mother – Asha

Devi, Sister- Sneh Lata and Friend –

Digvijay Singh on 27.08.2011 and

07.09.2011. Copy of Ex-parte evidence

of Petitioner dated 01.08.2011,

Evidence by way of Affidavit dated

27.08.2011 and 07.09.2011 are attached


(Colly) (pages to ).

07.09.2011 That 07.09.2011 was fixed for coming

up for ex-parte evidence. However,

Principal Judge refused to tender ex-

parte evidence and chose to transfer

the case to Mr. Deepak Jagotra’s

Family court in Dwarka. Thus, the Case

was transferred to the court of Mr.

Deepak Jagotra, Judge Family Courts,

Dwarka, Delhi and was renumbered as

H.M.A Case No. 678 of 2010. A Copy of

Order dated 07.09.2011 is attached


(pages to ).

16.12.2011 That the court of Mr. Deepak Jagotra,

Judge Family Courts, Dwarka, Delhi in

H.M.A Case No. 678 of 2010 vide its

Order erred in holding that the

Petitioner has failed to show even a

single incident of alleged cruelty

caused by the Respondent, Although

Petitioner had produced four witnesses

but Petitioner’s witnesses were being

negated on the ground of “identical

statement”. Further, his witnesses

were being falsified and blamed no

legs to stand and thus baseless and he

has made up ground for the sake of

making out a case against the

Respondent, however, passed a decree

of Judicial separation on the ground

of desertion by the Respondent. Copies

of judgment dated 16.12.2011 passed in

HMA Case No. 678 of 2010 is annexed


(pages to ).

05.01.2012 That the Petitioner approached the

Delhi High Court Legal Service

Committee to file an appeal.

07.02.2012 That the Legal Aid counsel filed an

appeal concealing the material facts

of Judicial nexus with the respondent

and abuse of Trial court process

without the consent of Petitioner.

Copy of receiving of complaint letter

to the Secretary, DHCLSC dated

07.02.2012 with email communication

dated 30.01.2012, 31.01.2012,

01.02.2012 and 02.02.2012 wherein

Legal Aid Advocate has admitted the

fact of concealing the material facts

are annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure: P-11 (Colly) (pages To ).

08.02.2012 That the court of Hon’ble Justice

Veena Birbal of Hon’ble Delhi High

Court in Mat Appeal case No. 7 of 2012

vide its order given a long date after

5 months as the next date of hearing

on 06.07.2012 without considering the

eight year long criminal conspiracy by

the respondent and her associates

which has resulted in untimely death

of the handicapped father of the

Petitioner further which may result in

untimely death of the bedridden mother

of the Petitioner and subsequently

abuse of Trial court process which has

resulted in failure of justice.

02.03.2012 Hence the Special Leave to appeal

(Civil) No.9854/2012 with

application for and prayer for interim

relief has been filed by the

petitioner on 02.03.2012.

23.04.2012 The Special Leave to appeal(Civil) NO.

9854/2012 has been dismissed on the

ground of interim order of the High

Court. A Copy of Order dated

23.04.2012 is attached herewith and

marked as Annexure: P-12 (pages to

).

26.04.2012 A complaint against Secretary, Delhi

High Court Legal Service Committee

(DHCLSC) has been filed to the

Chairman, Delhi High Court Legal

Service Committee (DHCLSC) for

allowing its Legal Aid Advocate to

institute a concealed petition before

Delhi High Court even after a

complaint against legal Aid Advocate

to the Secretary on 07.02.2012. Copy

of complaint letter with speed post

receipt addressed to the Chairman,

DHCLSC dated 26.04.2012 and delivered

on 03.05.2012 are annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure: P-13 (pages To

).

06.07.2012 Legal Aid Advocate, DHCLSC, Mr. Jai

Bansal has moved an adjournment slip

on behalf of the petitioner without

the knowledge of petitioner.

Petitioner was present in person but

the Justice did not hear the plea for

final order and court being adjourned.

Petitioner has filed RTI against this

act on 12.07.2012. RTI reply by PIO,

Delhi High Court dated 27.08.2012 and

a copy of order dated 06.07.2012 are

annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure: P-14 (Colly) (pages To ).

28.08.2012 An unsatisfactory RTI reply has been

furnished by the PIO, Delhi State

Legal Service Authority (DSLSA). First

Appellate Authority, DSLSA has further

dismissed the appeal on 17.09.2012.

Second appeal dated 07.10.2012 to the

second Appellate Authority is pending

before the Chief Information

Commissioner(CIC), New Delhi vide

diary no.180751 dated 16.11.2012.

Copies of RTI reply by PIO DSLSA dated

28.08.2012, RTI reply by First

Appellate Authority, DSLSA dated

24.09.2012 and RTI application to the

Second Appellate Authority dated

07.10.2012 are annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure: P-15 (colly)

(pages To ).

18.10.2012 Petitioner has been shown present in

person on 18.10.2012 in the order

sheet of 18.10.2012, while the

petitioner was in Bihar on that date

of hearing. Justice Ms Veena Birbal

finally discovered after 1 year that

this appeal has to be heard by the

Division bench of this court. Subject

to order of the Chief Justice, list

the present appeal before the Division

Bench. A copy of order dated

18.10.2012 is annexed herewith and


).

06.11.2012 Adverse orders are deferred by the

Division bench as Legal Aid Advocate

appeared and informed the Bench that

legal aid to the petitioner has been

withdrawn in view of the undesirable

conduct of the petitioner without any

prior notice/information to the

petitioner. Bench directed the

petitioner to make an alternative

arrangement. A copy of order dated

06.11.2012 is annexed herewith and


).

07.12.2012 Petitioner has filed two applications

to appear and argue in person and

another application for placing

additional documents on record

disclosing the concealed materials by

the legal aid advocate to present the

complete dimensions of the case.

However, division bench dismissed and

declined to entertain this MAT.APP.

7/2012 Page 1 of 2 applications on the

ground of unnecessary imputations have

been made by the petitioner and it

must be the conduct of the petitioner

which has led to legal aid being

withdrawn to the petitioner. A copy of

order dated 07.12.2012 is annexed


(pages To ).

31.12.2012 Unnecessary mental harassment and

police atrocities have been inflicted

by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

(DSP), Barsoi, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan and

DSP Katihar, Mr. Jugal Kishore Sinha,

Bihar. Copies of police complaint made

by the petitioner to the

Superintendent of Police (SP),

katihar, Bihar dated 31.12.2012,

29.09.2011, 03.08.2011, 16.07.2011 and

07.04.2011 in this regard are annexed


(colly) (pages To ).

22.01.2013 Order dated 22.01.2013 of the Hon’ble

High Court of Delhi has directed to

admit and list the aforesaid petition

in due course without specifying the

time limit and without considering

that the real issue involved in this

case for consideration of life and

liberty of the petitioner at stake

which has resulted in failure of

justice.

28.01.2013 Petitioner has approached the

President of India helpline against

the order dated 22.01.2013 vide

Grievance Registration No.

PRSEC/E/2013/01857 dated 28.01.2013.

Copies of complaint to the President

of India helpline vide Grievance

Registration No. PRSEC/E/2013/01857

dated 28.01.2013 are annexed herewith

and marked as Annexure: P-20 (pages

To ).

01.04.2013 The Special Leave to appeal(Civil) NO.

9483/2013 has been dismissed on the

ground of the indirect refusal to

entertain his prayer for early hearing

of the appeal is thoroughly

misconceived by the petitioner. A

Copy of Order dated 01.04.2013 is



22.04.2013 The application C.M. APPL.

No.6714/2013 for early hearing of

appeal has been dismissed by the Delhi

High Court on the ground of “No early

hearing at this stage.” Notice of

motion for early hearing has been

delivered to the respondent on

29.04.2013. A copy of application

dated 29.04.2013 for early hearing

with receipt of delivery report of

notice of motion dated 29.04.2013 to

the respondent is attached as

Annexure: P-22 (Pages to ).

29.04.2013 Application for early hearing in MAT.

APP. 7 OF 2012 is being dismissed by

the Delhi High Court on the ground

that the appeal was admitted on

January, 22, 2013 only.

07.05.2013 Hence the Special Leave Petition.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

MAT.APP. 7/2012

OM PRAKASH PODDAR ..... Appellant

Represented by: None.

versus

RINA KUMARI ..... Respondent

Represented by: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

O R D E R

29.04.2013

CM No.6714/2013

The matrimonial appeal pertains to the year 2012. It

was admitted only on January 22, 2013. Early hearing

cannot be granted at this stage.

The application is accordingly dismissed.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

APRIL 29, 2013

skb

$ 1,2 and 3

F O R M – 28


(Order XVI Rule 4(1) (a)

CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

S.L.P. (Civil) No. 19073 of 2013

POSITION OF THE PARITES

BEFORE THE HIGH COURT BEFORE THIS COURT

BETWEEN

Om Prakash Poddar

S/o Late D.N Poddar,

R/o RZF – 893, Netaji Subhas Marg

Raj Nagar – II, Palam Colony

New Delhi - 110077

PETITIONER

VERSUES

Rina Kumari

D/o Surendra Narayan Poddar,

RC, Marketing Division,

Indian Oil Corporation,

Barauni Refinery,

P.S. Barauni,

Distt: Begusarai, Bihar RESPONDENT

To

Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India

and His Companion Judges of the

Supreme Court of India.

The Special Leave Petition of the

Petitioner most respectfully showeth :-

1. The petitioner is filing the present

special leave petition against the interim

impugned order dated 29.04.2013 passed by

the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New

Delhi in Matt App. No. 7 0f 2012 whereby

and where the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

has directly refused to entertain the

prayer for early hearing of the appeal at

this stage as it was admitted only on

January 22, 2013 without considering that

the real issue involved in this case for

consideration of life and liberty of the

petitioner at stake which has resulted in

failure of justice.

2. QUESTION OF LAW:

The following questions of the law arise

for consideration by this Hon'ble Court :

i. Whether the direct refusal by the

Delhi High Court to entertain prayer

for early hearing of appeal is

thoroughly well conceived by the

petitioner and against the expressed

view passed by this Hon’ble court in

SLP(C) No.9483/2013 resulted in

failure of justice.

ii. Whether the dismissal of two SLP(C)

No.9854/2012 and SLP(C) No.9483/2013

has encouraging effect on ignoring the

gravity and seriousness of the appeal

and unnecessarily protracting the

litigation by the Delhi High Court

resulted in miscarriage of justice.

iii. Whether the courts have committed

patient in not adhereing the time

limit as laid down by this Hon’ble

court in the case V. Bhagat Vs D.

Bhagat (Mrs.) reported in (1994) 1 SCC

337 resulted in miscarriage of

justice.

iv. Whether the courts are unnecessarily

protracting the ex parte matter which

is pending since 2012 for correction

of section and has been seen by as

many as three learned judges of this

Hon’ble court, five learned judges of

the High Court and two learned judges

of the Trial court.

v. Whether the consideration for

disclosure of all the issues concealed

by the Legal Aid, Delhi High Court

Legal Service Committee is obligatory

to the litigants.

vi. Whether withdrawing legal Aid by the


Committee without any prior notice and

information to the petitioner

infringing the fundamental right of

the petitioner.

vii. Whether filing a Mat appeal concealing

the material facts by the legal Aid,


Committee amounts to abuse of court

process as laid down by this Hon’ble

court in the case of prestige Lights

Ltd vs State Bank of India (SBI).

Reported in 2007 SC.

viii. Whether moving adjournment slip on

behalf of the petitioner without the

consent and intimation to the

petitioner by the Delhi High Court

Legal Service Committee is illegal.

ix. Whether the petition filed u/s 13

(1)(ia) of HMA, 1955 for decree of

divorce and Judgment passed a decree

of judicial separation u/s 10 of HMA

1955 without the consent of Petitioner

while the respondent was ex parte is

bad in the eyes of law and resulted in

miscarriage of justice.

x. Whether the Trial court has committed

a grave error by stopping the whole

court proceeding to terrorize the mind

of the Petitioner and in turn

generating a false order sheet

alleging the Petitioner for requesting

for adjournment of the court

proceedings amounting to the

unconstitutional and undemocratic act

of Principal Judge, Ms Deepa Sharma of

Trial court.

xi. Whether stopping and beating the

Petitioner at the entry gate of trial

court by the goons of respondent is

unlawful and indicator of mafia state.

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2)

The petitioner states that no other

petition seeking leave to appeal has been

filed by him against the interim impugned

judgment and order dated 29.04.2013 passed

by the Hon’ble High court of Delhi at New

Delhi in MAT. APPL. Petition No. 7 of

2012.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6

The annexures P-1 to P-22 produced along

with the SLP are true copies of the

pleadings/documents which formed part of

the records of the case in the

Court/Tribunal below against whose order

the leave to appeal is sought for in this

petition.

5. GROUNDS

Leave to appeal is sought for on the

following grounds.

i. Because the petition for divorce is

pending over the last 4 years. The

respondent has indulged in delaying

tactics to protract the litigation.

The repeated dismissal of SLP by this

Hon’ble court has encouraged the

morale of the respondent to keep the

matter at the Trial stage.

ii. Because the petitioner is reeling

under criminal conspiracy since 10

years. Out of 10 years, 6 years from

2004 to 2009 was looming under Mafia

threat and saving the life of his

handicapped father. Another 4 years

from 2010 to 2013 in litigations and

saving the life of his bedridden

mother.10 years have passed by and in

spite of repeated SLP, even the final

hearing is not yet over. The

petitioner is now 40 plus year old and

heading towards cancer and multiple

health problems. He may not live more

than 10 to 15 years under this facts

and circumstances of the case.

iii. Because the petition is fulfilling two

grounds out of five grounds of divorce

available in India i.e. desertion and

cruelty.

iv. Because the marriage between the

petitioner and the respondent has

broken down irretrievably. Any attempt

towards restoration will escalate the

tension and endanger the life of the

petitioner and his bedridden mother.

v. Because the hatred amongst the

petitioner and the respondent families

have widely engulfed over the last 10

years.

vi. Because this case involves two states

jurisdictions and ultimate solutions

lies in this Hon’ble court’s

jurisdictions.

vii. Because the petitioner has left with

no hopes and trust on Delhi High court

under this facts and circumstances of

this case.

viii. Because the Hon’ble High Court has

wrongly held in the order dated

07.12.2012 vide CM NO.20464/2012 that

the petitioner has made unnecessary

imputations in this application and it

must be the conduct of the petitioner

which has led to legal aid being

withdrawn to the petitioner.

ix. Because the Hon’ble High court has

failed to adhere the time limit as

laid down by this Hon’ble court

mentioned supra resulting of

miscarriage of justice and causing

irreparable loss and injury.

x. Because the judgment dated 16.12.2011

passed by the court of Mr. Deepak

Jagotra, Judge Family Courts, Dwarka,

Delhi in H.M.A Case No. 678/2010 is

bad in the eyes of law and hence the

same is liable to be struck down by

the Hon’ble High Court.

xi. Because the Respondent was Ex-parte in

H.M.A Case No. 678/2010, yet the

judgment passed in favour of

Respondent.

xii. Because the crux of the whole episode

is based on two pillars i.e.

Forced/Fraudulent Marriage and

Criminal conspiracy.

xiii. Because the marriage between the

Petitioner and the respondent was

solemnized on 24.6.2004 at (Katihar),

Bihar with misrepresentation of bride

and forcibly under life threat at gun

point.

xiv. Because the Father of the Respondent

came and took the Respondent along

with him to his Government residence

at Dhanbad(Bihar) on 15.04.2005 now in

Jharkhand. Respondent never came back

to the matrimonial home.

xv. Because the Petitioner has been kept

under force by the Respondent’s family

and the associates till date. Force

never ceased to operate.

xvi. Because the Petitioner has lost his

handicapped father due to lack of care

and support and persistent threatening

from the Respondent and her family,

who was undergoing treatment at AIIMS

and died on 15.11.2007. Petitioner has

now reduced to two member family. The

Respondent and his family did not even

visit and participate in the last

rituals of the Petitioner’s father.

xvii. Because there is an ill motive and a

well planned criminal conspiracy of

respondent family to kill Petitioner’s

last member of the family i.e. ailing

mother who is completely bedridden and

undergoing treatment with AIIMS in the

similar fashion as they had killed his

handicapped father. Mother who is

chronic asthmatic, COAD and surviving

on only 43% of oxygen and rest 47% is

C02 in her blood, as per ABG report.

At the same time she is thyroid

patient. She has been advised to keep

on home oxygen. Petitioner has to

render all domestic help 24x7 to his

mother.

xviii. Because the Respondent and her

associates have kept the Petitioner

unmarried and unemployed at the age of

40. They have virtually finished his

everything and kept him in captive

since 10 years. Petitioner and his

ailing mother are reeling under

traumatic situation with acute

depression and anxiety. Petitioner

house has been turned into symmetry

ground. The concept of Family has been

assailed. The institution of marriage

has been abused.

xix. Because the Trial Court below

committed a grave error in holding

that the Petitioner has failed to show

even a single incident of alleged

cruelty caused by the Respondent when

in view of the facts and circumstances

of the case and the evidence adduced

clearly shows the brutal, unacceptable

and unchanging acts and behaviors of

the Respondent and the threats and

acts amounting to mental cruelty

against the Petitioner and his family

members which has made it impossible

for the Petitioner to live with the

Respondent.

xx. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to

consider that it is a settled legal

position that there cannot be

condonation if the offending spouse

continues to indulge in the commission

of further acts of cruelty either

physical or mental.

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

a) Because the matter is an unusual dispute

as considered in the case of V. Bhagat

Vs D. Bhagat (Mrs.) reported in (1994) 1

SCC 337.

b) Because there is an irretrievable

breakdown of marriage as exercised the

powers under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India by this Hon’ble

court in the case of Romesh Chander V.

Savitri (1995) 2 SCC 7).

c) Because the case fulfills two grounds of

divorce i.e. desertions (total

separation since 9 years) and cruelty

out of five grounds available in India.

d) Because the respondent and the

associates have issued Non Bail able

Warrant (NBW) without the knowledge of

the petitioner while he was residing in

Delhi through SP, Begusarai, in

frivolous litigation in case No. 9p/2010

u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act 2005

against the petitioner and his ailing

mother in Bihar in 2010 just as a part

of well-designed criminal conspiracy to

kidnap and kill the petitioner in the

court premises. The application for

cancellation of NBW and reply of the

complaint u/s 12 of D.V. Act 2005 has

been filed by the petitioner in case No.

9p/2010 at Begusarai court of Bihar.

e) Because the Judicial separation u/s 10

of H.M.A has been imposed by the Trial

court without the consent of the

petitioner while the application was

moved u/s 13 (1)(ia) of H.M.A and the

respondent was ex parte.

f) Because the High Court instead of

correcting the section upheld the

Judgment of Trial court indirectly and

protracted the litigation indefinitely.

g) Because the dismissal of two SLP by this

Hon’ble court has encouraged the morale

of the respondent and the associates to

crush the petitioner to death.

h) Because the case involves two states

jurisdictions i.e Bihar and Delhi

therefore the ultimate solution lying in

the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Apex

court.

i) Because the respondent is ex parte and

never ever appeared before the High

Court and the Trial Court except once on

09.02.2011 at the Trail court only.

Notice has been served and service

affidavit with proof of delivery receipt

has been put on record on 22.01.2013

vide diary no. 2376.

j) Because the life and liberty of the

petitioner and his mother are at stake

as the petitioner was looming under

Mafia threat for 6 years and another 4

years in litigations.

k) Because there is a loss of hope and

trust on Delhi High Court under this

facts and circumstance of the case.

l) Because the head of the family has

already been crushed to death by the

respondent and the associates.

m) Because another head of the family is on

death bed.

n) Because the petitioner is alone and has

absolutely been crushed since 10 years

and he does not have left with strength

to fight back with Mafia and Government

Machinery any more.

o) Because the petitioner is not in a

“state of mind” to earn his livelihood

under these facts and circumstances of

the case.

p) Because the petitioner does not have any

options but to end his life under these

above elicited facts and circumstances.

7. MAIN PRAYER :

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed

that this Hon'ble court may please to:-

i. Grant Special Leave to Appeal against

the interim impugned order dated

29.04.2013 passed by the Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Mat.

Appl. No. 7 0f 2012.

ii. Pass any other further

orders/directions, which this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the

facts and circumstances of the case

against the Respondent and in favor of

the Petitioner.

8. INTERIM RELIEF:

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed

that this Hon'ble court may please to:-

a) Set aside the interim impugned order

dated 29.04.2013 passed by the Hon’ble High

Court in Mat. Appl. No. 7 of 2012 and kindly

grant relief to the Petitioner and allow the

Mat. Appl. 7 of 2012 pending in the Delhi

High Court to withdraw to the file of this

court as granted in the case of V. Bhagat Vs

D. Bhagat (Mrs.) reported in (1994) 1 SCC

337 and allow the petitioner the rest of his

life to live as the best part of his

productive life has been consumed by the

rancour and litigations and yet the end is

not in sight and end the justice as the

ultimate solutions of this nature of unusual

dispute lies in this Hon’ble Apex court

only.

DRAWN & FILED BY:

PETITIONER IN PERSON

OM PRAKASH PODDAR

NEW DELHI:

FILED ON : 07.05.2013.

Settled by: Petitioner



SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)NO. OF 2013.

IN THE MATTER OF:


VERSUS

RINA KUMARI …RESPONDENTS

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is

confined only to the pleadings before the

Court/Tribunal whose order is challenged and the

other documents relied upon in those proceedings.

No additional facts, documents or grounds have been

taken therein or relied upon in the Special Leave

Petition. It is further certified that the copies

of Annexures to the Special Leave Petition are

necessary to answer the question of law raised in

the Special Leave Petition or to make out grounds

urged in the Special Leave Petition for

consideration of this Hon'ble Court. This

certificate is given by the Petitioner whose

affidavit is filed in support of the Special Leave

Petition.

(OM PRAKASH PODDAR)


FILED ON: 07.05.2013.



SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION[C] NO 19073 OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

Om Prakash Poddar …Petitioner

VERSUS

RINA Kumari …Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I, Om Prakash Poddar S/o Late D. N. Poddar, aged 40

years, R/o RZF/893, NetaJi Subash Marg, Raj Nagar

Part-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi - 77, do hereby

solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:-

1. That I am the Petitioner in the above matter

and well conversant with the facts of the case

as such competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the contents of the accompanying Special

Leave Petition [para 1 to 8.], [Page to ] and

List of Dates (Page B to P’], and I, As. and

application for seeking permission to appear

and arguing in-person having understood the

contents thereof I say that the facts state

therein are correct which are based on the

official record.

3. That the Special Leave Petition Paper Book

contains total 171 pages.’

4. That the annexures are true copies of their

respective originals.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

I, the above-named deponent do hereby verify that

the facts stated in the above affidavit are true to

my knowledge and belief. No part of the same is

false and nothing material has been concealed

therefrom.

Verified at New Delhi on this the 7th day of May,

2013.

DEPONENT

ANNEXURE P-1 (colly)

CONECESSION CERTIFICATE Appendix No.1/36

Form for the purpose of grant of rail concession

to orthopedically Handicapped/Paraplegic/persons/

Patients to be used by the Government Doctor.

That shri Mr. D.N.Poddar 10537/2000 whose

particulars are mentioned below is bonafide

Orthopedically Handicapped/Paraplegic

person/patient and CANNOT TRAVEL WITHOUT THE

ASSISTANCE OF AN ESCORT.

Particulars of the Orthopedically

Handicapped/Paraplegic person/patient:

(a) Address.. Sonaili, Katihar, Bihar

(b) Father’s/Husband’s Name.. Late G. Poddar

(c) Age.. 67 (d) Sex.. M

(e) Nature of Handicap (To be written by Doctor

whether the disability is Temporary or

permanent).. Permanent

(f) Cause of loss of functional capacity.. Left

above knee amputation

(g) Signature or Thumb impression of

Orthopaedically handicapped/paraplegic

person/patient: (not necessary for those whose both

hands are missing or non functional)

Deep Narayan Poddar

(Signature of Government Doctor)

Place……..AIIMS, New Delhi

Date…..4/12/2000

Clear seal of Government

Hospital Clinic

Strike out where not applicable

Note: (1) The certificate should be issued only to

those Orthopaedically Handicapped/Paraplegic

person/patients WHO CANNOT TRAVEL WITHOUT THE

ASSISTANCE OF AN ESCORT. The photo must be signed

and stamped in such a way that Doctor’s signature

and stamp appears partly on the photo and partly on

the certificate.

(2) In case of temporary disability, the

certificate will be valid for five years from the

date of issue. In the case of permanent disability

the certificate will remain valid for (1) Five

years, in case of person up to the age of 25 years,

(2) Ten years, in case of person in the age of 26

to 35 years (3) In case of persons above the age 35

years the certificate will remain valid for whole

life of the concerned person. After expiry of the

period of validity of the certificate, the person

is required to obtain a fresh certificate. A

Photostat copy of the certificate is accepted for

the purpose of grant of concession. The original

certificate will have to be produced for inspection

at the time of purchase of concession ticket and

during the journey. If demanded

(3) No alteration in the form is permitted.

Printed by: DASS OPTICIANS)4, Kalkaji, New Delhi-19

DASS HEARING AID CENTRE Tel:6439423,6231423

CREMATION CERTIFICATE

I certify that the name of dead body Deep Narayan

Poddar Father/husband of dead body’s name Late

Govind Poddar Address Sonaili P.S. Kadwa District

Katihar State Bihar Age of dead body 70 seventy

years approximately name of cremator Om Prakash

name of father/husband of cremator Deep Narayan

Poddar Address Sonaili P.S. Kadwa, P.O. Sonaili

Address Sonaili P.S. Kadwa P.O. Sonaili District

Katihar State Bihar Name of Dom/Pandit Tuntun from

whom death Fire obtained and cremated

mother/father/son/daughter of which description is

mentioned in Block Development Officer, Manihari,

District Katihar Account No. 14 page No. 95 serial

no. 883.

Cremation/ buried/Samadhi/Jal Samdhi

Today dated 17/11/2007 day Saturday at the time of

cremation time hour 2=15 minute the description of

death cremation is noted.

Om prakash Tuntun

Cremator’s name Dom/Pandit

signature Signature

Block Development officer, All India Abdul Akhara

Manihari, Katihar (Bihar) Varah Panth, of Rayata

Jogi Mahant Shri Shri 1008

Baba Paras Nath,

Kali Mandir, Purvi Ghat, Manihari Masan

Pujari, Manihari, Katihar (Bihar)

PREM NATH AGHORI

Signature

ANNEXURE P-2(colly)

Hon’ble Court,

Hon’ble Sh. Atul Kumar Pathak,

1st class Judicial Magistrate,

Begusarai.

Domestic Voilence women protection 9p/10

Kumari Rina………………………………………………………………………..Complainant

Vs

1. Om Prakash Poddar S/o Late Deep Narayan Poddar

2. Asha Devi W/o Late Deep Narayan Poddar

R/O Sonaili, Durga Mandir, Shukkar Hatt, P.S.

Kadwa, Distt. Katihar/Present Address- Sh. Om

Prakash Poddar, R/O RZF-953, Raj Nagar Part-2,

Palam Colony, Near Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg,

Sector-8, New Delhi…………………………………………………………Respondent

Application-submitted by complainant Kumari Rina

u/s 12 of Domestic Violence women Protection Act.

MOST RESPECFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the above mentioned case is presented

before this court.

2. That the statement of the complainant in the

above case has been recorded in this Hon’ble

court.

3. That the marriage of the complainant has been

solemnized with sh. Om prakash poddar S/o Deep

Narayan Poddar R/O Sonaili, Durga Mandir,

shukkar Hatt, P.S. Kadwa, Distt. Katihar as per

the Hindu rite and rituals with the mutual

consent of both the parties on 24.06.2004.

4. That the parents of complainant has gifted Rs.

4 Lac, 10 grams Gold, bangles, necklet,

ornament of nose, head, gold chain and five

utensils of silver in marriage as per their

capacity.

5. That after the marriage when complainant went

to her in laws house then respondent no. 1. Om

prakash poddar and respondent no.2. Asha Devi

started commenting that her father has not

given you as per his capacity. Therefore

respondents started pressurizing to bring

Rs.10,000/- from her parents and torturing

physically, mentally and economically.

6. That the complainant kept on tolerating all

these in a hope that everything will be alright

one day.

7. That the complainant was at any how sustaining

her married life and became pregnant.

8. That after pregnancy of complainant respondent

started torturing the complainant that if there

will be female child then the complainant will

rear that child and if there will be male child

then respondent will rear that child and

respondents have thrown her out of the house on

17.04.2005 at the stage of pregnancy.

9. That the complainant has gave birth to a female

child shriya rajhansh whose age is about 5

years.

10. That the respondents have neither enquired

about the complainant nor established any

contacts with her and nor giving any

maintenance and nor looking her after.

11. That the complainant has approached the

women helpline and placed an application but no

justice being delivered.

It is therefore respectfully submits to

the Hon’ble sir that the proper grant to be

given to the complainant u/s 18,19,20,21,22 of

Domestic Violence Act.

Throgh Mr. Gopal Prasad

Advocate

Kumari Rina

02.06.2010

IN THE COURT OF SH. ATUL KUMAR PATHAK, J.M. 1st

CLASS, BEGUSARAI; BIHAR

In the matter of:

COMPLAINT NO. 9 P/10

And In The Matter Of:

Rina Kumari

D/o Shri S.N.Poddar

R.H. 5/6, Baruni Refinary, Township,

Begusarai … COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. Sh. Om Prakash Poddar & Asha Rani Devi.

S/o Late Sh. Deep Narayan Poddar

Sonaili, Near Durga Mandir, Kadwa

Katihar-855114

2. Widow Ms. Asha Devi

W/O Late Sh. Deep Narayan Poddar


Katihar-855114 …RESPONDENTS

D.O.H.: 04/04/2011

And In The Matter Of: -

APPLICATION FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS /

RESPONDENTS NAMELY OM PRAKASH PODDAR AND SMT. ASHA

DEVI FOR RECALLING THE ORDER DATED 25.08.2010

WHEREBY N.B.W WAS ISSUED AGAINST THE APPLICANTS /

RESPONDENTS AND FOR CANCELLATION OF NON-BAILABLE

WARRANT

Sir,

The applicants / Respondents most respectfully

submit as under:

1. That the above noted complaint is pending

before this Hon’ble Court and the same was

fixed for 04/04/2011.

2. That the applicants / respondents are permanent

resident of Delhi, (attached copy of Voter ID)

where the applicant Om Prakash Poddar had gone

for his employment, but forced to remain

unemployed due to relentless cruelties by

complainant (can be read from para 68 of HMA

Petition No. 700/2010) and is in search of

suitable employment.

3. That the applicant no.2 i.e. Smt. Asha Devi, 64

year old, is a senior citizen and not putting

up well and is a patient of chronic Asthma,

COPD, Obsessive Sleep Apnea (OSA) and

hyperthyroidism and is under treatment with

AIIMS and kept on home oxygen, New Delhi and is

also suffering from various old age diseases.

(attached copy of AIIMS)

4. That the marriage was fraudulent with the

misrepresentation of bride.

5. That there has been no communication between

the complainant herein and the applicants since

17 April 2005, which is the admitted case of

the complainant herein.

6. That in between the applicant no.1 has

approached many a time. But he was even denied

of having access of either his daughter or his

wife by the parents of the complainant.

7. That in the meantime the applicant had filed a

petition for divorce before the Principal

Judge; Family Court; Dwarka Courts; New Delhi

for grant of Decree of Divorce, photocopies of

the divorce petition and order sheets of this

proceeding are attached.

8. That the notice of the said Divorce Petition

filed by the applicant no.1 i.e. Om Prakash

Poddar, was duly served upon the complainant on

21 November 2010, but she has intentionally not

disclosed this fact to this Hon’ble Court,

which is evident from the order sheets of this

Hon’ble Court.

9. That on 09th February 2011, the complainant

herein along with her parents had appeared

before the Family Court; New Delhi in HMA

Petition No. 700/2010, wherein she disclosed

this fact to the Court that she had field a

Domestic Violence case against the

applicants(s), before this Hon’ble Court and a

photocopy of the order sheets of this

proceedings were handed over to the applicant

in the court on 09th February 2011.

10. That the applicant came to know about the

passing of the Non-Bailable Warrants against

them for the first time before the Family

Court; New Delhi on 09th February 2011.

11. That the applicant no.02, mother of applicant

no.01 is on home oxygen therefore the

applicant(s) is unable to appear before the

Hon’ble court physically; photocopy of the

medical prescription is attached.

12. That there is a serious security threat of life

to the applicant(s) from the Petrol Pump mafias

in the court premises or outside who have nexus

with the complainant’s father.

13. That the applicant is requesting to seek police

protection as the complainant’s father has

threatened to kidnap the applicant in the court

premises or outside.

14. That there has been a previous instance of

muscle flexing by the complainant’s family as a

result of that the applicant has lost his

father prematurely and his family has now

reduced to two member family i.e. Asha Devi and

Om Prakash.

15. That the act of threatening and muscle flexing

can be read from Para 71, 75, 31, 50 and 69 of

the attached pending divorce petition with

DWARKA, New Delhi court.

16. That the above said non bailable warrants were

issued under the impression that the applicant

had not appeared despite the receipt of the

summons issued by this Hon’ble Court.

17. That from the record of the Court it appears

that the summons were directed to be issued

against the applicants/respondents on

02/06/2010 for 17/06/2010 and on 17/06/2010 for

25/06/2010.

18. That absolutely no summonses were ever served

upon the applicants /respondents to appear

before this Hon’ble Court on 24/08/2010 and

25/08/2010.

19. That since no summons were ever received by the

applicants or served with the summons / notice

of this Hon’ble Court, there was no intimation

available to the applicants that the applicants

were require to appear before this Hon’ble

Court.

20. That the non-appearance of the applicants on

25/08/2010 or on 30/08/2010 was neither

intentional nor deliberate but was beyond the

control of the applicants.

21. That even otherwise, the complaint filed by the

complainant is barred by limitation as the

complainant is trying to blackmail the

applicants to extract money from him.

22. That the applicant accused shall be subjected

to humiliation if the non bailable warrants are

not cancelled as the applicant accused was not

aware of the directions of the Hon’ble Court to

appear before it.

In view of the submissions made above it is

most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may be pleased to recall the order dated

25/08/2010, whereby Non-Bailable Warrants were

issued against the applicants / respondents and

to cancel the Non-Bailable warrants issued

against the applicants / respondents, as the

same is very necessary in the interest and

furtherance of justice.

It is prayed accordingly.

Applicant/accused

Through

Counsel

Begusrai / Bihar;

Dated: 22/02/2010 Advocate Arun Kumar singh

IN THE COURT OF SH. ATUL KUMAR PATHAK, J.M. 1ST


In the matter of:



Rina Kumar … COMPLAINANT

D/o Shri S.N.Poddar


Begusarai

VERSUS

Sh. Om Prakash Poddar & Asha Rani Devi.




AFFIDAVIT OF SH. OM PRAKSH PODDAR, S/O LATE SH.

DEEP NARAYAN PODDAR, R/O RZH-650, NEAR KENEDY

PUBLIC SCHOOL, RAJ NAGAR PART-2, PALAM COLONY, NEW

DELHI, HAVING HIS PARENTAL HOUSE AT SONAILI,

SHUKKAR HATT, DURGA STHAN, KATIHAR, BIHAR-855114

I the above named deponent do hereby solemnly

affirm and declare as under:-

1. That the applicant is the Respondent no.1 in

the above noted complaint case.

2. That the applicant / respondent is filing

the application for recalling / cancellation

of Non-Bailable warrants, the contents of

which are not being repeated here for the

sake of brevity and are requested to be read

as part of this affidavit.

3. That I being the deponent in person am

competent to swear this affidavit.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Begusarai on this 3rd day of March

2011, that the contents of this affidavit are

true and correct to the best of my knowledge and

noting material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT

IN THE COURT OF SH. ATUL KUMAR PATHAK, J.M. 1st


In the matter of:



Smt. Rina Kumari

D/o Shri S.N.Poddar


Begusarai … COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. Sh. Om Prakash Poddar & Asha Rani Devi.



Katihar-855114

2. Widow Ms. Asha Devi

W/O Late Sh. Deep Narayan Poddar



D.O.H.: 04/04/2011

And In The Matter Of: -

REPLY FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS /

RESPONDENTS NAMELY OM PRAKASH PODDAR AND SMT. ASHA

DEVI FOR COMPLAINT NO. 9 P/10 UNDER SECTION 43 (12)

OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT,

2005 (AS AMENDED UP-TO-DATE) FOR SETTING ASIDE

ORDER UNDER SECTION 18, 19, 20, 21 AND 22.

Sir,

The applicants / Respondents most respectfully

submit as under:

1. That the above noted complaint is pending

before this Hon’ble Court and the same was

fixed for 04/04/2011.

2. That the marriage was fraudulent with the

misrepresentation of bride.

3. That the application is barred by

Limitation, the alleged date of separation

is 15 April 2005 and the complaint has been

filed on 30th March, 2010, after a gap of

nearly 5 years, what were the applicant /

complainant doing in these all intervening 5

years.

4. That the complainant is trying to blackmail

the applicants to extract money from him.

5. There is no cohabitation/ relationship

between the applicant / complainant and the

respondents.

6. That there has been no communication between the complainant herein and the applicants

since 17 April 2005, which is the admitted

case of the complainant herein.

7. That in between the applicant has approached

many a time. But he was even denied of

having access of either his daughter or his

wife by the parents of the complainant.

8. That divorce HMA Petition No. 700/2010 under

section 13 (1)(i-a) of Hindu marriage Act,

1956 (as amended up-to-date) for dissolution

of marriage by a decree of divorce on the

ground of cruelty is pending before the

Principal Judge; Family Court; Dwarka

Courts; New Delhi for grant of Decree of

Divorce, photocopies of the divorce petition

and order sheets of this proceeding are

attached.

9. That there is total separation of the

complainant from the house of the applicant

without his consent, continuously for a

period or more than 5 years, without there

being any reasonable cause or excuse, which

amounts to “animus deserendi”.

10. That the applicant has pleaded for child

custody on the hearing of HMA Petition No.

700/2010 which is evident from the order

sheet dated 09/02/2011 and “animus

deserendi” can be read from para no. 31 of

HMA Petition No. 700/2010 negates the

allegation of complainant raised in para

no.08 of complaint filed herein.

11. That the applicant no.02 was residing at

her Sonaili, Bihar house on the alleged date

of 17 April 2005 while complainant was

residing at Delhi’s rented house and left

with her father to Dhanbad who came to Delhi

with the return ticket for himself and the

Complainant in Poorva Express New Delhi to

Kolkata bound train dated 15th April, 2005,

negates the allegation of domestic violence

made against applicant no.02 in para no.08

of complaint filed herein.

12. That the complainant has taken out all her

belongings along with applicant(s)

belongings and left with her father for

Dhanbad’s IOC official quarter on 15 April

2005.

13. That the applicant has not in any manner

condoned the acts of cruelties of the

complainant, further the applicant states

that he has not connived in any manner in

bringing the actual facts of cruelty of the

complainant against the applicant.

14. That every relative of husband cannot be

made a respondent (in this case – Mother of

Om Prakash has been made).

15. That mere allegations made by a wife that

husband who is a man of status and has vast

movable and immovable properties, would not

give jurisdiction of the court to pass an

order of maintenance beyond the means of the

husband. When allegations are made by the

spouse about the vast movable and immovable

properties of other, even for passing an

interim order, the allegations must be

substantiated by some sort of documentary

evidence.

16. Since, both the husband and wife are in

equal footings, one cannot be asked to

maintain other unless one is employed and

other is not employed. He cannot be asked to

beg and borrow from parents to maintain

wife, any order without there being any

prima facie proof of husband being employed

and there for unsustainable and to be set

aside.


most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may be pleased to set aside the order, as

the divorce case is pending before the DWARKA

COURT, as the same is very necessary in the

interest and furtherance of justice.


Applicant/accused

Through

Counsel

Begusrai / Bihar;

Dated: 04/04/2011 Advocate Arun Kumar

singh

IN THE COURT OF SH. ATUL KUMAR PATHAK, J.M. 1ST


In the matter of:



Rina Kumar … COMPLAINANT

D/o Shri S.N.Poddar


Begusarai

VERSUS

Sh. Om Prakash Poddar & Asha Rani Devi.


Sonaili, Near Durga Mandir, Kadwa …RESPONDENTS

Katihar-855114

AFFIDAVIT OF SH. OM PRAKSH PODDAR, S/O LATE SH.

DEEP NARAYAN PODDAR, R/O RZH-650, NEAR KENEDY

PUBLIC SCHOOL, RAJ NAGAR PART-2, PALAM COLONY, NEW

DELHI, HAVING HIS PARENTAL HOUSE AT SONAILI,

SHUKKAR HATT, DURGA STHAN, KATIHAR, BIHAR-855114

I the above named deponent do hereby solemnly


4. That the applicant is the Respondent no.1 in

the above noted complaint case.

5. That the applicant / respondent is filing

the reply for setting aside, the contents of

which are not being repeated here for the

sake of brevity and are requested to be read

as part of this affidavit.

6. That I being the deponent in person am

competent to swear this affidavit.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Begusarai on this 3rd day of March

2011, that the contents of this affidavit are

true and correct to the best of my knowledge and

noting material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT

ANNEXURE P-3

M R 2 Discharge Summary

All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi-

110029

DISCHARGE SUMMERY

CR. No. 181877 O.P.D.O. Date of Admission/

Discharge

D.O.A- 16/11/10

D.O.D- 23/11/10

Name ASHA RANI DEVI AGE 70 YEARS SEX F

History and condition on admission

A 70 year old female presented under complain of

breathlessness, cough, under expectoration,

swelling all over the body and 12 days of Uttered

seriousness since 1 day. She had the exposures to

chullah smoke since 30 years. She is a k/c/o COAD

on irregular treatment.

o/E- pt is drowsy. Pulse =80/min, BP=110/70mm Hg.

Pedal oedemea + on chest examination, B/L Ronchi +

The rest of the general & systemic examination was

nostril.

Hospital course

The pt. was managed under IV antibiotics.

(Augmentine, Azithral). Pt. was kept on O2

inhalation through nosal prongs.

The investigation reveals that pt. had

Hypothyroidism also. She is started on

levothyroxine 25 mg OD.

Pt is not maintaining saturation & had low PO2 off

oxygen, so pt. is discharge under advice to take

Home oxygen.

ANNEXURE P-4

To, Date: 30/05/2011

The Chowki Incharge

P.P. Dwarka

Sector-10, Dwarka Court.

New Delhi-110075

Sub: Persistent Life threatening by Sh. Surendra

Narayan Poddar and his family members

Sir,

The applicant most respectfully submits as

under:-

23. That (i) Shri Surendra Narayan Poddar,

Assistant Manager (RC), Marketing Division, IOC

Baruni Refinary, (ii) Ms. Anita Poddar W/O Sh.

Surendra Narayan Poddar, (iii) Rina Kumari, D/O

Sh. Surendra Narayan Poddar, (iv) Rupam kumari

alias Dolly D/O Sh. Surendra Narayan Poddar

and (v) Anupam Kumar S/O Sh. Surendra Narayan

Poddar all R/O R.H. 5/6, Baruni Refinary,

Township, Begusarai, Bihar and also at Jagdish

Path, Bailey Road Apartments, 206, Malti

Bihari, Patna, Bihar and (vi) Anuja Kumari,

alias Annu, and (vii) her husband (Bank P.O.),

both R/O of Pokharia, Begusarai are giving

persistent threat to kidnap and kill Shri Om

Prakash, aged 37 years, S/O Late Shri Deep

Narayan Poddar and Asha Devi, age 64 year,

widow of Late Shri Deep Narayan Poddar both

R/O Sonaili, Near Durga Mandir, Katihar, Bihar-

855114 and presently residing at RZH-650, Near

Kennedy Public School, Raj Nagar, Part-2, Palam

Colony, New Delhi-110077.

24. That the goons of the above noted persons have

physically assaulted and manhandled the

applicant on the date of hearing i.e.

30.05.2011 of the case pending before the

Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka Court,

New Delhi at the entrance gate of the Court

between 10.15 AM to 10.30 AM.

25. That the widow mother Smt. Asha Devi, 64 year

old, is a senior citizen and not putting up

well and is a patient of chronic Asthma, COPD,

Obsessive Sleep Apnea (OSA) and hyperthyroidism

and is under treatment with AIIMS and being

advised to keep on home oxygen and is also

suffering from various old age diseases, is

residing at her Sonaili, Near Durga Mandir,

Kadwa, Katihar house alone and reeling under

persistent life threat by the above noted

family members.

26. That there is a serious security threat of life

to shri Om Prakash and his widow mother Asha

Devi from the Petrol Pump mafias who have nexus

with the Shri Surendra Narayan Poddar, who is

Assistant Manager (RC), Marketing Division,

Indian Oil Corporation, Baruni Refinary and

his above noted family members.


muscle flexing by Shri Surendra Narayan Poddar

and his family members as a result of that the

applicant has lost his father prematurely on

15th Nov, 2007 and his family has now reduced

to two member family i.e. Asha Devi and Om

Prakash.

28. That the above said persons have been sending

goondas like elements at the house of the

complainant/applicant who have been

threatening the complainant with dire

consequences and have showered that they would

kill me and I should immediately withdraw my

case from the court or else they would bury me

alive. Due to their threats I have to leave my

house frequently and I am living a fugitive

life, my life has been made miserable due to

their acts and conducts.

In view of the above submissions made above it

is most respectfully prayed that this act of

persistent threatening by the above noted

family members has led to traumatic situation

and will further prove to be disastrous for

Shri Om Prakash and his mother to sustain their

life peacefully. I therefore request the

concern administration to take necessary action

to protect the life and property of Shri Om

Prakash and his old age mother in the interest

and furtherance of justice.


Applicant

Om Prakash

Copy to:

1. SHO., P.S. Dwarka, New Delhi

2. Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka Court,

New Delhi

3. The Hon’ble Chief Justice, Delhi High Court,

New Delhi-110003

4. Commissioner of Police, I.P. Estate,

New Delhi

5. DCP (South West District), New Delhi.

ANNEXURE P-5

Suit No. HMA-700/10

Om Prakash Vs Rina Kumari

30.05.2011

Present: Petitioner in Person.

Replication not filed. Petitioner requests for

adjournment. At request adjourned for replication

and issues on 06.06.2011.

Deepa Sharma

Principal Judge

Family Court

Dwarka New Delhi

30.05.2011

ANNEXURE P-6

Suit No. HMA-700/10

Om Prakash Poddar Vs Rina Kumari

06.06.2011

Present: Petitioner in Person.

None for the respondent.

Written statement has also not been filed by

the respondent. Two application for filing the

documents filed on behalf of the petitioner along

with copies. Case called several times since

morning but none appeared on behalf of the

respondent. Respondent is proceeded ex-parte.

For ex-parte evidence, to come up on

07.09.2011.

Deepa Sharma

Principal Judge

Family Court

Dwarka New Delhi

06.06.2011

ANNEXURE P-7 (colly)

OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURTS,

DWARKA, NEW DELHI

No.4941 RTI/FC/DWK/2011 Dated:30 AUG 2011

To,

Sh. Om Prakash Poddar

C/O Digvijay Singh,

RZH-757 Lane No.14,

Raj Nagar Part-2, Palam Colony

New Delhi-77

Subject:- Application under section 6(3) of RTI

Act-2005.

With reference to your application dated

25.07.2011 the requisite information sought from

the concerned court are hereunder:-

1. Why there was no court proceedings, Judge did

not sit and chair any of the cases on

30.05.2011?

Ans. Ld Judge held/chaired the court on 30.05.2011

and disposed of all the cases.

2. How come the order sheet of 30th May, 2011

being generated when the whole court

proceeding was paralyzed?

Ans. The court proceeding was not paralyzed on

30.05.2011 as the Ld. Judge held/chaired the court

on 30.05.2011.

3. Can the Family Judge exercise substantial

judgment against the petitioner by way of

waiting for 8 months for WS filing by the

respondent, who is acting under the influence

of respondent and her associates, cornering

the critical health situation of applicant’s

mother and persistent life threat to the

petitioner for 7 years by the respondent and

her associates?

Ans. The Family Court Judge can extend the period

for filing Written Statement (WS) in view of

Section 10(3) of Family Court Act. The Ld. Judge

does not act under the influence of any party to

the suit and also does not ignore plea of any

party.

4. Will “justice for all” remain as cliché only?

5. Will the judiciary run on the direction of

rich and powerful only?

Ans. 4 & 5. The information sought amounts to

seeking opinion/advise which does not form of any

record under rule 7 (VIII) of RTI Act.

6. I request for through judicial inquiry about

the case?

Ans. This forum is not the proper forum to initiate

an enquiry about the case.

7. Why the petitioner has been alleged for

adjournment of the court on 30th May 2011,

while there was no court proceeding on the

same date and when the petitioner has made

huge hue and cry against the deadlock of court

proceeding?

Ans. Why the petitioner had made the request for

adjournment is the fact within the knowledge of

petitioner. The order-sheet shows the petitioner

had made a request for adjournment. Moreover,

matter was not fixed for petitioner’s evidence on

30.05.2011.

If you are not satisfied with the reply, you

may please appeal to the First Appellate Authority-

Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, Ld. Judge-02, Family Courts,

Delhi.

(SUNITA GOSAIN)

PIO/Administrative Officer,

Family Courts, Dwarka,

New Delhi.

No.4942 RTI/FC/DWK/2011 Dated: 30 AUG 2011

Copy forwarded for information to Sh. R.K.

Agarwal, Deputy Secretary & CPIO, Ministry of Law &

Justice, Department of Justice.



New Delhi.

OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURTS,

DWARKA, NEW DELHI

No.4939 RTI/FC/DWK/2011 Dated:30 AUG 2011

To,

Sh. Om Prakash Poddar

C/O Digvijay Singh,

RZH-757 Lane No.14,

Raj Nagar Part-2, Palam Colony

New Delhi-77

Subject:- Application under section 6(3) of RTI

Act-2005.

With reference to your application dated

04.08.2011 the requisite information sought from

the concerned court are hereunder:-

1. Why the Petitioner is being stopped and

refused by the Principal Judge Family Court to

file the Self Affidavit of ex-parte evidence

on 1st of August, 2011 as the next date of

hearing is fixed on 7th September, 2011?

Ans-1) As is clear from order sheet dated

06/06/2011, the Ld. Judge did not stop & refused to

take self affidavit of application on record

Whatever documents were filled by him, were taken

on record along with two applications. It is

further clear that on 06.06.2011. the matter was

not fixed for the petitioner evidence.

2. Is District Judge not an administrative head

of a district?

Ans-2) District Judge is the head of District

Court.

3. Is Principal Judge. Family Court not coming

under the preview of District Judge

administratively?

Ans-3 Principal Judge, Family Court does not come

under the preview of District Judge,

administratively.

4. Why the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka

Court, New Delhi is using all possible

unconstitutional tools to crush the democratic

right of the petitioner when he has the

reasonable apprehension in his mind?

Ans-4 Principal Judge, Family Courts Dwarka is not

using any unconstitutional tools while dealing with

the matter.

If you are not satisfied with the reply, you

may please appeal to the First Appellate Authority-

Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, Ld. Judge-02, Family Courts,

Delhi.

(SUNITA GOSAIN)



New Delhi.

No.______ RTI/FC/DWK/2011 Dated: __________

Copy forwarded for information to Sh. R.K.

Agarwal, Deputy Secretary & CPIO, Ministry of Law &

Justice, Department of Justice.



New Delhi.

ANNEXURE P-8(colly)

BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE; FAMILY COURT; DWARKA

COURTS; NEW DELHI

H.M.A. NO. 700/2010

NDOH: 07/09/2011

In The Matter Of: -

Om Prakash Poddar,

S/o late D.N. Poddar,

R/o RZH – 650, RZH – Block,

Near: Kennedy Public School,

Raj Nagar – II,

New Delhi – 110077 …… PETITIONER

VERSUS

Smt. Rina Kumari,

W/o Sh. Om Prakash Poddar,




Barauni Refinery,

P.S. Barauni,

Distt.: Begusarai, Bihar …… RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT FOR EX-PARTE EVIDENCE OF OM PRAKASH

PODDAR, S/O LATE D.N. PODDAR, R/O RZH – 650, RZH –

BLOCK, NEAR: KENNEDY PUBLIC SCHOOL, RAJ NAGAR – II,

PALAM COLONY, NEW DELHI – 110077, AGED ABOUT 37

YEARS

I, the deponent above named, do hereby solemnly


1. I am the Petitioner in the above case.

2. That the marriage was solemnized with

misrepresentation of bride forcibly under life

threat on 24th June 2004. (Copy of the

letter(s) written by petitioner, Certified Copy

of Begusari Court, exhibited in the list of

documents and witness by sister of the petitioner

) dt 25/11/04, 20/6/05,7/8/05 & 10/1/08 is ex

Pw1/1 mark

3. That the respondent family had shown their Second

daughter, Ms Anuja Kumari alias Annu and

misrepresented their eldest daughter who had

Abnormal Physical and mental growth and

development since childhood at the time of

Vermala. (Witness by Mother of the petitioner)

4. That the fraud had been discovered on the day one

i.e. on 24th June 2004 itself but the

respondent’s family and the associates kept the

petitioner and his family under persistent life

threat with dire consequences. (Police complaint

exhibited in the list of documents) dt 30/5/11,

6/6/11 is ex Pw1/2

5. That the petitioner has made huge hue and cry and

made his protest publically since the day one

i.e. 24th June 2004 but being suppressed by the

respondent’s family and their associates.

6. That there was well planned conspiracy of the

respondent’s family to suppress the voice of

petitioner against fraud marriage with power,

money and goons as petitioner was financially

weak and had house in rural area.

7. That Mr. Prabhu Narayan Poddar, employee of SAIL,

R/O Bokaro, Mr. R.N. Poddar, Vigilance Officer,

R/O Muzaffarpur, Mr. Vishwanath Bubna, a business

man and landlord of Sonaili, Katihar, relative of

Babulal Bubna, a rice Mill owner in sonaili,

katihar and business man of Begusarai and Mr.

Shyamar Bubna, owner of petrol pump in sonaili

R/O Sonaili, katihar kept the petitioner and his

parents under persistent life threat with dire

consequences.

8. That other big shots who were involved to

suppress the voice of petitioner against the

fraud marriage are Black fellow, Mr. Shah, a

businessman and friend of respondent’s father R/O

Begusarai, Pappu poddar, cousin brother of

respondent, running own coaching Institute in

Munirka, New Delhi R/O Rohini, Delhi, Ashok

Poddar, maternal uncle of respondent, working

with CA firm in Karolbagh, Delhi, R/O

Shalimarbagh, Delhi, Arun Poddar, maternal uncle

of respondent, a businessman, R/O Bakhri,

Khagaria, Ram Karan Mahto, a landlord and

businessman, R/O Sonaili, katihar who has link

with friend of respondent’s father.

9. That the petitioner has not accepted this fraud

marriage at all, till date.

10. That the petitioner or any relatives of

petitioner have never ever visited respondent’s

place till date, respondent’s family kept their

entire residential address secret for 7 years

from the petitioner’s family.

11. That the petitioner had two members in his

family, diabetic father had amputation above the

knee with permanent disablement and was

prescribed for permanent escort and assistant in

2000 and was under treatment with AIIMS, New

Delhi, and mother was chronic asthmatic and is

under treatment with AIIMS, being advised to keep

on Home Oxygen. (Handicapped Certificate and

Medical Certificate exhibited in the list of

documents) is ex Pw1/3

12. That the petitioner had to save the life of his

parents primarily therefore remained under

persistent threat by the respondent family and

the associates.

13. That the petitioner has lost his father on 15th

November, 2007 because of persistent life threat

by the respondent’s family and their associates.

(Death certificate exhibited in the list of

document) is ex Pw1/4

14. That the respondent family is now planning to

kill the petitioner’s mother in the similar

fashion as they had killed his father. (police

complaint exhibited in the list of documents) dt

19/6/11, 24/6/11, 29/6/11 is ex Pw1/5

15. That the petitioner and his old age mother are

reeling under persistent life threat by the

respondent family and the associates. (police

complaint exhibited in the list of documents)

16. That the respondent family kept the respondent

forcibly with the petitioner under persistent

life threat for the period of 9 month and 19 days

i.e. (25 June 2004 to 14 April, 2005).

17. That the respondent had left with her father to

the IOCL Official Quarter, Dhanbad, who came to

Delhi with the return ticket for himself and the

respondent in Poorva Express New Delhi to Kolkata

bound train dated 15th April, 2005 without the

consent of the petitioner when the handicapped

father of the petitioner virtually was on death

bed, urine and stool was passing through catheter

and never came back till date. (witness by

Friend, sister and mother of the petitioner)

18. That more than 6 years of separation is an

admitted case by the respondent i.e. since 17th

April, 2005. (Certified copies of Begusarai court

exhibited in the list of document) is ex Pw1/6

19. That the marital intercourse has taken place

without the consent of the petitioner since the

discovery of the fraud by the petitioner.

20. That the child is born out of respondent’s

mother and sister’s conspiracy over telephone

24x7 for a period of 9 months and 19 days.

21. That it was an evil-design of respondent’s

mother to use the child as a weapon to crush

petitioner and his family members.

22. That I have not in any manner condoned the

cruelty of the respondent, further I state that I

have not connived in any manner in bringing the

actual facts of cruelty of the respondent against

me.

23. That I am staying separate from Respondent

since 15th April 2005.

24. That I am an unemployed person and depended on

mother’s family pension. (Affidavit of income

exhibited in the list of document) is ex Pw1/7

The contents of the Ex-parte evidence have been

drafted by me and the same are true and correct to

my knowledge and belief and are not being repeated

for the sake of brevity and may be read as part and

parcel of this affidavit. Nothing material has been

concealed there from. That, I being the deponent in

person is competent to swear this affidavit.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION: -

VERIFIED at NEW DELHI on this 1st day of August,

2011, that the contents of the above affidavit from

para 01 to 24 are true and correct, nothing stated

therein is wrong and nothing material has been

concealed from this Hon’ble Court.

DEPONENT


COURTS; NEW DELHI

H.M.A. NO. 700/2010

NDOH: 07/09/2011

In The Matter Of: -

Om Prakash Poddar,




Raj Nagar – II,


VERSUS

Smt. Rina Kumari,





Barauni Refinery,

P.S. Barauni,

Distt.: Begusarai, Bihar …… RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT OF WITNESS OF DIGVIJAY SINGH, S/O SH. R.K

SINGH, R/O RZH – 757, RZH – BLOCK, GALI NO.14, RAJ

NAGAR – II, PALAM COLONY, NEW DELHI – 110077, AGED

ABOUT 32 YEARS



25. I am the friend of the Petitioner in the above

case.




respondent in Poorva Express, New Delhi to

Kolkata bound train dated 15th April, 2005

without the consent of the petitioner when the

handicapped father of the petitioner virtually

was on death bed, under treatment with AIIMS, New

Delhi, urine and stool was passing through

catheter and never came back till date.

27. That the petitioner was busy in saving the life

of his parents and was reeling under persistent

life threat by the respondent’s family and their

associates.

28. That the petitioner has lost his father on 15th

November, 2007 because of persistent life threat

by the respondent’s family and their associates

and lack of nursing care and support by the

respondent.

29. That the petitioner and his old age mother are

still reeling under persistent life threat by the


The contents of the Affidavit have been drafted

under my instruction and the same are true and

correct to my knowledge and belief and are not

being repeated for the sake of brevity and may be

read as part and parcel of this affidavit. Nothing

material has been concealed there from. That, I

being the deponent in person is competent to swear

this affidavit.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION: -

VERIFIED at NEW DELHI on this 27th day of August,





DEPONENT


COURTS; NEW DELHI

H.M.A. NO. 700/2010

NDOH: 07/09/2011

In The Matter Of: -

Om Prakash Poddar,




Raj Nagar – II,


VERSUS

Smt. Rina Kumari,





Barauni Refinery,

P.S. Barauni,

Distt.: Begusarai, Bihar ……RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT OF WITNESS OF ASHA DEVI, W/O LATE DEEP

NARAYAN PODDAR, R/O SONAILI, NEAR DURGA MANDIR,

SHUKKAR HATT, KADWA, KATIHAR, BIHAR, AGED ABOUT 64

YEARS



30. I am the mother of the Petitioner in the above

case.

31. That the respondent family had shown their

Second daughter, Ms Anuja Kumari alias Annu to me

and to the petitioner in the hotel Arya, Katihar

district of Bihar, before marriage.

32. That the respondent family misrepresented the

bride at the time of marriage and solemnized

marriage with eldest daughter Rina Kumari, by

force at gun point, who had abnormal Physical and

mental growth and development since childhood.

33. That the fraud had been discovered on the day

one i.e. on 24th June 2004 itself but the


petitioner and his parents under persistent life

threat with dire consequences.

34. That the petitioner has made huge hue and cry

and made his protest publically since the day one








36. That Mr. Prabhu Narayan Poddar, employee of

SAIL, R/O Bokaro, Mr. R.N. Poddar, Vigilance

Officer, R/O Muzaffarpur, Mr. Vishwanath Bubna, a

business man and landlord of Sonaili, Katihar,

relative of Babulal Bubna, a rice Mill owner in

sonaili, katihar and business man of Begusarai

and Mr. Shyamar Bubna, owner of petrol pump in

sonaili R/O Sonaili, katihar kept the petitioner

and his parents under persistent life threat with

dire consequences.


suppress the voice of petitioner and his parents

against the fraud marriage are Black fellow, Mr.

Shah, a businessman and friend of respondent’s

father R/O Begusarai, Pappu poddar, cousin

brother of respondent, running own coaching

Institute in Munirka, New Delhi R/O Rohini,

Delhi, Ashok Poddar, maternal uncle of

respondent, working with CA firm in Karolbagh,

Delhi, R/O Shalimarbagh, Delhi, Arun Poddar,

maternal uncle of respondent, a businessman, R/O

Bakhri, Khagaria, Ram Karan Mahto, a landlord and









handicapped father primarily therefore remained

under persistent threat by the respondent family

and their associates.




i.e. (25 June 2004 to 14 April, 2005).









and never came back till date.








this affidavit.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION: -

VERIFIED at NEW DELHI on this 7th day of September,





DEPONENT


COURTS; NEW DELHI

H.M.A. NO. 700/2010

NDOH: 07/09/2011

In The Matter Of: -

Om Prakash Poddar,




Raj Nagar – II,


VERSUS

Smt. Rina Kumari,





Barauni Refinery,

P.S. Barauni,

Distt.: Begusarai, Bihar ……RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT OF WITNESS OF SNEH LATA, W/O SH. RAM

CHANDER PODDAR, R/O TEGHRA, MAIN ROAD, NEAR

CONGRESS BHAWAN, BEGUSARAI, BIHAR, AGED ABOUT 45

YEARS



42. I am the eldest sister of the Petitioner in the

above case.

43. That the marriage was solemnized with

misrepresentation of bride forcibly at gun point

under life threat with pool of criminals on 24th

June 2004 at hotel Satkar of Katihar district of

Bihar .

44. That the marriage was attended by me on the

above mentioned date and place.

45. That the respondent family misrepresented the

bride at the time of marriage and solemnized

marriage with eldest daughter Rina Kumari, by

force at gun point, who had abnormal Physical and

mental growth and development since childhood.

46. That the fraud had been discovered on the day

one i.e. on 24th June 2004 itself but the


petitioner and his family under persistent life

threat with dire consequences.

47. That the petitioner has made huge hue and cry

and made his protest publically since the day one








49. That Mr. Prabhu Narayan Poddar, employee of

SAIL, R/O Bokaro, Mr. R.N. Poddar, Vigilance

Officer, R/O Muzaffarpur, Mr. Vishwanath Bubna, a

business man and landlord of Sonaili, Katihar,

relative of Babulal Bubna, a rice Mill owner in

sonaili, katihar and business man of Begusarai

and Mr. Shyamar Bubna, owner of petrol pump in

sonaili R/O Sonaili, katihar kept the petitioner

and his parents under persistent life threat with

dire consequences.


suppress the voice of petitioner against the

fraud marriage are Black fellow, Mr. Shah, a

businessman and friend of respondent’s father R/O

Begusarai, Pappu poddar, cousin brother of

respondent, running own coaching Institute in

Munirka, New Delhi R/O Rohini, Delhi, Ashok

Poddar, maternal uncle of respondent, working

with CA firm in Karolbagh, Delhi, R/O

Shalimarbagh, Delhi, Arun Poddar, maternal uncle

of respondent, a businessman, R/O Bakhri,

Khagaria, Ram Karan Mahto, a landlord and









handicapped father primarily therefore remained

under persistent threat by the respondent family

and their associates.




i.e. (25 June 2004 to 14 April, 2005).









and never came back till date.








this affidavit.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION: -

VERIFIED at NEW DELHI on this 7th day of September,





DEPONENT

ANNEXURE P-9

Om Prakash Poddar Vs Rina Kumari

HMA No.-700/2010

07.09.2011

Pr: Petitioner in Person.

Respondent is Ex Parte.

The petitioner has submitted that he has

filed one complaint against this court and has made

a request to transfer the matter to some other

court.

At request, the matter is transferred to the

court of Sh. Deepak Jagotra, Ld. Judge, Family

Court, Dwarka, New Delhi.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the

transferee court on 09.09.2011 at 10 A.M. Ahlmad is

directed to send the file complete in all respects

to the transferee court immediately.

(DEEPA SHARMA)

PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,

DWARKA, N.D./07.09.2011

ANNEXURE P-10

IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK JAGOTRA, JUDGE, FAMILY

COURT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI

DECREE SHEET IN PETITION FOR DIVORCE/CONJUGAL

RIGHTS/PERMANENT ALMONY/EX-PARTE

(ORDER XX RULE 7 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURES)

HMA No. 678/10

Om Prakash Poddar,

S/o late D.N.Poddar

R/o RZH-650, RZH-Block

Near Kennedy Public School,

Raj Nagar-II,

New Delhi-110077. Petitioner

Versus

Smt. Rina Kumari

W/o Sh. Om Prakash Poddar




Barauni Refinery, P.S. Barauni,

Distt. Begusarai, Bihar. Respondent

Claim for U/s 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act,

1955.

Plaint presented on the 25.10.2010.

This petition coming on 16.12.2011 for final

disposal before me in the presence of:

Petitioner in person.

Respondent is Ex-parte.

It is ordered that the Judicial Separation is

passed in favour of the petitioner and against the

respondent under the Provision of Section 10 of the

Hindu Marriage Act.

And it is further ordered that Respondent also

pay a sum of Rs. Nil as cost of the proceedings.

COST OF PROCEEDINGS

S.No. PETITIONER Rs. S.No. RESPONDENT Rs.

Stamps for Petitioner 20.00 1. Stamps for exhibits Nil

1. Stamp for power Nil 2. Stamp for petition Nil

2. Stamp for exhibits Nil 3. Advocate fee Nil

3. Advocate fee Nil 4. Substance fee Wits Nil

4. Substance for Nil 5. Misc. Nil

Process

5. Publication fee Nil

6. Service for Nil

Process

7. Misc. Nil

Total Rs.20.00 Rs. Nil

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE COURT

16.12.2011

(Deepak Jagotra)

Judge, Family Courts

Dwarka, New Delhi

IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK JAGOTRA: JUDGE, FAMILY

COURTS, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI

HMA No.678/10

Om Prakash Poddar,

S/o late D.N.Poddar

R/o RZH-650, RZH-Block

Near Kennedy Public School,

Raj Nagar-II,

New Delhi-110077. …………….Petitioner

Versus

Rina Kumari

W/o Sh. Om Prakash Poddar




Barauni Refinery, P.S. Barauni,

Distt. Begusarai, Bihar. ……………Respondent

Date of Institution: 25.10.2010

Reserved for Judgment on: 07.12.2011

Date of Judgment: 16.12.2011

JUDGMENT

1. This petition is filed on behalf of Om Prakash

Poddar, whereby the petitioner seeks

dissolution of his marriage with the

respondent U/s 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter in short

referred to as “the Act”)

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner

married with the respondent on 24.06.2004 at

Katihar, Bihar according to Hindu Rites and

Ceremonies and one female child was born out

of the said wedlock.

3. It is averred by the petitioner that his

marriage with the respondent was solemnized

fraudulently and forcibly, under life threat

given by the respondent’s family members.

4. It is further averred that since the very

first day of the marriage, the petitioner

protested publically against the marriage but,

due to persistent threats and pressure by the

respondent’s family the petitioner could not

do anything and to bear with the consequences.

5. It is also averred that the respondent lived

forcibly in the marital accord with the

petitioner and the petitioner had to remain

silent because of his ailing parents.

6. It is further averred that when the father of

the petitioner was on his death bed the

respondent left the matrimonial home with her

father on 15.08.2005 and never returned back.

7. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and

carefully gone through the records of the

case. It is submitted on behalf of the

petitioner that the petitioner has proved his

case and further prays that the marriage

between the petitioner and the respondent be

dissolved.

8. Recapitulation of sequence of events are as

under:

The petitioner has filed the present case

on 25.10.2010.

Respondent appeared once and thereafter chose not

to appear in the matter and was proceeded Ex-parte

on 06.06.2011.

9. Ex-parte evidence was led by the petitioner on

09.09.2011 and closed his evidence on

17.11.2011. In his evidence the petitioner has

examined four witnesses including himself, his

mother, sister and one friend.

10. In his statement the petitioner has stated

that he got married with the respondent on

24.06.2004 and one female child was born out

of their wedlock on 20.05.2005.

11. As regards ground of cruelty, the

petitioner has miserably failed to show even a

single incident of alleged cruelty caused by

the respondent against him.

12. The statement was mainly confined to the

point that his marriage was solemnized

fraudulently with the respondent against his

wishes in 2004 under pressure from certain

people and he had not accepted the marriage.

13. On the face of it, the aforesaid ground

taken by the petitioner has got no legs to

stand for the simple reason that he had

accepted her and got physically involved with

her and a female child was born on 20.05.2005,

which is within one year of the marriage.

14. This itself shows that the ground taken by

the petitioner is made up for the sake of

making out a case against the respondent. Had

he not accepted the marriage, he would not

have cohabited with her, more so if it was a

forced marriage. Moreover, this in itself is

not a ground of cruelty caused by the

respondent to the petitioner by any stretch of

imagination. Once the petitioner accepts the

marriage and the respondent, pursuant to which

he cohabits with her, the ground that the

respondent was not to his liking becomes a

baseless ground.

15. The remaining part of the evidence is

confined to the ill-health of the father of

the petitioner and a life threat given by the

family of the respondent to the petitioner.

16. Averments made in the petition finds no

place in affidavit filed by the petitioner in

his evidence and none of the averment

mentioned in the petition regarding cruelty

has been mentioned in Ex.PW1/A, in the

evidence.

17. The natural corollary is that the

averments made in the petition are false and

cannot be relied upon in order to assess if

any cruelty has been cased by the respondent

or not.

18. The statement of his mother, sister and

his friend are also identical and are confined

to the similar statement as given by the

petitioner in his evidence. Therefore,

statement of PW2 Smt. Asha Devi, PW3 Smt. Sneh

Lata and PW4 Sh. Digvijay Singh are also no

help to the case of the petitioner in this

regard.

19. Cumulatively speaking, no ground

whatsoever has been made out by the petitioner

in his entire evidence, including PW2, PW3 and

PW4 on the ground of cruelty allegedly caused

by the respondent, which may have endangered

his mental or physical health.

20. As regards ground of desertion, it is

stated by the petitioner that since 17.04.2005

the respondent is living separately from him

and it is also stated that since that day

there has been no cohabitation between them.

21. In this regard, the petitioner has also

placed on record a petition filed by the

respondent, which is Ex.PW1/3 in which she has

mentioned that since 17.04.2005 she has been

thrown out of her matrimonial home. Therefore,

both the parties states that since 17.04.2005,

there has been no relationship of husband and

wife between them.

22. Petitioner has also placed on record

photocopy of letters dated 20th June, 07

th

August and 10th January, 2008 sent to the

respondent for joining the matrimonial home,

but the respondent chose not to join the

petitioner in the matrimonial home.

23. The respondent, after appearing in the

matter chose not to appear and she even did

not file WS, which shows that she is not

interested in keeping any kind of relation

with the petitioner and it also appears that

she intends to bring the cohabitation

permanently to an end.

24. She has also not made any kind of effort

to join the matrimonial home at Delhi and she

is staying with her father in Bihar for the

last more than six years. No reasonable ground

or excuse has been coming from the side of the

respondent to show as to why she had decided

not to live with the petitioner in the

matrimonial home.

25. In the absence of any such reason, it

shall be construed that she had left the

matrimonial home without reasonable cause or

excuse to stay away from the petitioner. On

the other hand, it shall be taken that the

respondent is intending to bring the

matrimonial relationship to an end and she is

not at all interested in continuing any

relationship with the petitioner as husband

and wife.

26. It is therefore clear that the respondent

has deserted the petitioner for more than two

years immediately preceding the presentation

of the petition and she has severed all

matrimonial relationship with the petitioner.

27. Though, no specific ground of desertion

has been taken by the petitioner in the

petition, yet a ground of desertion has been

made out by the petitioner. However, in the

peculiar facts and circumstances of the

matter, a decree of Judicial Separation is

passed in favour of the petitioner and against

the respondent under the Provision of Section

10 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.

File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open court

On 16.12.2011 (DEEPAK JAGOTRA)

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT

DWARKA, NEW DELHI

ANNEXURE P-11(colly)(i)

Date: 07/02/2012

Ref: F.No.3945/DHCLSC/2012 dated 09/01/2012.

From:

Om Prakash Poddar

R/O RZF-893, Netaji Subhas Marg

Raj Nagar Part-2, Palam Colony,

New Delhi-10077

Mob: 9968337815

E-mail: [email protected]

To,

The Secretary,

Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee

Room No.33 to 38, Lawyers Chambers,

High Court of Delhi, New Delhi- 110003,

Sub: Undue delay in filing appeal and misleading

information furnished by the Advocate

Dear Sir/Madam,

This is with reference to the Divorce suit No.

700/2010 later renumbered as 678/2010 by the Family

Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi. I am the

petitioner, filed the divorce petition seeking

dissolution of marriage with the respondent U/s 13

(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on

25.10.2010 in Ms Deepa Sharma, Principal Judge,

Family Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi, however, the

Judgment is being passed of Judicial Separation U/s

10 of Hindu Marriage Act.

Respondent fought (one and half year) proxy war

through Ms. Deepa Sharma, Principal Judge, Family

Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi. Respondent was Ex-

Parte, yet, she took the Judgment in favour of her.

It is a sheer case of Judicial Corruption and

muscle flexing. Principal Judge, Ms Deepa Sharma,

Family Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi had stopped

the whole court proceedings on 30th May 2011 on the

date of filing of WS by the Respondent and had not

sit and chaired any of the cases, in turn, the

order sheet had been generated alleging the

petitioner for requesting for adjournment of the

court proceeding.

Consequently, I have approached the Delhi High

Court Legal Service Committee (DHCLSC) on 4th of

January, 2012 for filing an appeal. However, the

Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee (DHCLSC)

has provided me the Advocate Mr. Jai Bansal vide

letter No. F.No.3945/DHCLSC/2012 on 09/01/2012.

Now, the request for filing an appeal is pending

before DHCLSC since then. Even after my pursuance

with number of emails for one month, no action has

been taken so far.

In view of the above, I need information on the

following:

1. Why Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee

(DHCLSC) is not filing my appeal? The request

is pending with vide letter no.

F.No.3945/DHCLSC/2012 dated 09/01/2012. It is

pending since 4th of January, 2012.

2. Why the counsel provided by DHCLSC is not

willing to file my appeal as per the draft

finalized by me on 31st January, 2012.

3. Why the legal Aid counsel took my sign on

Vakalatnama and Affidavit with an assurance of

finalized draft on 31st January, 2012 at his

Supreme Court Chamber and changed his mind in

the next morning. (Email of communication with

Advocate attached)

4. Why Legal Aid Advocate, Mr. Jai Bansal, Chamber

No.105, New Lawyer’s Chamber, Supreme Court of

India, New Delhi has removed the facts and

justification for nexus of Judges with the

Respondent from the finalized draft of my Matt

Appeal without my consent?

5. Why Legal Aid Advocate is willing to conceal

the material facts to defend the acts of abuse

of court process by the Judges and to present

the distorted picture of my case before High

Court?

6. Why Legal Aid Advocate has furnished a false

Diary No.21996 on 3rd February, 2012 while no

case found by this diary no. in the website of

Delhi High court?

7. Why Legal Aid Advocate has furnished a false

email stating that the case is listed on 8th

February in the court of Justice Veena Birbal

i.e. court no. 25 of Delhi High Court for

arguments on notice to the other parties. While

as per the cause list (attached for 8th Feb) no

case is listed in my name.

8. Why I have been harassed unnecessarily?

Om Prakash Poddar

Enclosures sent through email:

1. Letter of Legal Aid by Delhi High Court Legal

Service Committee

2. Email of communication with Advocate attached

3. Cause list for 8th Feb, 2012.

ANNEXURE P-11(colly)(ii)

Om Prakash Poddar

<[email protected]>

Matt Appeal

3 messages

Jai Bansal <[email protected]> Mon, Jan 30,

2012 at 2:52 PM

To: [email protected]

Dear Mr. Om,

Enclosed please find the soft copy of the Appeal

for your kind perusal and further reference.

Please come to my office tomorrow at 4pm in

supreme court so we can finalize the petition so

it can be filed in a day or two.

regards,

--

Jai Bansal, Advocate

Chamber No. 105,

New Lawyers Chamber,

Supreme Court of India,

New Delhi - 110001

Ph:- 09868566649

Residence Ph: 011 45644812

Email: [email protected]

Jai Bansal

<[email protected]>

Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at

8:54 PM


[Quoted text hidden]

Matt Appeal.doc

113K

https://mail.google.com/mail/h/1srn8mw54hogp/?&v=b&cs=wh&[email protected]

https://mail.google.com/mail/h/1srn8mw54hogp/?view=att&th=1352f37f316d0588&attid=0.1&disp=attd&realattid=f_gy1nghq30&safe=1&zw

https://mail.google.com/mail/h/1srn8mw54hogp/?view=att&th=1352f37f316d0588&attid=0.1&disp=attd&realattid=f_gy1nghq30&safe=1&zw

ANNEXURE P-11(colly)(iii)

Om Prakash Poddar

<[email protected]>

Tue, Jan 31, 2012

at 1:10 AM

To: Jai Bansal <[email protected]>

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much indeed for sending me the

draft. Please find attached the Matt Appeal file with

my comments in red flag. I would request you to kindly

incorporate my points as well.

I am coming to meet you at the scheduled time and

venue.

With Best Regards,

--

Om Prakash Poddar

Matt_Appeal_comment.doc

108K

Om Prakash Poddar

<[email protected]>

Some points for justification of cruelty

Om Prakash Poddar <[email protected]>

Tue, Jan

31, 2012

at 4:11

AM


Dear Sir,

I just want to add some crucial points in your

justification of cruelty para. You may please

incorporate these points as focal point of cruelty

which impacted my whole family.

I have repeatedly put stress on two things

prominently: crux of the whole episode is:

1. Fraudulent marriage and thereafter

2. Criminal conspiracy

https://mail.google.com/mail/h/1srn8mw54hogp/?view=att&th=1353021b042ff7bf&attid=0.1&disp=attd&realattid=f_gy2j14jq0&safe=1&zw

https://mail.google.com/mail/h/1srn8mw54hogp/?view=att&th=1353021b042ff7bf&attid=0.1&disp=attd&realattid=f_gy2j14jq0&safe=1&zw

Sequence of cruelty should be flashed in the following

manner:

1. It was a well planned conspiracy of respondent

family to ruin our three member family. They came

with vested interest.

2. I had three member families. Handicapped and

prolong diabetic father who had above the knee

amputation and had been prescribed for permanent

assistance/escort by AIIMS. Mother who is COPD

and surviving on only 43% of oxygen and rest 47%

is Co2 in her blood as per ABG report. At the

same time she is thyroid patient. She is

completely bedridden. I have to render all

domestic help 24x7.

3. Under the above circumstances, respondent family intentionally put their physically disabled

daughter with fraud planning, just to fulfill the

custom/rituals of marriage to get rid of

salvation as per the myths of their family and to

ruin my small nuclear family. It is itself a form

of cruelty.

So the cruelty was well planned even before the

fraud marriage.

After the marriage, cruelty was planned to kill my

parents by way of dissociating nursing care and

support, persistent mafia threat and not to allow

me to begin my own life.

Secondly, the cruelty is being aggravated by way of

establishing nexus with Principal Judge and

exercising muscle flexing against me.

Thus, the cruelty has impacted my whole family and

not only me, which I have presented through

affidavit in ex-parte evidence. That evidence was

ignored by the Ld. Judges.

“They are planning to kill my last member i.e.

mother in the similar fashion as they had killed my

father”.

--

Om Prakash Poddar



Jai Bansal <[email protected]> Tue, Jan 31, 2012

at 8:42 AM

To: Om Prakash Poddar <[email protected]>

Dear Mr. Poddar,

Please incorporate everything in the petition and

bring the same with you at the meeting at 4 pm

today in my supreme court office.

regards,


--

ANNEXURE P-11(colly)(iv)


Re: Matt Appeal with comments incorporated

Om Prakash Poddar

<[email protected]>

Wed, Feb 1, 2012

at 1:23 AM


Dear Sir,

As per your instruction, I have typed and

incorporated my comments. However, highlighted

with the yellow color is beyond my

knowledge/reach.

Please find attached the incorporated and typed

(fresh) Matt Appeal documents for filing an

appeal on 1st of Feb, 2012. Kindly cross check and

fine tune legally of these incorporated points.

Kindly also update me with the diary no/case no.

with next date of hearing.

With Best Regards,

Om prakash Poddar



Jai Bansal <[email protected]> Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at

10:14 AM


Dear Mr. Poddar,

Enclosed please find the final version of the draft

petition. I have removed the RTI application and

filing of the complaint against the judge. These

things will go adverse to our interest and

basically we have to file the case on the merits of

the pleadings not on the basis that we have filed a

complaint against the judge.

As per my opinion these all documents need not to

be filed in the appeal hence the same are removed.

Further, we are seeking divorce against the

Respondent not against the family members of the

respondent. Hence writing so much about them is not

required in each and every paragraph.

Rest facts are same.

Matt_Appeal_comment_incorporated.doc

91K


Attn: Advocate Mr. Jai Bansal

Om Prakash Poddar

<[email protected]>

Wed, Feb 1, 2012

at 8:36 PM


Dear Sir,

Please find enclosed the translated copy of

letter(s) written and annexed with the original

petition. Please also find attached the soft copy

of original petition as per your instruction.

Reply of your telephonic conversation:

Sir,

Kindly refer our telephonic discussion you had

with me today morning. You informed me that you

have struck down my incorporated comments

pertaining to Judges Nexus with Respondent and

RTI stuff. You further said that it will be

rejected if I abuse one Judge in front of the

https://mail.google.com/mail/h/1srn8mw54hogp/?view=att&th=135373a193da2f15&attid=0.1&disp=attd&realattid=f_gy3vgarx0&safe=1&zw

https://mail.google.com/mail/h/1srn8mw54hogp/?view=att&th=135373a193da2f15&attid=0.1&disp=attd&realattid=f_gy3vgarx0&safe=1&zw

other Judge. I will not be given relief.

Sir, I had assessed the matter on the very first

day when you defended the acts of Judges and pin

pointed against me for RTIs against the Judges.

On the same date, I had reminded you that 30th May

is the bone of contention and black day for the

constitution.

You reminded me thrice i.e. 10th of Jan, 31

st of

Jan and 1st of Feb but I kept silent just to reply

you back in writing.

Sir, I have nothing personal against any Judges.

Sir, Judges are considered to be “God of the

earth” “Panch Parmeshwar” Even I thought of so.

Sir, 23 years of my stay in Delhi cannot raise

any figure against my personality. I have been

associated one or the other way with the

Government machinery. I have never had conflict

with Government machinery in any form. I have

always played a defensive role. Our professional

training is based on the philosophy of synergy

between the institutions of State, Market and

Civil society.

Even personally, I have great regard for Ms Deepa

Sharma. I am very much sympathetic towards her

disturbed personal life. Sir, I did not go for

filing court complaint. Even I did not go for

filing cases U/s 156(3) against Respondent.

However, at the same time, I am absolutely

against the Mafia state.

Justification for Nexus:

Sir, I am not talking in the air. Deepa Sharma

conducted investigation against me. Tapped my CV

and arranged an interview with the lawyer’s

organization in Saket. She got it verified by

sending a high court judge’s driver, Mr. Brajesh

Yadav, who happened to be resident of same Raj

Nagar, Palam Colony and my previous landlord/rent

owner.

Mr. Brajesh kumar briefed me everything that

Deepa Sharma was called on by Retd. Chief Justice

of Delhi High Court, Mr. S.B.Sinha at his

residence, in New Delhi. Justice sinha with

French bearded property dealer of Delhi took the

class of Deepa Sharma.

The mastermind of whole game is Justice Sinha of

Delhi High court. Direction came from the top.

Deepa Sharma is just following the instruction of

top brass white color criminals, who takes the

salary of people but follow the instruction of

Mafias.

She even tried to prove me mentally challenged

and ill. Her man, Mr. Brajesh Yadav asked me to

go to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital with decided

doctor with his mobile no. in psychiatry

department. He further said, if you produce

mentally ill certificate before Deepa Sharma then

she will decide the case in favour of you on 6th

June, 2011 itself.

Justification for RTIs:

Nothing to be said much because everything is

written in the appeal with reason which is lying

with you. But let me answer your pursuance for

not to file RTIs against Judges.

Sir, I will keep on filing RTIs till you become

accountable towards your profession. I will keep

on doing advocacy for Judicial Accountability.

Sir, I am living in the jurisdiction of Ms Deepa

Sharma. She has got all powers and connections.

You may please ask her to kill me in the

encounter. I am open to face even that.

Justification for rejection of my appeal:

Sir, I am least bother about the rejection part.

I have decided to reach up till Supreme Court of

India and then join Naxal outfit.

Now, Sir, you have taken my sign and I have

submitted you all documents as per your

instruction, you also assured me to file as it is

finalized on 31st Jan, at your chamber. Suddenly

you changed your mind in the next morning. Now

the ball is in the court of DHCLSC. Now, it is up

to you and DHCLSC as to how you people play it. I

am just testing the institutions.

However, I am badly shocked by your advocacy for

defending judicial corruption. You are the apex

court practitioner. Tomorrow, you will be the

trend setter. You are the custodian of society,

saviors of constitution, and a change maker. What

kind of society you want to produce? A Banana

State!!

People keep great expectation from Apex court.

You are supposed to give guidelines and ensure

implementation for clean lower court process.

Ironically, you are defending the

unconstitutional acts of Judges.

God bless you!!!

With Best Regards,

--

Om Prakash Poddar

2 attachments

copy of letters_translated.doc

40K

Om_Prakash_-_Vs[1]._-

_Rina_kumari_(Divorce)_Final_25_10_2010.doc

105K

https://mail.google.com/mail/h/1srn8mw54hogp/?view=att&th=13539739e85cb970&attid=0.1&disp=attd&realattid=f_gy53op2q0&safe=1&zw

https://mail.google.com/mail/h/1srn8mw54hogp/?view=att&th=13539739e85cb970&attid=0.1&disp=attd&realattid=f_gy53op2q0&safe=1&zw

https://mail.google.com/mail/h/1srn8mw54hogp/?view=att&th=13539739e85cb970&attid=0.2&disp=attd&realattid=f_gy53pv2f1&safe=1&zw

https://mail.google.com/mail/h/1srn8mw54hogp/?view=att&th=13539739e85cb970&attid=0.2&disp=attd&realattid=f_gy53pv2f1&safe=1&zw

ANNEXURE P-11(colly)(v)

Om Prakash Poddar

<[email protected]

om>

Attn: Advocate Mr. Jai Bansal

Jai Bansal

<[email protected]>

Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at

8:39 AM


Dear Mr. Poddar,

There is nothing unconstitutional or

constitutional in filing complaints for no reason

against the Judges. Further, there is no point in

taking these grounds in appellate court as your

case is decided on the merits of the case and

will be challanged on the merits of the case.

Please do not worry. Lets file the case on the

merits of the case, rather than harping on the

grounds that do not exist and will not help us

for any reason in the appellate court.

There is a separate process of filing of

complaints against the Judges if your aggrieved

by any of their conduct, whatsoever. But

certainly that cannot become a grounds to agitate

the same in the appeal of a dismissed case for

getting relief from the appellate court.

Regards,

--


Chamber No. 105,

New Lawyers Chamber,

Supreme Court of India,

New Delhi - 110001

Ph:- 09868566649

Residence Ph: 011 45644812

Email: [email protected]


ANNEXURE P-12

ITEM NO.59 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal

(Civil)No(s).9854/2012

(From the judgement and order dated 08/02/2012 in

MATA No.7/2012 of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N.

DELHI)

OM PRAKASH PODDAR

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

RINA KUMARI

Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for and prayer for interim relief

))

Date: 23/04/2012 This Petition was called

on

for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI

MUKHOPADHAYA

For Petitioner(s) In-Person

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing in person the Court made the

following

O R D E R

We have heard the petitioner, who

has appeared in person.

We do not find any justification to

entertain the petitioner's challenge to the order

passed by the learned Single Judge who merely

issued notice in the miscellaneous appeal

filed by the petitioner and fixed

the case for 6.7.2012.

The special leave petition is accordingly

dismissed.

(Parveen Kr.Chawla) (Phoolan Wati

Arora)

Court Master Court Master

Annexure: P-13

Date: 26/04/2012

Ref: F.No.3945/DHCLSC/2012 dated 09/01/2012.

From:

Om Prakash Poddar



New Delhi-10077

Mob: 9968337815


To,

The Chairman,

Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee

Room No.33 to 38, Lawyers Chambers,

High Court of Delhi, New Delhi- 110003,

Sub: Abuse of court process by the Legal Aid

Advocate

Hon’ble Sir/Madam,

This is with reference to the complaint to the

Secretary of Delhi High Court Legal Service

Committee dated 7/02/2012.

In spite of my complaint against the abuse of court

process by way of concealing the material facts

before the Hon’ble High Court by the Legal Aid

Advocate on 7th February, 2012 to the Secretary,

DHCLSC, a wrong petition has been instituted before

the Hon’ble High Court on 08/02/2012 vide case No.

MAT APPL 7/2012. However, I had requested to file a

petition against the abuse of Trial Court process

subsequently finalized the draft petition

accordingly.

But the abuse of Trial Court matter was removed

without my consent and even a MAT appeal being

filed to delay the matter instead of filing writ

against the abuse of power by the public authority.

I was misled by the Advocate and being denied

Justice.

Case Status in brief:-

Delhi Trial court case No. HMA 700/2010 & 678/2010

Delhi High Court Case No. MAT APPL. 7/2012

1. Respondent is ex parte (even did not file WS:

written statement)

2. However, Judgment is being passed in favour of

Respondent and against the petitioner.

3. There is an abuse of Trial Court Process.

4. Principal Judge of Trial Court has stopped the

whole court proceeding on 30th May 2011 and in turn

a false order sheet is being generated alleging the

petitioner for requesting for adjournment of the

court proceedings.

5. RTI has been filed and unsatisfactory reply has

been furnished by the office of the principal Judge

of Trial court against the unconstitutional and

undemocratic act of PJ of Trial Court.

6. There is an abuse of court process by way of

concealing the material facts by the Advocate of

Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee. Legal Aid

Advocate has admitted this fact in his email

communication. Advocate misled me and filed MAT

APPL instead of filing Writ against the abuse of

power by the public authority.

In view of the above, I pray for your kind

intervention into this matter to take appropriate

action against this act to deliver proper Justice

to the Appellant.

Appellant

Om Prakash Poddar

Encl Above:

1. True Copy of Receiving of Complaint letter to

the Secretary of Delhi High Court Legal Service

Committee. (Pages from 04 to 05)

2. True copy of email communication wherein the

Legal Aid Advocate has admitted the fact of

concealing and removing the material fact. (Pages

from 06 to 18)

3. Order Sheet of 30th May which had been generated

without court proceedings. (Pages from 19 to 19)

4. RTI reply from the office of the Principal Judge

of Trial Court. (Pages from 20 to 23)

___________________________________________________

Track Result for:ED404576545IN Track More

Booked at Booked On Delivered

at

Delivered

on

RAJ NAGAR II 27/04/2012 LODI ROAD

H.O 03/05/2012 Details

Date Time Status at Status

27/04/2012 10:35:47 RAJ NAGAR

II Item Booked

27/04/2012 15:57:47 RAJ NAGAR

II

Item bagged for NEW

DELHI

02/05/2012 09:07:38 NEW DELHI Bag Received

02/05/2012 09:09:05 NEW DELHI Bag Opened

02/05/2012 14:08:54 NEW DELHI Item bagged for LODI

ROAD H.O

03/05/2012 04:58:07 NEW DELHI Bag Despatched to

LODI ROAD H.O

03/05/2012 09:14:05 LODI ROAD

H.O Bag Received

03/05/2012 09:14:30 LODI ROAD

H.O Bag Opened

03/05/2012 09:14:31 LODI ROAD

H.O Item Received

03/05/2012 00:00:00 LODI ROAD

H.O Item Delivered

Annexure: P-14(colly)

HIGH COURT OF DELHI:NEW DELHI

No.19227/RTI/DHC/533/12

Dated:27/08/2012

From,

The Public Information Officer

Delhi High Court

New Delhi.

To,

Mr. Om Prakash Poddar,

R/O-RZF-893,

Netaji Subhash Marg,

Raj Nagar, Part-2

Palam Colony,

New Delhi-110077

Sub: Your application dated 12.07.2012 received on

31.07.2012 from Under Secretary & CPIO, O/o-

Ministry of Law & Justice, Deptt. Of Justice,

Jaisalmer House (registered under Dy. No.

533/2012 dated 31.07.2012),seeking

information under Right to Information Act.

With reference to your captioned application,

seeking information under Right to Information Act,

the information asked for is furnished as under:-

Q

No.

Information Sought Reply

1.

2.

___

3.

On what ground and on

behalf of whom the next

date of hearing is fixed

for 18/10/2012 when no

one was present except

petitioner and petitioner

was absolutely against

for next date of hearing?

_________________________

Why the petitioner has

been alleged for the

adjournment of court on

6/7/2012?

Why Justice Veena Birbal

did not hear the plea of

petitioner for final

The information sought

would be available in the

Judicial Record and the

Copies/inspection of

judicial records cannot be

provided under Right to

Information Act in view of

Rule 5(a) read with Rule 6

of Delhi High Court (Right

to Information) Rules,

2006 which reads as under:

Rule 5. Exemption from

disclosure of information.

The information specified

under Section 8 of the Act

4.

order while neither

Respondent nor her

Advocate and nor the

Legal Aid Advocate of the

petitioner was present?

Why Justice Veena Birbal

is keeping this file open

till 18/10/2012 when

there is a deliberate

absence of Respondent

from the Court and when

there is a written

complaint against the

Legal Aid Advocate and

Secretary DHCLSC to the

Chairman, DHCLSC and when

there is a SLP against

the order of Delhi High

Court dated 8/2/2012 for

its failure to exercise

its jurisdiction to

deliver proper justice?

shall not be disclosed and

made available in

particular the following

information shall not be

disclosed:-

(a) Such information which

relates to judicial

functions and duties of

the Court and matters

incidental and ancillary

thereto.

Rule 6

“Information which is to

be furnished and access to

records shall be subject

to the restrictions and

prohibitions contained in

rules/regulations and

destruction of records in

force from time to time

which may have been

notified or implemented by

this Court.”

However, the certified

copies of intended

documents can be obtained

and/or judicial record can

be inspected in the manner

prescribed in Chapter 5 of

Volume-V, Delhi High Court

Rules and Orders after

quoting the relevant

particulars of the case.

The aforestated Rules are

also available on the

official website of this

Court i.e.

www.delhihighcourt.nic.in.

5. Why certified copy of

order dated 06/07/2012

vides 12125/2012 dated

06/07/2012 expected to

deliver by 11/07/2012 has

been withheld by the

Delhi High Court?

As the data on the server

was not available till

13.07.2012, the

application for certified

copy was sent to the

branch for adding the file

on 16.07.2012 (14.07.2012

and 15.07.2012 being

second Saturday and

Sunday).

The file was added on

17.07.2012 and copy was

prepared by the branch and

http://www.delhihighcourt.nic.in/

sent to the Filing Counter

on 18/07/2012.

However, the certified

copy was collected by the

applicant on 20.07.2012.

No further correspondence in the matter will be

entertained in the RTI Cell, Delhi High Court.

In terms of Section 19 of the Right to Information

Act 2005, in case you are not satisfied with the

information given above, you are at liberty to file

an appeal in form ‘F’ as prescribed in the Delhi

High Court (Right to Information) Rules 2006

accompanied by a fee of Rs. 50/- as prescribed in

the said Rules by means of an IPO/Demand Draft/Pay

Order drawn in the name of Registrar General, Delhi

High Court, to the Appellate Authority i.e.

Registrar (Admin.), Delhi High Court, New Delhi,

within thirty days of the receipt of this order.

The Delhi High Court (Right to Information) Rules

2006 are available on the official website

www.delhihighcourt.nic.in of this court.

(R.GOPALAN)

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

http://www.delhihighcourt.nic.in/


MAT.APP. 7/2012


Through: Appellant in person

versus


Through: None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

O R D E R

06.07.2012

Notice sent to respondent has not been received

back.

There is an adjournment slip on behalf of the

appellant.

Issue fresh notice to respondent, returnable on

18.10.2012.

Notice be sent by registered post, speed post and

through approved courier.

VEENA BIRBAL, J

JULY 06, 2012

mm

$ 18

Annexure: P-15(colly)

DELHI STATE LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY

Central Office, Pre fab Building Patiala House

Courts New Delhi

Permanent Legal Service Clinic

Shaheed Bhagat Singh Place

Room No.59-66 Gole Market, New Delhi.

Tel No. 011-23341111/23342223

Dated: 28.08.2012

F.NO.54/DSLSA/RTI(Aug-12)/12-13/5815

To,

Shri Om Prakash Poddar,

R/O RZF-893, Netaji Subhas Marg,


New Delhi-110077

Mobile No.9968337815

Sub: Information under the RTI Act, 2005

Sir,

The undersigned received an application dated

10.08.2012 regarding supply of information under

the Right to Information Act 2005. The asked

information is as under:

1. No action has been taken on the complaint

dated 07.02.2012 & 03.05.2012 as the same were

not found worthy of any action. However, on

receipt of the complaint dated 07.02.2012 Mr.

Jai Bansal, Advocate was called for discussion

and he clarified that the appeal which was to

be filed before the High Court of Delhi could

not be barred by limitations.

2. Mr. Jai Bansal, Ld. Advocate informed the

Committee office that due to some urgent work

he had to go out of station and therefore he

tried to contact Mr. Om Prakash Poddar. Since

he could not reach Mr. Poddar on his phone, he

moved the slip for adjournment. He also

informed that no material proceeding was

expected to take place on 06.07.2012.

3. Same as 2 above

4. No such request has been received in Delhi

Legal Service Committee. However, you can

download the copy of order from website of

Delhi High Court of Delhi.

As per section 19 of the Right to Information Act,

2005, you may like to file an appeal within thirty

days from issue of this order to the First

Appellate Authority whose address is given below:

Ms. Asha Menon

1st Appellate Authority

Delhi State Legal Service Authority

Central Office at 1st floor

Pre-Fab Building

Patiala House Court,

N.Delhi

(Kusum Sharma)

Public Information Officer

Encl:Receipt No. 68104 dated 23.08.2012

DELHI STATE LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY

Central Office, Pre fab Building Patiala House

Courts New Delhi-110001

Permanent Legal Service Clinic

Shaheed Bhagat Singh Place

Room No.59-66 Gole Market, New Delhi.

Tel No. 011-23341111/23342223

Dated: 24.09.2012

F.NO.12/RTI(Appeal-Sep-12)/12-13/5972

To,

Shri Om Prakash Poddar,

R/O RZF-893, Netaji Subhas Marg,


New Delhi-110077

Sub: Copy of order dated 17.09.2012

RTI Appeal No.12/RTI Appeal (September-12)/12-

13

Sir,

With reference to your appeal dated 31.08.2012

under RTI Act-2005, I am directed to forward

herewith a copy of order dated 17.09.2012 passed by

Ld. 1st Appellate Authority, Delhi State Legal

Service Authority for your information.

Thanking you,

Yours

Sincerely,

Superintendent (Admin.)

Encl.: as above

Copy to:-

The PIO/Superintendent (Legal Aid), Gole Market,

New Delhi.

Superintendent (Admin.)

IN THE MATTER OF SH. OM PRAKASH PODDAR

RTI APPEAL NO. 12/RTI Appeal (September-12)/12-13

17.09.2012

ORDER

This order will dispose of the First Appeal under

RTI Act, 2005 filed by Shri Om Prakash Poddar

against the reply of the PIO, DSLSA to the

application of the appellant for information.

Shri Om Prakash Poddar was present in person as was

Ms. Kusum Sharma, PIO, DSLSA. The application was

moved by Shri Om Prakash Poddar for filing relevant

documents. The same has been received and placed on

file. I have heard the appellant patiently and gone

through the appeal record as also the documents

that he has filed on 17.09.2012 and have also heard

all his submissions.

Having perused the file including the documents

filed on 17.09.2012 and heard the submission in

detail, I find no merit in the present appeal.

The brief facts as relevant for the disposal of

this appeal are that on 10.08.2012, the appellant

sought certain information from the PIO, DSLSA. The

queries of the appellant and the responses thereto

given by the PIO, DSLSA, are as under:-

SN Queries Raised by the

Appellant

Response of PIO,DSLSA

1. What action has been

taken against the

complaint of Petitioner

dated 7/2/2012 and

03/05/2012 so far?

5. No action has

been taken on

the complaint

dated 07.02.2012

& 03.05.2012 as

the same were

not found worthy

of any action.

However, on

receipt of the

complaint dated

07.02.2012 Mr.

Jai Bansal,

Advocate was

called for

discussion and

he clarified

that the appeal

which was to be

filed before the

High Court of

Delhi could not

be barred by

limitations.

2. Why neither Legal Aid

Advocate nor his any

substitute was present on

the date of hearing on

6/7/2012 in vide case no.

MAT. APPL. 7/2012?

Mr. Jai Bansal, Ld.

Advocate informed the

Committee office that

due to some urgent

work he had to go out

of station and

therefore he tried to

contact Mr. Om

Prakash Poddar. Since

he could not reach

Mr. Poddar on his

phone, he moved the

slip for adjournment.

He also informed that

no material

proceeding was

expected to take

place on 06.07.2012.

3. Why Legal Aid Advocate,

DHCLSC filed adjournment

slip on behalf of

Appellant on the date of

hearing on 06/07/2012

without the information

and consent of Appellant,

when there is a serious

complaint against its

Secretary and Advocate to

the Chairman and when

there is a complaint in

SLP (C) 9854/2012 against

them?

Same as 2 above.

4. Why DHCLSC has not

supplied the certified

copies of Order dated

06/07/2012 and 08/02/2012

to the petitioner so far,

in spite of his repeated

request?

No such request has

been received in

Delhi High Court

Legal Service

Committee. However,

you can download the

copy of order from

website of High Court

of Delhi.

Dissatisfied with this response, the appellant has

filed the instant appeal submitting therein that

the information has been withheld or supplied

unsatisfactorily and that therefore, the same be

furnished. It has been submitted in the appeal that

the requested information under Query No.1

reproduced above could not be said to be complete

information in view of the following arguments and

reason:-

“Argument and reasons for full information: As per

the complaint dated 07.02.2012 there is an abuse of

court process by way of concealing the material

facts by the Legal Aid Advocate by fraud without

the consent of petitioner before Delhi High Court.

He has admitted this fact in his email

communication to the petitioner. He further

instituted an appeal rather than a writ or any

other legal action best fitted against the abuse of

Trial court process. Moreover, Secretary, DHCLSC

has allowed his Advocate to institute a wrong

petition on 8/2/2012 before Delhi High Court even

after written complaint to the Secretary, DHCLSC on

7/2/2012. The complaint of 03.05.2012 is against

the Secretary, DHCLSC to the Chairman, DHCLSC which

contains the abuse of power by the Secretary.

Hence, the information supplied is misleading,

false and frivolous”.

Thereafter the appellant has submitted and further

requested “Hence, true information to be given in

line with below mentioned questions:-

I. Was writ petition or any other legal action not best fitted into the abuse of Trial court

process as the petitioner had come with the

grievances of abuse of Trial court process to

the DHCLSC on 04/01/2012?

II. Is filing a petition by Mr. Jai Bansal, by way of concealing the material fact by fraud without

the consent of petitioner not an abuse of court

process?

III. Is allowing Advocate, Mr. Jai Bansal by the

Secretary, DHCLSC to institute a wrong petition

on 8/2/2012 before Delhi High Court even after a

written complaint to the Secretary, DHCLSC on

7/2/2012, not an abuse of vested power by the

Secretary, DHCLSC?

IV. Is the above as (i), (ii) and (iii) not worthy of any action?”

With regard to the second query, reproduced herein

above the arguments and reason submitted for full

information are as follows:-

“Here also the furnished information is false.

In fact the Petitioner has contacted him over

his mobile on the date of hearing when he did

not turn up on the court date even after

verbal assurance in day advance. Moreover,

there was a material proceeding for the final

order as the notice sent to the respondent on

08.02.2012 had not been received back.

Therefore, there is a deliberate attempt of

nexus between respondent, DHCLSC and Judiciary

to kill my bedridden with home oxygen mother,

who happens to be last member of my family, in

the similar fashion as the respondent and her

associates had killed my father in 2007.

Hence, the information supplied is incomplete

and false. Hence, true information to be given

in line with the following questions:-

I. Can Legal Aid Advocate and DHCLSC move the

adjournment slip without written information

and consent of the petitioner?

II. If yes then kindly inform me under which

section DHCLSC is authorized to do so, if not

then why without written information and

consent of the petitioner, adjournment slip

being filed by the Advocate within the

knowledge of DHCLSC office?

It has been explained to Shri Om Prakash Poddar

that whether a writ petition or any other legal

action was best suited or fitted into the facts of

his case wherein he alleges that there is abuse of

the trial court process, and whether it amounted to

abuse of court process and allegedly allowing the

advocate to institute “Writ Petition”, even after a

written complaint to the Secretary was not an abuse

of vested powers of the Secretary, are all

questions that are eliciting an opinion which does

not qualify as information under the RTI Act.

Similarly, the query as to whether a legal aid

advocate could move an adjournment slip without

written information and consent of the petitioner

has already been answered by the PIO, DSLSA to this

effect that as Shri Jai Bansal, Advocate, could not

attend the Court and was not able to contact the

present appellant, the adjournment slip had been

submitted to the Court.

As regard the query No. (ii) regarding furnishing

the Section under which DHCLSC is authorized to do

so and if there is none, why the written

information and the consent of the petitioner was

not sought is again explained and replied to by the

PIO in response to Query No. 2 reproduced herein

above. In any case, these do not qualify as

information sought.

The appellant appears to be dissatisfied with the

action that has been taken on his complaints.

However, under RTI Act, he is entitled to know what

happened to his complaints, but cannot dictate or

protest against action taken if he is not satisfied

with such action as has been taken.

Therefore, all his submissions, relying on the

additional documents filed relating to the

proceedings before the Family Court, are not

relevant for the disposal of the present RTI

Appeal.

The appellant may be aggrieved on various levels on

account of his matrimonial litigation, but that

dissatisfaction cannot be redressed by recourse to

the RTI. He has already approached the Hon’ble High

Court and is desirous to approach the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in SLP against the Hon’ble High Court

of Delhi. That, once again, does not concern the

Appellate Authority under RTI.

Furthermore, the conduct of Shri Jai Bansal in

filing an appeal excluding the allegations that the

present appellant wanted to include in the

pleadings cannot be faulted as Email reveals that

Sh. Jai Bansal refused to include such averments in

the best interest of the client namely the present

appellant.

It is, after considering all aspects, that the High

Court Committee would have filed the two complaints

dated 07.02.2012 and 03.05.2012 and the

dissatisfaction of the appellant to the action

taken can find no redressal under the RTI Act.

Therefore, the additional arguments and queries (i)

to (v) raised in the appeal in this regard as to

whether writ would have been better or an appeal,

or whether adjournment slip ought not to have been

filed without the written consent of the appellant

etc., are not arguments that are relevant to the

present proceedings.

The First Appellate Authority, as explained to Sh.

Poddar, has only to see whether the replies given

by the PIO, DSLSA, do not indicate any suppression

or misinformation of fact.

In the circumstances, the appeal is found lacking

in merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Copy of this order be sent to Shri Om Prakash

Poddar and the PIO for information.

The file is closed.

As per Section 19 of the Right to Information Act,

2005, you may like to file an appeal within 90 days

from the issuance of this order to the second

Appellate Authority whose address is given below.

The Chief Information Commissioner,

Room No. 305, B-Wing,

August Kranti Bhawan,

Bhikaji Cama Place

New Delhi-110066

-sd-

(Asha Menon)

First Appellate Authority

Delhi State Legal Service Authority

Date: 07/10/2012

Ref:F.NO.12/RTI/Appeal-Sep-12)/12/13/5972

From:

Om Prakash Poddar



New Delhi-10077

Mob: 9968337815


To,

The Second Appellate Authority,

The Chief Information Commissioner

Room No. 305, B-Wing,

August Kranti Bhawan

Bhikaji Cama Place

New Delhi-110066

Sub: Second Appeal U/S 19 (1) of RTI Act 2005

Dear Sir/Madam,

I regret that Ms. Asha Menon, 1st Appellate

Authority, Delhi State Legal Service Authority, New

Delhi dismissed the First appeal on the ground of

lacking merit in appeal vide her letter ref.

F.NO.12/RTI/Appeal-Sep-12)/12/13/5972 dated 24th

September, 2012.

Ms.Asha Menon, First Appellate Authority further

says, “she has only to see whether the replies

given by the PIO are correct or not and in that

regard, the answers given by the PIO, DSLSA, do not

indicate any suppression or misinformation of

fact”.

However, answers given by PIO, DSLSA are incomplete

and out of the context. Therefore, I requested the

First Appellate Authority to furnish the complete

information in context/in line with the below

mentioned questions which is contextual of the

original questions and form part of the same.

Without this context, the furnished information is

incomplete.

Under these circumstances, either you can give it

or else you can order her to supply the same.

Hence, I request you to pass an order to supply the

following Information satisfactorily, or supply the

same as per the rules under RTI Act-2005. My point

wise averments and arguments are as under:

Requested Information: 1.) What action has been

taken against the complaint of Petitioner dated

7/2/2012 and 03/05/2012 so far??

Supplied Information: 1.) No action has been taken

on the complaint dated 07.02.2012 & 03.05.2012 as

the same were not found worthy of any action.

However, on receipt of the complaint dated

07.02.2012 Mr. Jai Bansal, Advocate was called for

discussion and he clarified that the appeal which

was to be field before the High Court of Delhi

could not be barred by limitations.

Argument and reasons for full information: As per

the complaint dated 07.02.2012 there is an abuse of

court process by way of concealing the material

facts by the Legal Aid Advocate by fraud without

the consent of petitioner before Delhi High Court.

He has admitted this fact in his email

communication to the petitioner. He further

instituted an appeal rather than a writ or any

other legal action best fitted against the abuse of

Trial court process. Moreover, Secretary, DHCLSC

has allowed his Advocate to institute a wrong

petition on 8/2/2012 before Delhi High Court even

after written complaint to the Secretary, DHCLSC on

7/2/2012. The complaint of 03.05.2012 is against

the Secretary, DHCLSC to the Chairman, DHCLSC which

contains the abuse of power by the Secretary.

Hence, the information supplied is misleading,

false and frivolous. Hence, true information to be

given in line with below mentioned questions:-

(i) Was writ petition or any other legal action not

best fitted into the abuse of Trial court process

as the petitioner had come with the grievances of

abuse of Trial court process to the DHCLSC on

04/01/2012?

(ii) Is filing a petition by Mr. Jai Bansal, by way

of concealing the material fact by fraud without

the consent of petitioner not an abuse of court

process?

(iii)Is allowing Advocate, Mr. Jai Bansal by the

Secretary, DHCLSC to institute a wrong petition on

8/2/2012 before Delhi High Court even after a

written complaint to the Secretary, DHCLSC on

7/2/2012, not an abuse of vested power by the

Secretary, DHCLSC?

(iv)Is the above as (i), (ii) and (iii) not worthy

of any action?

Requested Information: 2.) Why neither Legal Aid

Advocate nor his any substitute was present on the

date of hearing on 6/7/2012 in vide case no. MAT.

APPL. 7/2012?

Supplied Information: 2.) Mr. Jai Bansal, Ld.

Advocate informed the Committee office that due to

some urgent work he had to go out of station and

therefore he tried to contact Mr. Om Prakash

Poddar. Since he could not reach Mr. Poddar on his

phone, he moved the slip for adjournment. He also

informed that no material proceeding was expected

to take place on 06.07.2012.

Argument and reasons for full information: Here

also the furnished information is false. In fact

the Petitioner has contacted him over his mobile on

the date of hearing when he did not turn up on the

court date even after verbal assurance in day

advance. Moreover, there was a material proceeding

for the final order as the notice sent to the

respondent on 08.02.2012 had not been received

back. Therefore, there is a deliberate attempt of

nexus between respondent, DHCLSC and Judiciary to

kill my bedridden with home oxygen mother, who

happens to be last member of my family, in the

similar fashion as the respondent and her

associates had killed my father in 2007.

Hence, the information supplied is incomplete and

false. Hence, true information to be given in line

with the following questions:-

(i) Can Legal Aid Advocate and DHCLSC move the

adjournment slip without written information and

consent of the petitioner?

(ii) If yes then kindly inform me under which

section DHCLSC is authorized to do so, if not then

why without written information and consent of the

petitioner, adjournment slip being filed by the

Advocate within the knowledge of DHCLSC office?

Om Prakash Poddar

Petitioner

Encl:

1. Second Appeal RTI application. (Page 01 to 04)

2. Online generated Documents of CIC. (Page 05 to

09)

3. Details of BPL Proof-Affidavit of Income. (Page

10 to 10)

4. RTI Reply from PIO DSLSA, New Delhi. (Page 11

to 11)

5. RTI Reply from First Appellate Authority,

DSLSA, New Delhi. (Page 12 to 19)

Annexure: P-16


MAT.APP. 7/2012


Through: Appellant in person.

versus


Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

O R D E R

18.10.2012

Process fee not filed by the appellant due to

which notice could not be issued to respondent.

The impugned judgment/decree under challenge is

the judgment passed by the Family Court, Dwarka,

Delhi. Under Section 19(6) of the Family Courts

Act, an appeal has to be heard by the Division

Bench of this court.

Subject to orders of Hon?ble the Chief Justice,

list the present appeal before the Division Bench

dealing with such matters, as per roster, for

directions, on 06.11.2012.

VEENA BIRBAL, J

OCTOBER 18, 2012

cl

$ 21

Annexure: P-17


MAT.APP. 7/2012


Through: Mr. Jai Bansal, Advocate.

versus


Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

O R D E R

06.11.2012

The present appeal has been filed through the

Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. Learned

counsel appearing states that the legal aid to the

appellant has been withdrawn in view of undesirable

conduct of the appellant. Thus, he states that he

would not be appearing any more in the matter.

None has appeared for the appellant as it appears

that the appellant has not made any alternative

arrangement. Adverse orders are deferred.

List for directions on 22.01.2013.

Let simultaneously a Court Notice issue to the

appellant informing him that unless he makes

necessary arrangement, the appeal may be dismissed

for non-prosecution on the next date.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

NOVEMBER 06, 2012

?BSR?

21.

Annexure: P-18


MAT.APP. 7/2012


Through: Appellant in person.

versus


Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

O R D E R

07.12.2012

CM No. 20465/2012 (exemption)

Allowed subject to just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

CM No. 20463/2012 (for direction)

The application has been filed for leave to

appear in person. The matter is already listed on

22.01.2013. The appellant may appear in

the appeal on that date in person.

Application stands disposed of.

CM No. 20464/2012 (for placing on record addl.

Documents)

The application filed by the appellant seeks to

place on record additional documents. Unnecessary

imputations have been made in this MAT.APP.

7/2012 Page 1 of 2 application. It appears that

this must have been the conduct of the appellant

which has led to legal aid being withdrawn to the

appellant. We are not inclined to entertain this

application.

Dismissed.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J

VIPIN SANGHI, J

DECEMBER 07, 2012

mb

MAT.APP. 7/2012 Page 2 of 2

$ 01

Annexure: P-19(colly)(i)

Om Prakash Poddar

<[email protected]>

Attn:SP Katihar

3 messages

Om Prakash Poddar

<[email protected]>

Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at

11:41 AM


Cc: [email protected], [email protected],

[email protected], [email protected], digpurnia-

[email protected]

To,

The Superintendent of Police,

Katihar

Dear Sir,

This is in continuance my previous complaint

dated 7th April, 16thJuly, 3rd Aug and 29th

September, 2011.

I have been called by DSP Barsoi Mr. Rajiv Ranjan

by his Govt. allotted mobile no.09431800040 on my

Delhi mobile no.9868797201 at 9.30 AM on 31st

December. Although, a detailed complaint in

writing against the accused party is on the

record of police, however he forced me to give

briefing verbally.

Due to the extreme terror caused by the accused

party who has an established nexus with mafia and

Govt machinery, I have been forced to become

homeless with my bedridden and on home oxygen

mother from Bihar residence to Delhi.

Presently, I am in Delhi pursuing my case against

the accused party vide Case No. MATT. APPL. NO. 7

OF 2012 in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

It is pertinent to mention here that in

retaliation of moving ex parte evidence by me in

the District Court on 1st August 2011 at 4.00pm

in Delhi, the DSP Katihar, Mr. Jugal Kishore

Sinha was moved to my Sonaili, Kadwa, Katihar

residence at 6.00 pm with SI Thana Kadwa and

Mukhiya, Kantia Panchayat and my younger sister’s

residence at katihar was also raided at the same

time. My mother was living alone at that time

after the death of her above the knee amputee

husband. She happened to be last living witness

of her son’s forced marriage at gun point.

However, Mr. Jugal Kishore Sinha, DSP Katihar had

come back without recording her statement.

Now, when the case is about to reach the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India, phone call made by DSP

Barsoi, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan is subject to your

further investigation.

Is it a call made by the accused party on behalf

of DSP Rajiv Ranjan? Or is it a sheer gesture of

unnecessary mental harassment?

In the midst of above circumstances, I further

request you to kindly direct your officers to

communicate with me in writing only.

Nevertheless, I would like to know that what

action has been taken against the accused party

so far.

With Best Regards,

Om Prakash Poddar

Annexure: P-19(colly)(ii)

Om Prakash Poddar

<[email protected]>

Attn:SP Katihar

3 messages

Om Prakash poddar

<[email protected]>

Thu, Sep 29, 2011

at 7:28 PM



[email protected], [email protected], digpurnia-

[email protected]

To,


Katihar

Dear Sir,

This is in continuation of my previous electronic

complaints against Mr. Jugal Kishore Sinha, DSP,

Katihar, dated 3rd August, 2011. I have already

reported you about his so called nexus

with the Justice S.B. Sinha, (Retd Justice of Patna

High Court, Retd. Chief Justice of Delhi High

Court), respondent's Begusarai lawyer Mr. Gopal

Prasad, his wife Veena Kumari (Protection Officer,

Women Cell) and about his investigating style i.e.

putting everything off the records. I have been

harassed by “Sinha” factor from Bihar to Delhi.

They are still behind us and being obliged by the

respondent’s family. I am afaraid that "this might

be a lala (Kayasth Network)".

His sudden move to my house on 1st of August, 2011

evening and coming back without recording the

statement of my mother who happens to be only

member in my family raises doubts on style of

functioning of Police against the complaint of

common man.

However, I have managed to file the written

statement of my mother in Delhi Court in the form

of Affidavit on 9th September, 2011 which seems to

become painful for Shri Jugal Kishore Sinha, DSP,

Katihar that is why he keeps on calling and

disturbing on my Delhi mobile 09868797201.

Shri Jugal Kishore Sinha, DSP, Katihar again called

me at 4.30pm on 29th September, 2011. I saw his

missed call and responded him immediately on

09470200215 frequently on the same date. He

intentionally disconnected my calls. I then

contacted his landline office no.06452-239407 at

5.36pm. The attendant told me that DSP has left for

his residence. I again informed the same to the SP,

Katihar office at 5.42pm and had detailed chat with

Mr. Deepak, SP, Katihar, HQ. He asked me to send

him in writing if possible in Hindi.

I do have DOUBT in shri Jugal Kishore Sinha, DSP,

Katihar's motive. It seems that he is trying to

harass me unnecessarily with some vested interest.

We are already terrorized for 7 years, lost my

father untimely and left Bihar to lead peaceful

life. Yet, the above mentioned nexus keep on

terrorizing us through one or the other means.

Please take necessary action at the earliest.

With Best Regards,

Om Prakash Poddar

S/O Late Sh. Deep Narayan Poddar

Sonaili, Shukkar Hatt, Kadwa, Katihar

Bihar-855114

[Quoted text hidden]

--

Om Prakash Poddar

Annexure: P-19(colly)(iii)

Om Prakash Poddar

<[email protected]>

Attn:SP Katihar

3 messages

Om Prakash poddar

<[email protected]>

Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:06

AM



[email protected]

To,


Katihar

Dear Sir,

Kindly refer our telephonic conversation I had with

you on 2nd August, 2011 at 9.45pm in connection with

sudden move of Mr. Jugal Kishore Sinha, DSP (HQ) at

my residence, Sonaili, Kadwa, Katihar to take the

witness of my uneducated, illiterate ailing old age

mother, Widow Asha Rani Devi age about 65 years on

1st of August, 2011 evening. She even does not know

how to operate mobile. I have mentioned the name of

my maternal uncle Mr. Lila Nand Poddar S/O Late Sh.

Bal Govind Poddar, who is the resident of Kantia,

Sonaili, Kadwa, Katihar and is local guardian of my

ailing mother. DSP (HQ) katihar, even did not

bother to contact my local guardian.

My younger sister’s house in katihar was also

disturbed, while her residential address was not

mentioned in my complaint. She was frightened and

informed me with fear. She is poor, uneducated and

down trodden.

My uneducated mother, who even does not know how to

operate mobile was frightened with crowd. Neighbor

informed me with fear as to whether she will be

jailed or what.

Then, I contacted SP of Katihar on 2nd August

evening about the incident. He was unaware of the

move of DSP. He later informed me that my 7th April

& 16th July 2011 complaints have been investigated

on 1st of August, 2011 evening suddenly.

As per the instruction of SP Katihar, I contacted

Mr. Jugal Kishore Sinha, DSP (HQ) over telephone at

around 10pm on 2nd August, 2011. He instigated me by

asking out of context question that how marital

intercourse is established at gun point or under

force. I replied that this is the subject matter of

court to go into the technicalities of marital

intercourse. When I asked about why case is not

being registered if you had the on the spot enquiry

and candid witness of my Mom? He immediately asked

me to put down the phone.

I have taken the help of President’s helpline and

case is under surveillance of Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Dy.

Secretary (HC&J), Jaisalmair House, New Delhi and

CIC, RTI, New Delhi.

My democratic rights are being suppressed and

crushed. I am stopped from giving factual

information to court. When I was refused to submit

application by the District Judge and Principal

Judge Family Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi on 1st

August, 2011 then I had approached free legal aid

Cell, a Government institution in Dwarka Court, New

Delhi.

The Petitioner wanted to submit Ex parte evidence

on 1st August, 2011 viz.

1) Affidavit of petitioner of 1st August, 2011

2) List of documents for ex parte evidence

3) List of witnesses

Principal Judge, Ms Deepa Sharma, Family Court,

Dwarka Court refused to accept on the same date. I

managed to contact Free Legal Aid Cell, Dwarka.

Legal Aid Cell referred the case to Ms. Saroj Bala,

Advocate. I requested Advocate to submit it on 1st

August, 2011 itself as the respondent will move the

application for cancellation or transfer of the

case. I just wanted to bring out the fact before

the court to put it on record. I may or may not

turn up on 7th September, 2011 as my life is under

threat. She ensured but did not file my affidavit

on the same date and even did not inform to me.

Surprisingly, when DSP of katihar, Mr. Jugal

Kishore Sinha, is being sent on the same evening

1st August, 2011 to my house to take witness of my

old age Mom then I contacted Legal Aid lawyer and

enquired about the filing of my evidence. She gave

lame excuse.

As per the reliable sources I came to know that

some Justice Sinha of Delhi High Court is involved

in this case badly. Syndicates of Bihar bureaucrats

are used by the respondent’s family to harass me

and my old age mother. They want to kill her in the

similar fashion as they had killed my handicapped

father in 15th Nov, 2007.

This is how Police function against the complaint

of downtrodden common man.

With Best Regards,

Annexure: P-19(colly)(iv)

Om Prakash Poddar

<[email protected]>

Attn:SP Katihar

3 messages

On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 4:20 AM, Om Prakash poddar

<[email protected]> wrote:

Date: 16/07/2011

To,

The Superintendent of Police (S.P.)

Katihar, Bihar

Dear Sir/Madam,

This is in continuation of my previous emails dated

7/04/2011 and with reference to below marked email

of C.M. Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. No action has

been taken against the culprit sh. Surendra Narayan

Poddar and his family members so far. I would like

you to apprise you again about the case. This is a

case of fraudulent marriage and criminal

conspiracy. I am the victim of this case. Please

find below the facts & figure of fraudulent

marriage and criminal conspiracy to turn my house

as symmetry ground with names of big shots involved

in this case in para no.27, 28 & 30.

Sub: Case history of Fraudulent Marriage & Criminal

Conspiracy

1. The story begins with Fraud marriage with

misrepresentation of bride on 24th June, 2004.

2. The family of bride is influential, powerful

with black money. The father of the bride

{Surendra Narayan Poddar, Assistant Manager

(RC), Marketing Division} contact no. 06243-

274918; mob: 09835124600/09835089488 is from

Baruni, Refinery, Installation, Indian Oil

Corporation, having nexus with Petrol Pump

mafias and goons. The boy is Om Prakash Poddar,

a rural poor family of Bihar. The boy had three


members in his family viz. Father, age 67,

(Retd. Head Master of middle school), with

permanent disability, amputation of left leg

above the knee, mother, age 62, (housewife,

uneducated) and himself, age 38, educated from

JNU, Delhi School of Social Work, University of

Delhi and Indian Law Institute, Bhagwan Das

Mehta Road, New Delhi, and forced to remain

unemployed. Now, father is no more and reduced

to two member families.

3. The bride family has three daughters and one son. Out of three daughters eldest one was born

out of poverty, malnourishment, and persistent

tortures by her father and lack of personal

hygiene. She was a premature baby and her life

being saved meticulously by a team of doctors

but the physical and mental growth and

development remained abnormal forever. The

extent of abnormality was too high as she was

using quilt even in extreme hot season when a

normal people like us use to have cooler/AC.

She is sleeping without fan in hot summer days.

In winter days, her hands used to turn black

whenever she touched water. Her acts and

conducts are also abnormal. It is the admitted

fact by her family members and her relatives

verbally. Yet, they wanted to marry her first

as she was the eldest one in the family. It was

the myth of her mother that if she is being

kept unmarried then probably she would not get

salvation. So, it was necessary to perform the

rituals of marriage even though the candidate

was unfit. They were trying to marry her since

1989 but all efforts went in vain. The moment

groom side came to know about the fact,

immediately withdrew from the deal and asked

for the second daughter as she was fit for

marriage.

4. Her mother tried to twist the scene with fraud planning. She managed to tap this poor guy and

played a trick. She fixed a meeting with boy’s

family outside her home in the hotel of boy’s

district town. She presented her second

daughter in front of groom family. The deal was

accepted by the boy’s family. She again played

a trick, booked the hotel for marriage in the

same district immediately without leaving any

time for groom to investigate and understand

the family details.

5. At the time of marriage “varmala”, she changed the bride and presented her elder daughter with

pool of goondas. The boy’s family kept under

persistent life threat and pressure to keep

mouth shut. They even did not let them to

report to the police. They forced the boy to

take her to Delhi in the month of July, 2004,

though his infirm and disable old age parents

needed care and support at the Bihar house. The

relatives of bride family visited in the month

of June in Bihar, in the month of August in

Delhi, in the month of September in Delhi but

refused to take her back. Parents and both

sisters came in the month of October with

bride’s return ticket to Delhi but left her

because the pregnancy was not confirmed.

6. In the meantime, handicapped permanently

disable father became ill and being admitted to

AIIMS in the month of December, 2004. When he

was undergoing treatment with AIIMS under

critical situation, urine and stool passed by

catheter, mother was at Bihar house, and father

virtually was on death bed, she informed her

family about the confirmation of pregnancy. Her

father came with her return ticket in the month

of April, 2005. Both of them left on 15th

April, 2005 to their official quarter of Indian

Oil Corporation leaving the groom and his

bedridden father on their own condition and

never came back till date.

7. In the meantime, the father of the groom died prematurely due to lack of care and support and

persistent life threat from the bride’s family.

However, the groom never accepted this kind of

marriage and decided to live a fugitive life.

He was fully trapped in difficult situation. On

the one hand he had to track his old age infirm

parents and on the other hand, to cope with

harsh realities. As a result of that he could

neither concentrate on his private jobs nor on

his ailing parents. Father died on 15th Nov,

2007 under relentless cruelties inflicted by

the goons of bride’s family. They threatened

the groom’s family not to file the divorce

petition and even not to go for son’s marriage.

8. After an untimely demise of groom’s father,

they married their second daughter which they

had shown to first groom’s family, with a Bank

P.O. groom, S/O Ram Dev Poddar, R/O Pokharia,

Begusari.

9. Now, pokharia relatives happen to be resident of the prime location of Beusarai, very close

to Court, Jail and railway station and they

have lawyers and other influential people in

their families.

10. That I am the permanent resident of Delhi

and residing here since 1992. I have stayed in

JNU Campus from 1992 to 1995, University of

Delhi, North Campus from 1995 to 1997, from

1997 to 2004 in Budh Vihar, Munirka on rented

accommodation and from 2005 to till date in Raj

Nagar Part-2 Palam Colony on rented

accommodation.

11. That the bride family had come with vested

interest of dumping their garbage in the poor’s

basket in the year 2004 although my financial

status was not at par with them. I was

unemployed, father had amputation above the

knee with permanent disablement and was

prescribed for permanent escort and assistant

in 2000 itself, mother was chronic asthmatic,

and house was in rural area with minimum basic

facility.

12. That it was well understood by the bride

family that the groom family can not raise

their voice against fraud marriage, and if do

so bride family can suppress them with power,

money and goons.

13. That the bride was seen by me and my

mother only, in May 2004 in the Hotel Arya of

my parental district town, Katihar.

14. Immediately, marriage was also fixed on

24th June, 2004 in the Hotel Satkar of my

parental district town, Katihar only.

15. That the groom or any relatives of groom

have never ever visited bride’s place till

date, unaware of their address. Bride’s family

has disclosed their entire residential address

after 7 years, when they married their second

daughter which they had shown to me and my

mother.

16. Bride family kept their entire residential

address secret for 7 years from the groom’s

family. They have disclosed it after 7 years,

when they married their second daughter which

they had shown to me and my mother.

17. That the marriage was materialized

telephonically only on good faith and they have

stabbed on my back for good faith.

18. That mediator of the marriage, Prabhu

Narayan Poddar was the employee of SAIL, Bokaro

who had link with R.N.Poddar, a Vigilance

Officer, R/O Muzaffarpur, Bihar, who had in

turn touch with bride’s father because of

bride’s father’s posting in Raxual, Indo Nepal

boarder area.

19. That the mediator was bribed by the

bride’s family and supported them in fraud

planning.

20. That the marriage was attended by my three

sisters, one youngest brother in law, two

maternal uncles and my late father rest of them

were their goons.

21. No marriage card was printed from our side

because of lack of time and some suspicion of

fraud as they were belonging to the land of

fraud.

22. That the bride family had hired a

vediographer and photographer to keep evidence.

From our side no one was hired. My restlessness

and under threat can be noticed and observed

from the cassette. I have virtually cried out

at the time of see off. It can be observed.

23. We do not have any copy of snaps or

cassette.

24. I have made my protest to bride’s brother

and his friend at the time of Vermala that the

bride has been misrepresented. They did not pay

any heed.

25. I have whispered to my youngest brother

in law after the Vermala and asked him to help

me out to escape from here. But he showed his

helplessness. I pretended for toilet but the

bride family instructed to use near by stage

toilet.

26. From the day one after checking out from

hotel Satkar, Katihar, Bihar (marriage place)

bride has been told to go back but her family

forced me to keep and kept under threat.

27. I have made huge hue and cry in 2004

itself, but it was suppressed by Mr.

R.N.Poddar, Vigilance officer and bride’s

family. Mr. R.N.Poddar suppressed by saying

that “if everybody will keep good bride than

who will keep the bad bride”, so you have to

keep her. I asked him to issue NBW against me

but did not pay any attention to my agony.

28. Mr. Vishwanath Bubna, a business man and

landlord of Sonaili, Katihar, relative of

Babulal Bubna, a rice Mill owner in sonaili,

katihar and business man of Begusarai,

threatened over my then telephone

no.9810299524, not to report to police and not

to file a case. Bride’s families are from

notorious districts like Khagaria and

Begusarai. They will kidnap and kill you. As a

result of that I have changed my mobile SIM.

29. He and his associates again visited my

Bihar residence when I was in Delhi and

threatened my handicapped infirm father who was

staying alone there. My father informed me the

incident over telephone with fear and tears.

30. Other big people involved in this case

are: Shyamar Bubna, owner of petrol pump in

sonaili R/O Sonaili, katihar, Black fellow, Mr.

Shah, a businessman and friend of Bride’s

father R/O Begusarai, Pappu poddar, cousin

brother of Bride, running own coaching

Institute in Munirka, New Delhi R/O Rohini,

Delhi, Ashok Poddar, maternal uncle of Bride,

working with CA firm in Karolbagh, Delhi, R/O

Shalimarbagh, Delhi, Arun Poddar, maternal

uncle of Bride, a businessman, R/O Bakhri,

Khagaria, Ram Karan Mahto, a businessman &

landlord, R/O Sonaili, katihar who has link

with friend of Bride’s father.

31. Both her sisters, her mother, and her

father kept on directing bride to implement the

evil design over telephone 24x7 for the period

of 9 month and 20 days i.e. (25 June 2004 to 15

April, 2005)

32. Bride’s family forced me to take bride to

Delhi though I was unemployed. Forced me to

make trip of Vashno Devi in October, 2004 when

the bride family had come to Delhi in October,

2004 but I asserted and refused. Then her

mother both sisters and her father forcibly

made another plan, a trip of Agra, Appu ghar

and lotus temple of Delhi in October, 2004 and

took some obscene snaps with bride which I

never wanted.

33. My primary focus was to save the life of

my handicapped father rather than to fight with

this goonda like family.

34. The child is born out of bride’s mother

and sister’s conspiracy over telephone 24x7 for

a period of 9 months and 20days.

35. That the bride family wanted to use the

child as a weapon to crush me and my family.

36. The moment their interest got fulfilled

they took the bride back to their place letting

the permanent disable father to die.

37. That the widow mother Smt. Asha Devi, 64

year old, is a senior citizen and not putting

up well and is a patient of chronic Asthma,

COPD, Obsessive Sleep Apnea (OSA) and


AIIMS and being advised to keep on home oxygen

and is also suffering from various old age

diseases, is residing at her Sonaili, Near

Durga Mandir, Kadwa, Katihar house alone and


above noted family members. She was staying

with me in Delhi till Feb, 2011. She is

expected to come back Delhi in the month of

July, 2011.

38. That the syndicate of bride’s family in

Pokharia, Begusarai is showing muscle power to

crush groom and his mother. In fact, they were

planning to kill groom and his mother.


muscle flexing by Shri Surendra Narayan Poddar

and his family members as a result of that the

applicant has lost his father prematurely on 15th

Nov, 2007 and his family has now reduced to two

member family i.e. Asha Devi and Om Prakash.

More than 7 years of persistent threat has turned

his house into symmetry ground. After an untimely

death of his mother, he would not like to live in

this world anymore.

40. That there is a serious security threat of

life to shri Om Prakash and his widow mother

Asha Devi from the Petrol Pump mafias who have

nexus with the Shri Surendra Narayan Poddar, who

is Assistant Manager (RC), Marketing Division,

Indian Oil Corporation, Baruni Refinary and his

above noted family members.

41. That the above said persons have been

sending goondas like elements at the house of

the complainant/applicant with dire

consequences and have showered that they would

kill me Due to their threats I have to leave my

house frequently and I am living a fugitive

life, my life has been made miserable due to

their acts and conducts.

42. Due to their threat I keep on changing my

residence living secretly in Delhi.

Thanks &

Regards,

Om Prakash Poddar

Annexure: P-19(colly)(v)

Om Prakash Poddar

<[email protected]>

Attn:SP Katihar

3 messages

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Om Prakash poddar

<[email protected]> wrote:

To,

Date:07/04/2011

The Police Station In charge

Kadwa, Police Station (PS)

Sonaili, Katihar, Bihar

Pin-855114

Sub: Persistent Life threatening by Sh. Surendra

Narayan Poddar and his family members

Sir,

The applicant most respectfully submits as

under:

1. That Shri Surendra Narayan

Poddar, Assistant Manager (RC), IOC, Baruni

Refinary, Ms. Anita Poddar wife of Surendra

Narayan Poddar, Rina Kumari, Anuja Kumari,

Rupam kumari alias Dolly daughters of Surendra

Narayan Poddar and Anupam Kumar son of Surendra

Narayan Poddar R/O R.H. 5/6, Baruni Refinary,

Township, Begusarai and Jagdish Path, Bailey

Road Apartment 206, Malti Bihari, Patna, Bihar

are giving persistent threat to kidnap and

kill Shri Om Prakash, age 37 year, S/O Late

Shri Deep Narayan Poddar and Asha Devi, age 64


year, widow of Late Shri Deep Narayan Poddar

R/O Sonaili, Near Durga Mandir, Kadwa, Katihar,

Bihar-855114.

2. That the above noted person had

solemnized a fraudulent marriage with

misrepresentation of bride with Shri Om Prakash

on 24th June 2004.

3. As a result of that Shri Om

Prakash who is unemployed and staying in Delhi

has filed a divorce petition for grant of

Decree of Divorce on the ground of relentless

cruelties and more than 5 years of total

separation with the above noted family before

the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka, New

Delhi and the case is pending before the same

court.

4. That the widow mother Smt. Asha

Devi, 64 year old, is a senior citizen and not

putting up well and is a patient of chronic

Asthma, COPD, Obsessive Sleep Apnea (OSA) and


AIIMS and being advised to keep on home oxygen

and is also suffering from various old age

diseases, is residing at her Sonaili, Near

Durga Mandir, Kadwa, Katihar house alone and


above noted family members.

5. That there is a serious security

threat of life to shri Om Prakash and his widow

mother Asha Devi from the Petrol Pump mafias

who have nexus with the Shri Surendra Narayan

Poddar, who is Assistant Manager (RC), Indian

Oil Corporation, Baruni Refinary and his above

noted family members.

6. That there has been a previous

instance of muscle flexing by Shri Surendra

Narayan Poddar and his family members as a

result of that the applicant has lost his

father prematurely on 15th Nov, 2007 and his

family has now reduced to two member family

i.e. Asha Devi and Om Prakash.


most respectfully prayed that this act of

persistent threatening by the above noted

family members has led to traumatic situation

and will further prove to be disastrous for

Shri Om Prakash and his mother to sustain their

life peacefully. I therefore request the

concern administration to take necessary action

to protect the life and property of Shri Om

Prakash and his old age mother in the interest

and furtherance of justice.


Applicant

Om Prakash

Mob: 9472069170/09868797201

[email protected]

Copy to:

1. S.P. Katihar

2. Governer of Bihar

3. Chief Minister of Bihar

4. Chief Justice of Patna High Court

--


Om Prakash Poddar

Om Prakash Poddar

<[email protected]>

Acknowledgement Mail - Grievance Cell

[email protected]

<[email protected]>

Thu, Apr 7, 2011

at 8:04 AM


Name : Om Prakash

Address: S/O Late Sh. Deep Narayan Poddar(Head

Master) Sonaili, Near Durga Mandir, Kantia

Panchayat, Kadwa, Katihar, Bihar-855114

Phone : 9472069170

E-Mail : [email protected]

Dear Sir,

I received your Suggestion/Grievance through e-

mail. The same is being processed on priority

basis. On behalf of the Chief Minister of Bihar,

I thank you for showing interest in developmental

affairs of the state.

With Regards,

SMT MAMTA OJHA

Administrative Officer

C.M.Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.

Phone No. (0612)-2222793.





ANNEXURE P-20

Dated: 28.01.2013

To

The Hon’ble President of India

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE

UNDERSIGNED PETITIONER


1. That the Petitioner undersigned named

respectfully submits this petition seeking your

kind intervention against the order dated

22.01.2013 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi in MAT APPL NO. 7 of 2012.

2. That the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has

directed to admit and list in due course without

specifying the time limit and without considering

that the real issue involved in this case for

consideration of life and liberty of the petitioner

are at stake which has resulted in failure of

justice.


dismissed and declined to entertain the application

vide CM No. 20464/2012 dated 07.12.2012 and

reestablished and encouraged the abuse of Trial

Court Process and abuse of court process by the

legal aid, Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee

(DHCLSC). Proceedings of High Court of Delhi are

evident of this fact.

4. That disclosing the concealed materials by

the legal aid advocate and presenting the complete

dimensions of the case and disclosing the

unconstitutional act of Judges by the petitioner

have been defined and labeled as misconduct of the

petitioner by the order dated 7/12/2012 of High

Court of Delhi.

5. That the legal aid has been withdrawn by the

Delhi High Court Legal Service Authority (DHCLSC)

without any prior notice and intimation to the

petitioner infringing the fundamental right of the

petitioner.


wrongly held in the order dated 07.12.2012 vide CM

NO.20464/2012 that the petitioner has made

unnecessary imputations in this application and it

must be the conduct of the petitioner which has led

to legal aid being withdrawn to the petitioner.

7. That the respondent is ex parte and never

ever appeared before the High Court of Delhi except

once on 09.02.2011 at the Trail court in Family

Court, Dwarka, New Delhi. Notice has been served

and service affidavit with proof of delivery

receipt has been put on record on 22.01.2013 vide

diary no. 2376.

8. That the High court of Delhi is

unnecessarily harassing and delaying and not

adhereing the time limit as laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its catena of

judgments which has resulted in miscarriage of

justice causing irreparable loss and injury.

9. That the petitioner is reeling under

criminal conspiracy since 9 years by the respondent

and her associates having nexus with Mafia and

Government Machinery.

10. That the petitioner does not have any male

or female member in his family and is alone with

ailing bedridden and on home oxygen old age mother

and has been kept captive without any source of

income.

11. Judges seem to be above the law of the land

and exempted from doing all possible unlawful work.

12. Because Retd. Chief Justice of High Court of

Delhi, Mr. S.B. Sinha is mastermind behind this

whole episode of criminal conspiracy against the

petitioner. It has been put on court record.

Hon’ble Sir, since you are being the boss of the

constitutional bodies, it is therefore most

respectfully prayed to your kind intervention into

this matter for early disposal of the case in the

furtherance of justice.

Om Prakash Poddar

Petitioner

Annexure: P-21

ITEM NO.52 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)

No(s).9483/2013

(From the judgement and order dated 22/01/2013 in

MATA No.7/2012 of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N.

DELHI)

OM PRAKASH PODDAR Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

RINA KUMARI Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for directions and permission to

appear and argue in person and office report )

Date: 01/04/2013 This Petition was called on for

hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH

For Petitioner(s) In-Person

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the

following

O R D E R

This petition is directed against

order dated 22.1.2013 passed by the Division Bench

of the High Court whereby matrimonial appeal filed

by the petitioner was admitted with the

direction that the same be listed for hearing in

due course.

-2-

We have heard Mr. Om Prakash

Poddar, who has appeared in person for some time

and are of the view that the grievance made by

him against the High Court's indirect refusal

to entertain his prayer for early hearing of

the appeal is thoroughly misconceived and the

special leave petition is liable to be dismissed

as a piece of frivolous litigation.

Ordered accordingly.

[SUMAN WADHWA] [PHOOLAN WATI ARORA]

A.R.-CUM-P.S. COURT MASTER

ANNEXURE P-22

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

C.M.NO. 6714/2013 OF 2013

MATT APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2012

Court No.04

NDOH: REGULAR ON 22.01.2013

IN THE MATTER OF :

OM PRAKASH PODDAR … APPELLANT

VERSUS


APPLICATION FOR EARLY DATE OF HEARING

UNDER URGENT (MENTIONING) CASES FOR

LISTING/ACCOMODATION u/s 151 OF CPC (AS

AMENDED-UP-TO-DATE).

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice and His

Companion Justices of the Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi at New Delhi.


APPELLANT ABOVE NAMED


1. That the appellant above named respectfully

submits this application seeking early date

of hearing against the impugned common order

dated 16.12.2011 passed by the Family Court,

Dwarka of Delhi in HMA Case NO.678 of 2010.

2. That the petition was filed u/s 13 (1)(ia) of

HMA, 1955 for decree of divorce and the

Judgment was being passed a decree of

judicial separation u/s 10 of HMA 1955

without the consent of Appellant while the

respondent was ex parte.

3. That the respondent is ex parte and never

ever appeared before the High Court and the

Trial Court except once on 09.02.2011 at the

Trail court only. Notice has been served and

service affidavit with proof of delivery

receipt has been put on record on 22.01.2013

vide diary no. 2376.

4. That the life and liberty of the Appellant

is at stake and is reeling under criminal

conspiracy since 10 years by the respondent

and the associates having nexus with Mafia

and Government Machinery.

5. That the Appellant has absolutely been

crushed since 10 years and he does not have

strength to fight back with the Government

Machinery and Mafia any more.

6. That the head of the family of the Appellant

has already been crushed to death by the

respondent and the associates.

7. That the Appellant does not have any male or

female member in his family and is alone

with ailing bedridden and on home oxygen old

age mother and has been kept captive without

any source of income.

8. That the Appellant is not in a “state of

mind” to earn his livelihood under these

facts and circumstances of the case.

9. That the Appellant does not have any options

but to end his life.

PRAYER

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may be pleased to:

(a) Kindly accommodate for the early date of

hearing under urgent listing matter.

b) Pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble

Court may deem just and proper in the facts


DRAWN & FILED BY:

APPELLANT IN PERSON

NEW DELHI:

FILED ON : 22.04.2013.



I.A.NO. OF 2013

IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 19073 OF 2013

IN THE MATER OF :


VERSUS


APPLICATION FOR SEEKING PERMISSION TO

APPEAR AND ARGUE THE SPECIAL LEAVE

PETITION IN-PERSON

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

And His Companion Justices of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.


PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED


1. That the Petitioner above named respectfully

submits this petition seeking special leave to

appeal against the interim impugned order dated

29.04.2013 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi in MAT APPL NO. 7 of 2012.

2. That the Petitioner is well conversant with

the facts of the case.

3. That the petitioner is financially weak to

afford the lawyer.

PRAYER

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may be pleased to:

(a) Kindly permit the Petitioner to appear and

argue the Special Leave Petition in-person.

b) Pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble

Court may deem just and proper in the facts


DRAWN & FILED BY:


OM PRAKASH PODDAR

NEW DELHI:

FILED ON : 07.05.2013.

Third True Copy of SLP Civil No. 19073 of 2013 before SC

Law

Transcript of Third True Copy of SLP Civil No. 19073 of 2013 before SC