E13 — Divorce Filing (Draft)

EVIDENCE REF: E13 · CASE CB-04 · PACK B · RESTRICTED

DIVORCE PETITION — HARISH SINGHANIA (DRAFT)

Family Court, Jaipur · Petition No. FC-JAI-2025-DIV-0088 · Filed 10 March 2025

Advocate K.K. Menon & Associates, Jaipur · Ref: KKM-2025-FC-HS-001 Obtained: Search of Harish Singhania's home office safe · 23 March 2025 · SIT Seizure Record SR-44

Document Note

This is a draft petition prepared by Advocate K.K. Menon at Harish Singhania's instruction. The petition was filed at the Family Court, Jaipur on 10 March 2025. Deepa Singhania was served notice on 12 March 2025 — nine days before the wedding of Arjun Singhania. The original was recovered from a locked safe in Harish Singhania's home office, Jaipur, during the SIT search on 23 March 2025.

DRAFT — FILED COPY RETRIEVED FROM PETITIONER'S SAFE

IN THE FAMILY COURT, JAIPUR
PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE
UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

PETITION NO. FC-JAI-2025-DIV-0088

PETITIONER: Harish Mohan Singhania, S/o Late Mohan Lal Singhania, Age 58 years, R/o 14, Singhania House, Civil Lines, Jaipur – 302 006, Rajasthan, India.

RESPONDENT: Deepa Singhania (née Kapoor), W/o Harish Mohan Singhania, Age 54 years, R/o 14, Singhania House, Civil Lines, Jaipur – 302 006, Rajasthan, India.

1. The Petitioner and Respondent were married on 18 November 1993 at Jaipur, under Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage has been duly registered. One child was born of this union: Arjun Harish Singhania, born 4 July 1998, currently 26 years of age.

2. The Petitioner submits that the marriage has irretrievably broken down and that there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. The Petitioner has, over several years, maintained a separate household and family in Dubai, UAE, of which the Respondent was not informed. The Petitioner accepts that this constitutes conduct the Respondent would reasonably find intolerable.

3. The Petitioner further submits that he has, in the interest of full disclosure and legal clarity, amended his testamentary documents and company succession arrangements to reflect the existence of his UAE family. Copies of the relevant amendments are filed alongside this petition.

4. The Petitioner proposes the following as basis for settlement: (a) Transfer of the matrimonial home at Civil Lines, Jaipur in full to the Respondent; (b) A one-time financial settlement of ₹4.5 crore; (c) Continued maintenance of ₹1.2 lakh per month for the Respondent's lifetime; (d) No claim by either party on the other's separately held assets post-decree.

5. The Petitioner requests that the court proceed expeditiously given his health circumstances, copies of which are filed in confidence with the court (medical reference: FEH-MED-2025-HS).

Petitioner: Harish Mohan Singhania
Date: 10 March 2025
Advocate: K.K. Menon, Bar No. RJ-2004-1182

Service Record

Event	Date	Detail
Petition filed at Family Court, Jaipur	10 March 2025	Petition No. FC-JAI-2025-DIV-0088 docketed
Notice issued to Respondent	11 March 2025	Court-issued summons, served by process server
Notice served on Deepa Singhania	12 March 2025	Served at matrimonial home, Civil Lines, Jaipur. Acknowledgement signed.
First hearing scheduled	15 April 2025	Date set at filing — now moot following petitioner's death

TIMELINE SIGNIFICANCE: Deepa Singhania was served the divorce notice on 12 March 2025. Nine days later — on 21 March — the wedding of her son Arjun took place. She received formal, legal notice that her 31-year marriage was being ended by her husband, that he had maintained a second family for seven years, and that his will had already been amended — all nine days before the event she had spent months organising. The thallium was already in her possession. She had 35 days.

MOTIVE — FINAL ELEMENT: This petition, combined with E08 (Dubai family), E04 (will amendment), E09 (thallium purchase), E10 (suite entry), and E12 (bank transfers), closes the chain. The motive is documented. The planning is documented. The means is documented. The opportunity is documented. The question remaining for the group: was there anyone else with sufficient motive and access — or does the evidence point in one direction only?