True copy of SLP (C) No. 9854 of 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Order XVI Rule 4 (1) (a)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.9854 OF 2012
(Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India
arising out of the Order dated 08.02.2012 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 2012
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN
PERSON
PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)
PETITIONER IN PERSON

FILING INDEX
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION[C] NO.9854 OF 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
Om Prakash Poddar …Petitioner
VERSUS
Rina Kumari …Respondent
S.N Particulars Copies Court Fees
1. Memo of Appearance 1
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-10 3+1 20/-
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 312/-
Petitioner in Person
Om Prakash Poddar
Filed on: 02.03.2012

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION[C] NO. 9854 OF 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
RINA Kumari …Respondent
MEMO OF APPEARANCE
To
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi
Sir,
Please enter my appearance Petitioner-in-Person in the
above mentioned matter:
New Delhi
Dated this the 2nd day of March 2012
Yours faithfully,
(OM PRAKASH PODDAR)
Petitioner-in-Person

INDEX
S.N Particulars Page No.
1. Office Report on Limitation ‘A’
2. Listing Performa A1-A5
3. Synopsis and list of dates B-J
4. Impugned Order dated 08.02.2012 1-2
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 3-17
Affidavit.
6. ANNEXURE: P-1 18-22
Copies of handicapped certificate
Concession certificate) dated
04.12.2000 issued by AIIMS, New
Delhi and Translated copies of
Cremation Certificate dated
17.11.2007 of father of the
petitioner Issued by Cremation
Authority, Manihari, Katihar,
Bihar.

Copies of medical certificate
(Discharge Summary) dated 16.11.2010
Issued by AIIMS, New Delhi of Mother
of the Petitioner.
Copies of the police complaint
Dated 30.5.2011 to the Chowki
Incharge, P.P. Dwarka, Sector-10,
Dwarka Court, New Delhi-75
9. ANNEXURE: P-4 30
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
10. ANNEXURE: P-5 31
A copy of Order dated 06.06.2011

11. ANNEXURE: P-6 32-38
Copies of RTI reply dated
30.08.2011 Furnished by the Office
of Principal Judge, Family Court,
Dwarka Court, New Delhi.
12. ANNEXURE: P-7 39-60
Copies of Ex-parte evidence of
Petitioner dated 01.08.2011,
Evidence of friend of the
petitioner by way of Affidavit
dated 27.08.2011 and Evidence of
mother and sister of the petitioner
by way of Affidavit dated
07.09.2011 in Suit No. HMA-700/10
before Principal Judge, Family
Court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi.
13. ANNEXURE: P-8 61
A Copy of Order dated 07.09.2011

14. ANNEXURE: P-9 62-73
Copies of Judgment dated
16.12.2011 Passed by the Family
court, Dwarka Court, New Delhi in
HMA Case No.678 Of 2010
15. ANNEXURE: P-10 74-78
Copies of receiving of complaint
Letter dated 07.02.2012 to the
Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal
Service Committee, Delhi High
Court, New Delhi.
16. Application for seeking permission 79-80
to appear and Argue the special
leave Petition in person.

‘A’
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.9854 OF 2012
IN THE MATTER OF :
VERSUS
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.02.03.2012.
BRANCH OFFICER.

LISTING PERFORMA
1. Nature of the Matter ………CIVIL ………………………………………
2. Name(s) of Petitioner(s) OM PRAKASH PODDAR
2-a Email I.D. om.poddar@gmail.com
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 2012.
5. Advocate for Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
5-a Email I.D. om.poddar@gmail.com
6. Advocate for Respondent(s)…
6-a Email I.D. Not know.
7. Section …………XI………………………………………………………………….
8. Date of the impugned order…08.02.2012…………………….
8A. Name of Hon’ble Judge Hon’ble Justice Ms Veena
Birbal
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:-

(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 ……Hon’ble
Justice Sinha……………………………..
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 Veena Birbal
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. 02.03.2012.

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
The Petitioner is filing the present special leave
petition against the order dated 08.02.2012 passed
by the Hon’ble Justice Veena Birbal of Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Mat Appeal No. 7 0f
2012 whereby the Hon’ble High Court has 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 causing irreparable loss and injury.
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.
Copies 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
(pages 18 to 22).

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 30th
March 2010 later
forwarded in the court of First Class
Judicial Magistrate, Mr. Atul Kumar
Pathak, Begusarai Court, Bihar on 6th
June 2010.
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.
Copies of medical certificate of
mother of the Petitioner dated
16.11.2010 is attached herewith and
marked as Annexure: P-2 (pages 23 to 24 ).
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. Copies of the police
complaint dated 30.5.2011 made by the
Petitioner in this regard is annexed
(pages 25 to 29).
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
attached herewith and marked as
Annexure: P-4 (pages 30 to 30).
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
attached herewith and marked as
Annexure: P-5 (pages 31 to 31).
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.
Copies 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-6 (pages 32 to 38).
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. Copies 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 herewith and
marked as Annexure: P-7 (pages 39 to 60).
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 61 to 61).
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 62 to 73).
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.
Copies of receiving of complaint
letter to the Secretary, DHCLSC dated
07.02.2012 is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure: P-10 (pages 74 To 78).
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 Petition.

$23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAT.APP. 7/2012
OM PRAKASH PODDAR ..... Appellant
Through Mr Jai Bansal, Advocate
versus
RINA KUMARI ........... Respondent
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
% O R D E R
08.02.2012
CM No. 2423/2012 (exemption)
Exemption as prayed is allowed subject to just
exceptions.
MAT.APP. 7/2012

Issue notice to the respondent to show cause as to why
the appeal be not admitted, returnable on 06.07.2012.
Trial court record be also requisitioned for the next
date. Necessary steps be taken within one week.
VEENA BIRBAL, J
FEBRUARY 08, 2012
srb

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. 9854 of 2012
WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF
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 08.02.2012 passed by
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Mat Appl No. 7 0f 2012 whereby
and where the Hon’ble High Court
unnecessary delayed the petition without
considering that the real issue involved
in this case for consideration of the
gravity and seriousness of the petitioner

by the Trial Court 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 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.
ii. 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.
iii. 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.
iv. Whether filing a Mat appeal concealing
the material facts of judicial nexus
with the Respondent and abuse of Trial
court process without the consent of
Petitioner by the Delhi High court
Legal Service Committee, Legal Aid
Counsel is illegal.
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 impugned judgment
and order dated 8.02.2012 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-10 produced
alongwith 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 Hon’ble High Court has
committed failure to exercise its
jurisdiction to consider the gravity
and seriousness of the case in MAT.
APPL. No. 7 of 2012.
ii. 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.

iii. Because the Respondent was Ex-parte in
H.M.A Case No. 678/2010, yet the
judgment passed in favour of
Respondent.
iv. Because the crux of the whole episode
is based on two pillars i.e.
Forced/Fraudulent Marriage and
Criminal conspiracy.
v. 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.
vi. 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.
vii. Because the Petitioner has been kept

under force by the Respondent’s family
and the associates till date. Force
never ceased to operate.
viii. 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.
ix. 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.
x. Because the Respondent and her
associates have kept the Petitioner
unmarried and unemployed at the age of
39. They have virtually finished his
everything and kept him in captive
since 8 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.
xi. 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.
xii. 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:
Because the impugned order dated
08.02.2012 has been passed by the court of
Justice Veena Birbal, Delhi High Court,
New Delhi in Mat. Appeal-7 of 2012,
ignoring the gravity and seriousness of
the case which involves 8 year long
criminal conspiracy by the respondent and

her associates and abuse of Trial court
process.
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
08.02.2012 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 08.02.2012 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court and kindly grant relief to the
Petitioner to avoid undue delay and
unnecessary harassment, as justice simply
will be denied if the ailing mother of the
Petitioner will die untimely due to
unnecessary harassment by the respondent
and her associates.
Place: New Delhi Petitioner in person
Date:02/03/2012
Settled by: Petitioner

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)NO.9854 OF 2012.
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: 02-03-2012.

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION[C] NO 9854 OF 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
RINA Kumari …Respondent
AFFIDAVIT
I, Om Prakash Poddar S/o Late D. N. Poddar, aged 39
years, R/o RZF/893, Neta Ji 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 3 to 17]
and List of Dates (Page B to J’], 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 80 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 2nd
day of March
2012.
DEPONENT

ANNEXURE-P-1
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)……………………………………
……………………………………………….
(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
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-3
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:-
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
It is prayed accordingly.
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-4
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-5
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-6

ANNEXURE: P-8
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
True Copy

ANNEXURE: P-9
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, 07th
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
True Copy

ANNEXURE: P-10
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: om.poddar@gmail.com
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.
True Copy

I.A.NO. OF 2012
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.9854 OF 2012
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.
THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE
PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED
MOST RESPECFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the Petitioner above named respectfully
submits this petition seeking special leave to
appeal against the interim impugned order dated

08.02.2012 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
and circumstances of the case.
DRAWN & FILED BY:
NEW DELHI:
FILED ON :02.03.2012.

True copy of SLP (C) No. 9854 of 2012

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to True copy of SLP (C) No. 9854 of 2012

Similar to True copy of SLP (C) No. 9854 of 2012 (20)

More from Om Prakash Poddar

More from Om Prakash Poddar (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

True copy of SLP (C) No. 9854 of 2012