In the Additional Family Court il of Madras

O,P No. :OOOiOs of 2009

In the matter of Hindu Maniage Act u/s l3(l) (l a)
Petitoner: R. Selvam
Vs
Respondent: P. Revathi
RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT IN ANSWER TO
THE PEJITION OF R. SELVAM.
L I, the respondent, P. Revathi, D/O Dr. D, Sornambigai, Retd. Senior Civil
surgeon opthalmologist (Tamil Nadu Medical services) and Dr, M, Pampapathy (Late),
Hindu, aged 32 years and is residing atNo.24/20, New Temple Land HUDCO, Hosur
-
635109, Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu.
The address for services.'of all notices and processes on the respondent is the same as
stated above.
2. The petitioner Mr. R. selvam is my husband and son of Mr. A. Ramaswamy,
Hindu, aged 35 years
and is residing at No.l34147,Bhanthi
Street, Vasudevan
Nagar,
Ashok Nagar, Chennai
-
600083,
3' I, the respondent, in answer to the petition of R. Selvam state that I was
harassed for dowry and abused physically,
mentally, verbally and financially by my
husband R. selvam from the day of my wedding dated 04 sep. 200g and by my in-laws
(R.
Poongavanam' A. Ramaswamy, R. Tamilselvi, R. sivagami, R.
padma
and
Padma's father-in-law Kantharaj) and their lawyer & friend Palanisamy. A comnlaint
was filed to this effect aeainst thq oetitioner R. Selvam
(mv
husband) and the others
meitioned above at the AII Women Police Station. Hosur on 28.07.2009
(Crime
No.
5/2009) under 498 A D4 of the Down Prohibition Act
4. R. Selvam and his family are searching for brides even after he got
married to
me. At the Dowry Prohibition Office, Singaravelar
Maaligai, Chennai on 06-Jan-2010, I
informed DPO that R. Selvam's profile is active, she told me to bring evidence in the
next session on 2l-01-2010. On 2l-01-2010, R. Selvam accepted that it was his ID but
was searchihg grooms for his sisters using that ID. I requested the DPO to clarify with the
Bharat Matrimony office she declined and said she has no investigative powers,
The very
same day I went to the Bharat matrimony office at Chennai and met Mr. Gurumurthy, the
company secretary. As per his instructions a letter (23-01-2010)
was sent by the
Inspector of Police, Hosur Town Police Station to Bharat Matrimony. The details were
sent from Bharat matrimony on 09-02-201 0 and received on 10-02-2010 by the Hosur
Police Station Staff. First, when asked if the staff at Hosur Police Station had received the
courier they DENIED receipt. After a confirmation with courier authorities that the
courier was delivered on the said date l0-02-2010, when again enquired with the Police
station staff They said it was MISPLACED on 14-02-2010, My complaint in this regard
to Tmt, Archana Ramasundaram IPS, ADGP, CBCID was sent to Tmt. c. Mageshwari
IPS, SP North Zone, CBCID, Guindy on22-02-2010.
In the absence of any acknowledgement from CBCID to a request by email an
appointment was given today at 12 noon but since I had to attend this court I had to
decline the appointment. The petition of false allegations has only served to divert the
498a Investigation.
5. The petitioner submits in para 6 of the divorce petition that,,he studied hi.t
MBA in London
qnd
worked in London" and in page 7 of the divorce petition under LIST
OF DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE l4(ll) OF CPC in S.No.: 9,
Description of Document "MBA
London University,, dated
(Sep
2001,, (Xerox
submitted). In his email dated 25 Dec. 2008 to my elder brother he states that
"passport
no. E3509902i visa status is student; and visa expiry
june
2009," If he had completed
his MBA in Sep 2004, how does he claim to have a student visa valid until June 2009
when he has said that after his MBA he only worked in London? In his Bharat
Matrimony Profile M885715 (Active even in Jan. 2010) he claims to have a work
permit
and he is unmarried even sfter 4 September 200E. As stated above the
petitioner
rather was repeatedly demanding me over phone that I should take a bogus
admission to UK before March 2009. On 6 Jan. 2010 Selvam told the DPO that
..over
the
phone I repeatedly asked her details to take visa before March 2009.-
LIST OF CONTRADICTIONS IN R. SELVAM's DOCUMENTS
Contradiction I
Pg. No. I Para No. I states
".....residing at l34l37,Bharathi Street, ..... while
pg
No. 2paraN".
l.
Door No. 134/47, Bharathi street.
set up at
Contradiction 2
Pg. No.2 Para no.3
states that "the expense for marriage and its reception were borne only by the
petitioner,"
but only submits the marriage reception bill from Hotel Green
park
dated
l8'09.2008 but obviously fails to submit the bill for the expense of the marriage on
03.09.200E end 04.09.200E at Hotel srinivasa Mahal, Hotel sivaranjini,
Hosur
evidently borne by my mother and brothers.
@*
tates
Contradiction 3
Pg. No. 2Para4
submits that
6'the
marital home was setup at Door No. 134147, Bharathi Street,
Vasudevan Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Chennai
-
600083 eversince the date of marriage" but
contradicts in his legal notice sent by G. Arivarasan (dtd 08.07.2009) "My client states
that from the day ofthe marriage reception (18-09-2008, as in para I oflegal notice)
my client started living with you in his residence as the matrimonial home (para no.2 of
legal notice)"
Contradiction 4
Pg. No.3 Para no,9.
if states the respondent went to her parents house from Chennai to Hosur
"3
months from the time of marriage" which contradicts "While so one day prior to
Deepavali day in the month of october...... left the matrimonial home (as in para 3
of the legal notice)"
Contradiction 5
R. Selvam in his email dated 2nd November 2008 asks me to stay at my parent's
bome untit he returns from London. But he contradicts this legal notice dated 8th .luly
2009 there is no
just
cause for your prolonged stay.
The above elicited are some of the contradictions that prove
the petition was filed
with malefied intent to divert and disrupt the dowry harassment investigation. This only
furthers in prolonging my suffering and defamation of me and my family.
I pray cost and immediate action since the threat from petitioner, his family,
his relatives and his friends to life, limb and property of me and my family members
is very much true.
In the light of the above facts this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an
order which this Court deems lit in the interest of the society and my welfare since
my dowry harassment case is pending investigation at Chennai.
I, P. Revathi, the respondent herein do hereby verify that what is stated
about are true and correct to my knowledge.
Enclosed copies of
1. Merriage Registration Certificate.
2. Email from R. Selvam dt:2nd Nov 2008
3. Legel Notice dt: 8ih July 2009
l. rn
5. Bharath MatrimonY ID Printout.
6. Complaint to ADGP, CBCID' Chennai.
7. Complalnt to $P, North Zone' CBCID, Chennai.
8. Email to ADGP, CBCID.
9. Emsil From R. Selvem dt 25th Dec 2008
10. Letter from R. Selvam dt 6th July 2009
Dgter 22-03-2010
Plece: Chennai{O0 001.
@}..",
Respondenl