NMCC - 21

1
SVVV NATIONALSVVV
MOOTNATIONAL MOOT COURTIN
COURT COMPETITION, COMPETITION
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Petition No.of 2024

(Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 Special Leave to Appeal against the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
State of India)

Maria
(APPELLANT)
VERSUS
Mr. Shambhu Singh and Mrs. Roopa Devi
(RESPONDENT)

Petition No.of 2024

(Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 Special Leave to Appeal against the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
State of India)

Maria
(APPELLANT)
VERSUS
Mr. Shambhu Singh and Mrs. Roopa Devi
(RESPONDENT)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations.........................................................................................................................

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

2
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
Table of Authorities...........................................................................................................................
Statement of Jurisdiction...................................................................................................................
Statement of Facts............................................................................................................................

Statement of Issues..........................................................................................................................
Summary of Arguments..................................................................................................................
Arguments Advanced......................................................................................................................

ISSUE 1: Whether widow Maria (So-Called Wife of Sanat Kumar on the grounds of a live-in
relationship) is entitled to maintenance with her father-in-law
ISSUE 2 Whether the special leave petition under Article 136 of the constitution, brought before
this court is maintainable
ISSUE 3 Whether the live-in relationship in modern Indian society is valid
ISSUE 4 Whether the child is legitimate and entitled to the property of his father
ISSUE 5 Whether Maria is entitled to the property of her partner Mr. Sanat Kumar (Deceased)

Prayer...............................................................................................................................................

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 3
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

List Of Abbreviation
AIR All India Record
HC High Court
Ass Association
Sec Section
Mad Madras
I.P.C Indian Penal Code
PC Privy Council
Prop. Property
Co. Company
& And
Hon’ble Honourable
Ltd. Limited
Ibid The same place
Vs Versus
U/s Under Section
S.C.J Supreme Court Journal

CASE LAWS STATUTES, JOURNALS,

ARTICLES, WEBSITES

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 4
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
1. A. Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur Air 2005 SC 534, 1. Sharma I, Pandit B, Pathak A, Sharma R.
2. Ajay P Mathew v. State of Telangana and an Cr Appeal No. 725/2019 Hinduism, marriage and mental illness.
3. Amit Agarwal Vs. State of UP, 2007 (1) ALJ 277 (All) 2. Indian J Psychiatry. 2013 Jan
4. Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy, AIR 2022 SC 72 3. Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and speeches Vol
5. Bamhidhar Jha v. Chhabi Chatterjee AIR 1967 PAT 277 4 n.d

6. Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande vs State of Maharahstra AIR 1965 SC 1564 4. The Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872
7. Bhirari Singh Vs. State of UP, 1990 Cr LJ 844 (All) 5. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
8. Calcutta & Ors. and Kunhayammed vs. State of Kerala AIR 2000 SC 2587 6. Legitimacy Act, 1959
9. Divyananda v. Jayarai AIR 1976 SC 1519 7. Indian Succession Act, 1950
10. Govind Shankar Malme v. Bhagwan Govind Malme, Sec. Apl No. 81 of 2018 8. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
11. Gowrl Ammal v. Thulasi Ammal AIR 1962 MAD 510 9. Special Marriage Act, 1954
12. Gullipalli Solaria Raj v. Bandru Pavani AIR 2009 SC 1085 10. http://www.manupatrafast.com/
13. In Pritam Singh v. the State AIR 1950 SC 169 11. http://www.indiankanoon.com/
14. Jinia Keotin v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi 2003 1 SCC 730 12. https://www.scconline.com/
15. Joyita Saha v. Rajesh Kumar Pandey AIR 1999 CAL 109 13. https://www.casemine.com/
16. Kunhayammed & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. AIR 1959 SC 633 14. https://www.legitquest.com/
17. M/s. Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Their Employees AIR
1969 SC 360
18. Narpat Singh Vs. Jaipur Development Authority AIR 2002 SC 2036
19. Ram Saran Das and Bros. vs. Commercial Tax Officer AIR 1962 SC 1326
20. Rameshwari Devi v. State Of Bihar AIR 2000 SC 735
21. Reema Aggarwal vs Anupam and Ors, Appeal 25 of 2004
22. Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun AIR 2011 SCW 2447
23. Sadhu V. Baiza 1880 I L.R. 4 Bom. 37 (FB)
24. Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Vs. State of Gujarat, 2005 (SC) AIR 2005 SC 1809
25. Savitaben Vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 3 SCC 636
26. Shanta Ram v. Smt. Dargubai AIR 1987 BOM 182
27. Smt. Seema vs Ashwani Kumar AIR 2006 SC 1158
28. State of Bombay Vs. Rusy Mistry AIR 1960 SC 391
29. Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar AIR 2004 SC 2351
30. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC 530

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

5
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS MOST HUMBLY SUBMITS TO

THIS HON’BLE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION.

THE RESPONDENT WOULD MOST HUMBLY LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT

UNDER ARTICLE 136, THE APPEAL MUST BE TREATED AS A REGULAR
PETITION WITH NO SPECIAL STATUS, AS NO SPECIAL LEAVE
PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THIS CASE.

STATEMENTS OF FACTS

 Sanat Kumar and Maria’s Relationship;

Mr. Sanat Kumar was a managing director in a company and fell in love with Maria, a
Christian lady who was also working in the same company. Both of them had gotten
married without converting their religion.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

6
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

 Their marriage ceremony;

First, they married in a church according to Christianity. Later, they married according to
the Hindu rituals by performing sapthapadi, but the marriage was not registered. After
the marriage, they practised their religion, and Maria did not change her name either.

 Offspring out of Marriage;

After three years of marriage, they gave birth to a male child. Mr Sanat Kumar had
purchased a Bungalow from his earnings before the marriage, which was occupied by the
parents (Mr Shambhu Singh and Mrs Roopa Devi) Mr Sanat Kumar.

 Marias sacrificed for the sake of marriage;

After the marriage, Maria quit the job and became a housewife. Mr. Sanat Kumar's
parents did not like all these things, and they lived separately.

 Sanats Death;
After a few months, Mr. Sanat Kumar died because of illness and without making any
will or power of attorney. Maria claimed succession to his property and maintenance to
herself and on behalf of the minor child.

 Marias Judicial Moves;

However, the parents of the deceased refused to give a share as they disputed the validity
of the marriage with Mr Sanat Kumar and the child as illegitimate. As a last resort, Maria
filed a case before the trial court, in which she pleaded that she was in a “ live-in
relationship” with her deceased partner, Mr. Sanat Kumar. She also pleaded that they
lived like husband and wife. The trial court dismissed the suit.

 Marias Final Plea In the Hon’ble Supreme Court;

Afterwards, Maria filed an appeal under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code before
the High Court. The High Court rejected her succession plea. Against the dismissal of the
High Court, she filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

ISSUE 1:

Whether widow Maria (So-Called Wife of Sanat Kumar on the grounds of a live-in
relationship) is entitled to maintenance with her father-in-law.

ISSUE 2:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

7
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Whether the special leave petition under Article 136 of the constitution, brought
before this court is maintainable

ISSUE 3:

Whether the live-in relationship in modern Indian society is valid

ISSUE 4

Whether the child is legitimate and entitled to the property of his father

ISSUE 5

Whether Maria is entitled to the property of her partner Mr. Sanat Kumar
(Deceased)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: Whether widow Maria (So-Called Wife of Sanat Kumar on the grounds of a live-in
relationship) is entitled to maintenance with her father-in-law.
 The council argues that Maria is not entitled to maintenance from Sanat Kumar's father based
on the following points: she has no right of maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955
as their marriage is not valid, no right of maintenance under CrPC and Hindu adoption and
maintenance act as she is not a legally wedded wife, and no right of maintenance under
Special Marriage Act as there is no valid registered marriage.

ISSUE 2: Whether the special leave petition under Article 136 of the constitution, brought
before this court is maintainable
 Article 136 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court discretionary power to grant special
leave to appeal. This is used sparingly for substantial legal questions or gross injustice. Since no such
issues exist in this case, the Special Leave Petition should be dismissed.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 8
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
ISSUE 3: Whether the live-in relationship in modern Indian society is valid
 Marriage in Hinduism is deeply significant, rooted in its cultural, traditional, and spiritual essence. It's
seen as a sacrament, symbolizing permanence across lifetimes, often believed to last seven lifetimes.
Rituals like Kanyadanam and Saptapadi create a spiritual bond among the couple and families.
Beyond procreation or spiritual connection, Hindu marriage maintains social order and reflects the
faith's values.

ISSUE 4: Whether the child is legitimate and entitled to the property of his father
 The Council asserts Sanat and Maria's child is illegitimate. Legitimacy depends on marriage
annulment. The Legitimacy Act of 1959 offers partial protection. Inheritance of self-acquired
property, not joint family property, is allowed for children of void marriages.

ISSUE 5: Whether Maria is entitled to the property of her partner Mr Sanat Kumar
(Deceased)
 Maria and Sanat's marriage isn't legally recognized, but living together is accepted by the
Supreme Court. Maria isn't entitled to Sanat's property as their marriage is void under the
Hindu Marriage Act.

Arguments Advanced

I. Whether widow Maria (So-Called Wife of Sanat Kumar on the grounds of a live-in
relationship) is entitled to maintenance with her father-in-law.

1. The council for respondents most humbly submits that Maria is not entitled to any
maintenance from Sanat Kumar's father. The council asserts this point on the basis of 1.1]
No right of maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act 1955, 1.2] No right of maintenance
under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1.3] No right of maintenance under Hindu adoption
and maintenance, and 1.4] No Right of maintenance under Special Marriage Act.
A live-in relationship, also known as cohabitation, is an arrangement where two
romantically involved individuals live together without being married. The couple shares
a common household and engages in a sexual relationship but chooses not to formalize
their relationship through marriage. Firstly, they married according to Christianity in a
church and later married according to the Hindu rituals by performing sapthapadi, but

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

9
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
their marriage was not registered1. It means the intention of both the party is not to live in
a relationship. Hence Maria is not entitled to maintenance since:
1.1 No right of maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955
1.1.A Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 states that a marriage may be solemnized
between any two Hindus; otherwise, a marriage may become void. The Supreme Court,
Ajay P Mathew v. State of Telangana and anr 2 observed that only Hindus could marry
under the Hindu Marriage Act and that any marriage between inter-faith couples under
the same is void also in the case of Gullipalli Solaria Raj v. Bandru Pavani 3 was held that
marriage between Hindu and non-Hindu is void under Hindu Marriage Act.
1.1.B Since Maria (Christian) and Sanat Kumar (Hindu) performed sapthapadi without
converting their religion, their marriage is not valid and therefore, Maria cannot claim
maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act.
1.2 No right of maintenance under CrPC
1.2.A In the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Vs. State of Gujarat, 2005 (SC) 4, it has been held that
the legislature considered it necessary to include within the scope of Sec. 125 an illegitimate
child, but it has not done so with respect to women not lawfully married. As such, however,
desirable it may be to take note of the plight of the unfortunate woman, who unwittingly entered
into wedlock with a married man the legislative intent being clearly reflected in Sec. 125 of the
Cr PC, there is no scope for enlarging its scope by introducing any artificial definition to include
woman not lawfully married in the expression ‘wife’. This may be an inadequacy in law, which
only the legislature can undo.
1.2.B Even if the husband was treating the woman as his wife, it is inconsequential. It is the
intention of the legislature which is relevant and not the attitude of the party. The
principle of estoppels cannot be pressed into service to defeat the provision of Sec. 125 of
the Cr PC. Sec. 125 Cr PC is a social welfare legislation meant for benefit of destitute
women and the operation of the same should not be allowed to be obstructed or hindered
because of pleas about marriage being void, voidable or irregular.5

1
Moot preposition, ¶2
2
Ajay P Mathew v. State of Telangana and an Cr Appeal No. 725/2019
3
AIR 2009 SC 1085
4
AIR 2005 SC 1809
5
Amit Agarwal Vs. State of UP, 2007 (1) ALJ 277 (All) and Bhirari Singh Vs. State of UP, 1990 Cr LJ 844 (All)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

10
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
1.2.C In Savitaben Vs. State of Gujarat,6.it was held by supreme court that Wife' in Section 125
CrPC and under Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 means only legally married
wife. Scope of Section 125 CrPC cannot be enlarged by introducing any artificial
definition to include a woman not lawfully married in the expression 'wife'. Woman not
legally married is not entitled to maintenance u/s 125 CrPC. Since Maria and sanat kumar
marriage is not valid. She is not entitled to get the status of legally wedded wife and
hence the maintenance cannot be claimed by her under Crpc and under Hindu adoption
and maintenance act.
1.2.D Where marriage is void ab initio, Section 125 CrPC does not apply to a de facto wife. An
woman not lawfully married, is not entitled to maintenance u/s 125 CrPC. 7 The Court
rejected the petition of the woman as she was not a legally wedded wife. The Court held
that being Christian, their marriage in accordance to Hindu customs without any
conversion was void ab-initio and hence the woman was not a wife in the eye of law. As
such the woman could not claim maintenance U/S. 125 of CrPC, although her children
illegitimate would be entitled to maintenance U/S. 125.8
1.3 No right of maintenance under Hindu Adoption and maintenance act
1.3.A The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act has been legislated for the Hindus and has the
power and authority to govern only people who belong to the Hindu religion. If any of
the party is not a Hindu or has ceased to be one, they cannot claim maintenance as per
this act. Section 24 of the Act says: No one will be entitled to claim maintenance under
the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act if they have ceased to be a Hindu by
converting themselves to some other religion.

1.4 No right of maintenance under Special Marriage Act

1.4.A Under the Special Marriage Act of 1954, the entitlement to maintenance is primarily
contingent upon the existence of a valid and registered marriage. In the absence of a
registered marriage, the provisions of the Act regarding maintenance may not apply.
Seema v. Ashwani Kumar (2018)9: In this case, the Delhi High Court emphasized the

6
Savitaben Vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 3 SCC 636
7
Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC 530
8
Divyananda v. Jayarai AIR 1976 SC 1519
9
Smt. Seema vs Ashwani Kumar AIR 2006 SC 1158

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

11
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
mandatory requirement of registration under the Special Marriage Act. The court held
that the validity of a marriage under the Act is contingent upon proper registration, and
parties must comply with the statutory provisions for a valid marriage. It would be in the
interest of society if marriages are made compulsorily registrable. It would be in society's
interest if marriages were made compulsorily registrable. The legislative intent in
enacting Section 8 of the Hindu Act is apparent from the use of the expression “for the
purpose of facilitating the proof of Hindu marriages.10

1.4.B Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, provides compulsory registration of the
marriage without which a marriage cannot be regarded as valid. No marriage can be
deemed to have been solemnized under the 'Special Marriage Act' between the parties to
this appeal as there was no proof or record of registration. 11 Since Maria and Mr. Sanat
Kumar's marriage was not registered under this act, Maria may not be entitled to
maintenance from her father-in-law under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act.

1.4.C Invalid Marriage: Maria and Sanat Kumar's marriage, conducted according to Hindu
rituals, was not registered. Registration of marriages is mandatory under the Special
Marriage Act, 1954. Since their marriage was not registered, it lacks legal validity, and
Maria cannot claim the status of a legal spouse entitled to maintenance.

1.4.D Lack of Legal Recognition: Indian law does not explicitly recognize live-in relationships.
While certain judgments have acknowledged the rights of individuals in live-in
relationships, these rights are not equivalent to those of legally married spouses.
Therefore, Maria cannot claim maintenance as a spouse based solely on her live-in
relationship with Sanat Kumar.

1.4.E Absence of Legal Obligation: In Hindu law, the obligation to provide maintenance
typically extends to legally married spouses and dependent children. However, in the
absence of a legally recognized marriage, there is no legal obligation on Sanat Kumar's
family, including the father-in-law, to provide maintenance to Maria.
10
Supra, 9
11
Joyita Saha v. Rajesh Kumar Pandey AIR 1999 CAL 109

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

12
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
1.4.F Burden of Proof: Maria must prove the existence of a live-in relationship and
demonstrate dependency on Sanat Kumar for maintenance. Since their relationship was
not formally recognized through marriage or registration, Maria bears the burden of
establishing the nature and extent of their relationship to claim maintenance.

1.5 In conclusion, Maria's claim for maintenance from her father-in-law lacks legal merit due to
the invalidity of her marriage, the absence of legal recognition of live-in relationships, the
lack of legal obligation on the respondent's part, and the burden of proof on Maria.

2. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS

MAINTAINABLE?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

13
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the special leave petition filed by
the petitioner is not maintainable. 2.1] Special leave cannot be granted when substantial justice
has been done, and no exceptional question of law is involved; 2.2] Pure Question of Law

2.1 NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE EXIST IN THIS CASE AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE

HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE:
2.1.A Article 136(1) of the Constitution states: "Article 136(1) Notwithstanding anything in this
Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any
judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made
by any court or tribunal in the territory of India."
2.1.B The use of the words "in its discretion" in Article 136 clearly indicates that Article 136
does not confer a right of appeal upon any party but merely vests a discretion in the
Supreme Court to interfere in exceptional cases vide M/s. Bengal Chemical &

Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Their Employees 12 Kunhayammed & Ors. Vs. State of

Kerala & Anr.13 and State of Bombay Vs. Rusy Mistry 14 In Pritam Singh v. the State15 It
was held that The Supreme Court will not grant special leave to appeal under Art. 136 (1)
of the Constitution unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist and
that substantial and grave injustice has been done. Only then would the court exercise its
overriding power under Article 136. Special leave will not be granted when there is no
failure of justice or when substantial justice is done through the decision suffers from
some legal errors.
2.1.C In the case at hand, the petitioner has not shown any exceptional or special
circumstances. The magistrate itself has already done substantial justice, and the
petitioner cannot present the flaws in the present case. The law is well-settled in this
regard, and the present case is no exception. It is submitted that the counsel Article 136 is
an “extraordinary jurisdiction”16 vested by the Constitution in the Supreme Court with
implicit trust and faith, and extraordinary care and caution have to be observed in the

12
AIR 1969 SC 360
13
AIR 1959 SC 633
14
AIR 1960 SC 391
15
AIR 1950 SC 169
16
Paritam Singh v. Punjab, AIR 1950 SC 169

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

14
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
exercise of this jurisdiction. It does not confer a right of appeal on a party but vests a vast
discretion in the Supreme Court meant to be exercised on the considerations of justice,
call of duty and eradicating injustice. In the present case, the prosecution has tried the
accused in accordance with the law, and the Hon’ble High Court has already decided on
the case on merit. There was no miscarriage of justice. There was no special circumstance
existing in this case. Hence, this petition is vexatious. Hence, this Special Leave Petition
is liable to be dismissed in limine.
2.2 PURE QUESTION OF LAW
2.2.A In Narpat Singh Vs. Jaipur Development Authority 17, this Court observed as under: "The
exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Art.136 of the Constitution on the Supreme Court is
discretionary. It does not confer a right to appeal on a party to litigation; it only confers a
discretionary power of the widest amplitude on the Supreme Court to be exercised for
satisfying the demands of justice.
2.2.B In Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar 18, this Court observed Article
136 as follows:-

"It is an extraordinary jurisdiction vested by the Constitution in the Supreme Court

with implicit trust and faith, and extraordinary care and caution has to be observed in
exercising this jurisdiction. Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal on a party
but vests a vast discretion in the Supreme Court meant to be exercised on the
considerations of justice, call of duty and eradicating injustice."

2.2.C Though the discretionary power vested in the Supreme Court under Article 136 is
apparently not subject to any limitation, the Court has itself imposed certain limitations
upon its own powers vide Ram Saran Das and Bros. vs. Commercial Tax Officer 19,

Calcutta & Ors. and Kunhayammed vs. State of Kerala 20. The Supreme Court has stated
that this power must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only.
2.2.D All these cases conclude that the Special leave petition or SLP holds a prime place in the
Indian judicial system and has been provided as a “residual power” in the hands of the
17
AIR 2002 SC 2036
18
AIR 2004 SC 2351
19
AIR 1962 SC 1326
20
AIR 2000 SC 2587

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

15
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
Supreme Court of India to be exercised only in cases where any substantial question of
law is involved or gross injustice has been done. It is a discretionary power vested in the
Supreme Court of India, and the court may, in its discretion, refuse to grant leave to
appeal.
2.2.E No gross injustice has been done to the Petitioners, and no substantial question of law
needs to be determined. The Petitioners can't take this Remedy for granted; the SC has
the power to reject this Special Leave Petition.

3. WHETHER THE LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP IN MODERN INDIAN SOCIETY IS

VALID

3.1 The council most humbly submits that India is a sovereign nation following its own set of
laws, which the drafting committee drafted in 1949. India is a diverse country that values
individual beliefs and traditions. The Constitution is the supreme law, and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India is an essential institution that adheres to it. The Supreme Court of
India has issued various rulings that recognize the legality of live-in relationships in India.
These rulings are interpretations of the law that indirectly or directly relate to the concept. It
is vital to acknowledge that India is a mixed economy that embraces modern societal beliefs
while also being rooted in the Vedic society, which values the institution of marriage.
3.1.A In the case in question, Sanat Kumar, a devout Hindu, and Maria, a Christian, got married
through both Hindu and Christian religious ceremonies, but they did not register their
marriage. Sanat believed that he was spiritually connected with Maria for the next seven

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

16
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
incarnations, but Maria saw it as just a covenant. 21It is possible that Maria didn't register the
marriage and persuaded Sanat to do the same to gain maintenance and succession of his property.
However, getting married through the Hindu religion but not registering the marriage could be
perceived as an affront to the Hindu religion and Sanatan dharma. Respecting and honouring all
beliefs and traditions while being mindful of the Constitution is essential.
3.2 In a landmark case, it was observed by the Supreme Court that “ the bare fact that man and
woman live as husband and wife it does not at any rate normally give them the status of
husband and wife even though they may hold themselves before the society as husband and
wife and the society treats them as husband and wife” 22
3.3 According to Hindu Vedic philosophy, marriage is Sanskar—a sacrament—one of the
sixteen important sacraments essential to be taken during one’s lifetime. Marriage is
considered to be a junction of three important duties: social, religious, and spiritual. It is a
legal union of one man and woman as husband and wife and cannot extend to a woman
whose marriage is void or not valid in the eye of the law.23
3.4 As per the Hindu law, marriage eventuates between two souls tied in a sacred knot which
extends beyond one lifetime and continues to grow for at least seven lifetimes. Hindu
marriage reflects a permanence characteristic, which in essence proves its sacramental
nature. This gives us the idea that Hindu marriages are not developed only on the basis of a
contract but by way of a gift. Kanyadanam is a Sanskrit term which means “giving away the
bride” in the form of a gift to the bridegroom. It is a compulsory marriage ritual for the
Bride’s parents and the wedding couple. The “gift’ is considered to be holy and this ritual is
followed by Saptapadi. In the religious ceremony of Saptapadi, the bride and the groom hold
hands and take seven steps together as husband and wife as they walk around Agni, the God
of Fire. Before the Agni, the couple promises to safeguard and maintain their eternal
friendship. 24
3.5 Marital bonds are considered to be one of the aged practices amongst Hindus. Marriage, in
Hindu society, is a valuable place. By virtue of the Hindu customary law, marriage is one of
the ten sanskaras (sacraments). Marriage has been practised as a religious mandate in order to

21
Moot Preposition, ¶2
22
Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande vs State of Maharahstra AIR 1965 SC 1564
23
A jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur Air 2005 SC 534, Reema Aggarwal vs Anupam and Ors, Appeal 25 of 2004
24
Sharma I, Pandit B, Pathak A, Sharma R. Hinduism, marriage and mental illness. Indian J Psychiatry. 2013 Jan

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

17
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
perform religious responsibilities. Religious and pious duties, such as Dharma, Artha, Kama
and Moksha, are meant to be performed by every Hindu individual to lead a wealthy life. 25
3.6 According to the principles of Hinduism, Hindu marriage is a consecrated foundation
concocted by the Supreme Being (God) for two vital purposes:
3.6.A Procreation: The primary purpose of Hindu marriage is to keep the wheel of life moving
forward to ensure the continuation of life on earth. Basically, the motive is to pursue the
cycle of life. Nevertheless, such conjugation was conceived solely for this purpose and it
was expected that sexual union should be used for the same. 26
3.6.B Spirituality within oneself: The secondary purpose of Hindu marriage is to sustain social
order and support Hinduism by establishing a spiritual connection with oneself. Ultimate
spirituality is attainable only when the Hindu married couple performs religious fidelity
and receives the almighty’s blessings.
3.6.C Permanency: Hindu marriage, being a sacramental union, infers that it is an everlasting
bond which does not culminate in this world or after the death of either partner.
27
3.7 Instead, this marital bond continues to exist even after death in succeeding lives:
Indissolubility: Indissolubility of Hindu Marriage signifies a pre-eminent corollary of its sacramental
nature. In practice, the man and the wife cannot be separated upon the successful completion of a
Hindu marriage. The marital bond is indissoluble irrespective of whether it is an external factor or an
internal complication. The infrangible characteristic of Hindu marriage originates from the spiritual
paradigm of marital union. Once, the couple is tied in the sacred knot, they are expected to discharge
their traditional and religious duties. The married couple is also expected to preserve the family's
prestige in society and act in a way that brings material and spiritual satisfaction to the family.
3.8 The sacramental aspect of marriage under Hindu law has three characteristics:
3.8.A It is a sacrament union, which means that marriage is not to gratify one's physical needs
but is primarily meant for the performance of religious and spiritual duties.28
3.8.B A sacramental union implies that a marriage, once entered, cannot be dissolved on any
ground whatsoever.

25
Ibid
26
Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and speeches Vol 4 n.d
27
Ibid
28
Supra, at 23

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

18
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
3.8.C A sacramental union also means a union of soul, body, and mind. It is a union for this life
and all lives to come. The union is not only for this world but also for other worlds.

3.9 Marriage is a sacred bond that demands reverence and respect. It is a commitment that should
never be taken lightly. The importance of valid legal recognition and adherence to all duties
is paramount in ensuring that the sanctity of marriage is preserved. It is a solemn concept that
should never be treated as a mere performance. Hence, it is imperative that we uphold the
sanctity of marriage by recognizing its significance and fulfilling all necessary obligations.

4. WHETHER THE CHILD IS LEGITIMATE AND ENTITLED TO THE PROPERTY

OF HIS FATHER

4.1 The Council for the Respondents strongly argues that the child of Sanat Kumar and Marias is
illegitimate, irrespective of the nature of their relationship. The evidence presented clearly
indicates that the child was born out of wedlock, and any claim to the contrary is baseless.
4.1.A We urge you to consider this fact while making your decision courts in India decide
whether a child is legitimate or illegitimate depending on the following criteria: A child
born within lawful wedlock is a legitimate child if the father and mother are legally
married at the time of the birth. A child born outside the lawful wedlock is an illegitimate
child if the father and mother are not legally married at the time of the birth.
4.1.B Under the Hindu Marriage Act of 195529, Section 16 deals with the legitimacy of children
of void marriages. The manner in which Section 16 was drafted resulted in a
consequence: the status of legitimacy granted to a child born from a void or voidable
marriage was conditional upon the marriage being annulled by a decree of annulment.
Absent a decree of annulment, the child would continue to be ‘illegitimate’.
4.1.C In Jinia Keotin v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi,30 the Supreme Court has said: Under ordinary
law, a child, for being treated as legitimate, must be born in lawful wedlock. If the
marriage itself is void on account of contravention of the statutory prescriptions, any
child born of such marriage would have the effect, per se, or on being so declared or

29
Hindu Marriage Act 1955
30
2003 1 SCC 730

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

19
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
annulled, as the case may be, of bastardising the children born of the parties to such
marriage.
4.1.D In Shanta Ram v. Smt. Dargubai,31 the Bombay High Court observed that the children of
void marriages would be deemed legitimate, although they would not acquire the right to
succession to the same extent as is available to the children of valid marriage.
4.1.E The Supreme Court of India in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun 32opined that: the
constitutional values enshrined in the Preamble of our Constitution which focuses on the
concept of equality of status and opportunity and also on individual dignity. The Court
has to remember that relationship between the parents may not be sanctioned by law but
the birth of a child in such relationship has to be viewed independently of the relationship
of the parents. A child born in such a relationship is innocent and entitled to all the rights
given to other children born in valid marriages. But their right of property is restricted to
parents self acquired property.
4.1.F Section 2 of the Legitimacy Act33 of 1959 provides that the child of a void marriage,
whether born before or after the commencement of the Act, shall be treated as the
legitimate child of his parents jf at the time of the act of intercourse, resulting in the birth,
both or either of the parties reasonably believed that the marriage was valid.
4.1.G The court, therefore, in Gowrl Ammal v. Thulasi Ammal 34 “ concluded that after the
death of one of the spouses a decree of nullity cannot be obtained and where no decree of
nullity is passed in respect of void or voidable marriage children born of any such
marriage would not be entitled to the benefits of section 16.
4.1.H The High Court of Patna has constructed this section contrary to its own decision in
Bamhidhar Jha v. Chhabi Chatterjee.35 A Division Bench of the court has held that
children born of void and voidable marriages shall be deemed to be the legitimate
children of their parents until a decree of nullity or a decree of annulment, as the case
may be, is passed by a court.
4.1.I It is abundantly clear that this section provides only a partial protection to illegitimate
children, first, because it is applicable to only children, born of void and voidable

31
AIR 1987 BOM 182
32
AIR 2011 SCW 2447
33
Legitimacy Act 1959
34
AIR 1962 MAD 510
35
AIR 1967 PAT 277

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

20
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
marriages, and secondly, because it is applicable only to those children born of void or
voidable marriages in respect of which a competent court passes a decree of nullity, and
thirdly, because it entitles even children (benefited by the section) to take a share in the
properties of parents only.
4.2 Restricted property rights :
4.2.A In the event of a Hindu male dying intestate, i.e., without a written will, the Supreme
Court has ruled that his self-acquired property will devolve by inheritance and not by
succession.36
4.2.B The first case in order of date is a Full Bench decision of this court in, Sadhu V. Baiza 37
In this case the legal status of an illegitimate son of a shudra as a son was recognised and
it was held that after the death of his father such a son along with a legitimate son
succeeded as coparcener with right of survivorship to the property in his father’s hand,
he, however, taking only half a share.The Supreme Court held that a child born out of a
void or voidable marriage cannot be put on a par with a child born out of a valid
marriage, and consequently, he/she cannot inherit in the joint family property but only in
the separate property of their parents.38
4.2.C Under sub-section (3) of Section 16, inheritance of the illegitimate child shall be
39
restricted to the self-acquired property of the parent. Revanasiddappa's case did not
consider the Hindu law of joint property; it never considered or countenanced the share of
an illegitimate child in joint family property claimed by way of birth; it instead
considered the right of inheritance of an illegitimate child in the parents' property,
whether self-acquired or joint family property and not the right of an illegitimate child as
a co-parcener in the Hindu joint family property. 40 A Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and
A.K. Ganguly, hearing an appeal by Revanasiddappa, differed with earlier judgments in
interpreting Section 16 (3)41 of the HMA that “such children are only entitled to the
property of their parents and not of any other relation.”

36
Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy, AIR 2022 SC 72
37
1880 I L.R. 4 Bom. 37 (FB)
38
Supra, at 30
39
Supra, at 32
40
Govind Shankar Malme v. Bhagwan Govind Malme, Sec. Apl No. 81 of 2018
41
Hindu Marriage Act,1955

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

21
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
4.2.D In Gur Narain Das & Anr. v. Gur Tahal Das & Ors., [AIR 1952 SC 225], a Bench
comprising Justice Fazl Ali and Justice Bose agreed with the principle laid down in the
case of Vellaiyappa Chett and supplemented the same by stating certain well-settled
principles to the effect that “Firstly, the illegitimate son does not acquire any interest in
his father’s estate by birth, and he cannot, therefore, demand partition against his father
during the latter’s lifetime. But on his father’s death, the illegitimate son succeeds as a
coparcener to the separate estate of the father along with the legitimate son(s) with a right
of survivorship and is entitled to enforce partition against the legitimate son(s) and that
on a partition between a legitimate and an illegitimate son, the illegitimate son takes only
one-half of what he would have taken if he was a legitimate son.” However, the Bench
referred to cases where the illegitimate son was of a Sudra from a continuous concubine.

5. WHETHER MARIA IS ENTITLED TO THE PROPERTY OF

HER PARTNER MR. SANAT KUMAR (DECEASED)

5.1 As previously stated, it has been determined that Maria and Sanat's marriage is not legally
recognized. However, the concept of living together in a relationship is considered acceptable
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Although no specific laws govern such situations,
various court judgments offer different interpretations of laws related to this matter. The
existing statutes have provided protection to women seeking to exit from bad marriages by
offering safety and financial support. This includes women who have been victims of
domestic violence or those living in toxic households, as they can seek maintenance from
their former partners after dissolving the marriage.
5.2 The Hindu law states that in a void marriage, the man and woman do not possess the status of
husband and wife. As per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property of a male Hindu who
dies intestate devolves firstly on heirs in clause (1), which include the widow and son.
However, in the case of Rameshwari Devi v. State Of Bihar42 And Others Supreme Court Of
India 2000, it was held that Yogmaya Devi cannot be described as a widow of Narain Lal, as
42
AIR 2000 SC 735

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

22
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
her marriage with Narain Lal was void. Section 16 of this Act states that children of void
marriage are legitimate. Under the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, the property of a male
Hindu who dies intestate devolves firstly on heirs in clause (1), which include widow and
son.
5.3 The widow and son all get shares (see Sections 8, 10 and the Schedule to the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956). Since the marriage between Maria and Sanat Kumar is void, Maria is
not entitled to get the status of a widow and, hence, does not possess any right to the property
of Sanat Kumar. The term "propositus' widow" refers to the wife of a valid marriage. If a
male dies leaving behind only his widow after the Act comes into force, she would be the
sole heir and would inherit absolutely. If the propositus' marriage is void, the 'wife' is not his
lawfully wedded wife, and thus, she will not be his widow. The same is the case for the wife
of an annulled voidable marriage.
5.4 Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, confers a status of legitimacy on the children of
annulled voidable marriage and not on the wife of such marriage. A legally wedded wife is
entitled to the property of her husband. However, the wife of a void marriage is not entitled
to any share in the property of her husband. In the case of Shanta Devi v. State of Bihar, the
wife of a void marriage was not entitled to take any share.
5.5 Furthermore, it is important to note that under the Hindu Marriage Act, marriages between a
Hindu and a non-Hindu or outside the four main religious communities of Hindus are not
considered valid, and such a marriage if performed in India, will be invalid. In fact, marriage
between a Hindu and a non-Hindu is void under this Act.
5.6 Hence, it is at last concluded that Maria, not being legitimately married to Sanat, is not
entitled to be compensated by his father.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

23
SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYER

Wherefore in light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly requested that this Hon’ble Court pass a sentence
a. To Declare, that Maria is not entitled to Maintenance with her father-in-law
b. To Hold, Article 136 is not Maintainable.
c. To Declare, Maria and Sanat Kumars’ Son as an illegitimate Child.
d. To Declare, Living in a relationship in India is valid but not the present case.
e. To Hold, Maria is not entitled to Sanats’ Property

AND/OR
Pass any other order or relief that this Hon’ble court believes is in the best interest of
Justice, Fairness, Equity, and Good Conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT