TEAM CODE :13

RAYAT BAHRA INTRA MOOT COMPETITION 2024

_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
____
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT MOHALI
(PETITION FILE UNDER SEC.13 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,1955)
PETITION NO.-------/2023
IN THE MATTER OF

AAROHI .....PETITIONER
V
AMIT KUMAR .....DEFENDANT
_______________________________________________________________________________________
________

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AND HIS
LORDSHIP’S COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF MOAHLIx

Memorial On Behalf of Defendant

TABLE OF CONTENT

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ADVANCED
PRAYER
Memorial On Behalf of Defendant

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

AIR All India Report

Hon’ble Honourable
SEC Section
SC Supreme Court
HMA Hindu Marriage Act

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
JUDICIAL DECISION

Saroj Rani vs. Sudarshan kumar chadha AIR 1984 SC 1562

T.sareetha vs. Venkata Subbaiah AIR 1983 AP 356
Smt.Harvinder Kaur vs.Harmander singh AIR 1984 DELHI 66
R.Rajgopal Reddy vs.Padmini Chandrasekharan AIR 238,1995 SCC(2) 630
K.A.Abdul Jaleel vs.T.A.Shahida AIR 2003 SC 2710
Smt. Nirmala Manohar Jagesha vs.Manhor Shivram Jagesha AIR 1991 BOMLR373
Gurbux Singh vs.Harminder Kaur AIR 2011 SC 114
Balram Prajapati vs. Susheela Bai AIR 2003 DMC 708
Narender vs. K.Meena AIR 2016 SC 4599
Subrata Roy vs.Union of India AIR 2014 SC 3241
Savritri Balchandani vs. Mulchand Balchandani AIR 1986 DELHI 152
Jamieson vs. Jamieson 1952 AC 525
Maya Devi vs. Jagdish Prasad AIR 2007 SC 1426
Augustin vs. Augustin (1882)4 ALL 374

Memorial On Behalf of Defendant

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner Aarohi has approached the District Court Mohali under section 7 of
FAMILY COURTS ACT,1984.
The Amit Kumar has approached the District Court Mohali.

Memorial On Behalf of Defendant

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The parties to the dispute entered into a marital agreement on 01.04.2017. As per
the contentions laid down by the Petitioner the Petitioner resided in her matrimonial
home for 5 days post the solemnization of marriage, but marriage between the parties
was not consummated.

2. The husband mistreated her, and they never shared the bed together. She returned
to her parents’ home after 5 days. Following the cultural practice in the Indian society,
her parents sent her back to her matrimonial place explaining that with time passes
by, situations will improve so would the husband’s approach towards the martial tie.

3. In spite of spending five years with the Defendant situations remained the same
with no sign of improvement. As per her submissions, the Defendant would return
home late at nights in a drunken state and would physically, mentally and emotionally
abuse her. He would beat her in the state of drunkenness. She extended efforts to
persuade and convince him to stop the same.
4. However, all her attempts to mend ways were proved to be in vain. She also
discovered that the Respondent was a man of weak character. He was involved in
extramarital relationships with multiple women, was an alcoholic and used to consume
intoxicants. She moved out of her matrimonial residence in May 2022 and since then
has been staying with her parents at her parents’ place.

5. For a year, Defendant consistently made efforts to get her back to their matrimonial
home, but petitioner refused to return.In June 2023, he filed a petition under sec.9 of
THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,1955 praying for restitution of conjugal rights.
6.Defendant said in petition that the Aarohi was given a bona fide treatment during
their stay together. He further stated that she was not interested in residing in the
village and kept convincing him to move to the city. Further,he was an unemployed
man and could not afford the city life,so petitioner demand was totally absurd and
unacceptable to him. Defendant also contended that Aarohi moved out of the
matrimonial home along with her personal belongings, including stridhan ,without
citing any reasonable and valid justification.
7. All other material averments of the petition were denied, and it was prayed that the
petition be dismissed with costs. Petitioner did not return to her matrimonial home.
8. Therefore, the present petition was filed under sec.13 of The Hindu Marriage
Act,1955 by Aarohi praying that the marriage between the parties be dissolved by a
decree of the court for the mental, physical and emotional abuse caused to her by
Defendant.

Memorial On Behalf of Defendant

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1 : Whether the petition is maintainable?

ISSUE 2 :Whether the petitioner has any cause of action ,locus standi to file and
maintain the present petition?
ISSUE 3 : Whether the grounds stated by the petitioner are sufficient enough to entitle
her to obtain a decree of divorce by the court?
Memorial On Behalf of Defendant

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1: Whether the petition is maintainable?
It is humbly submitted that before the hon’ble court that petition filed by
petitioner is not maintainable due to sufficient cause.
ISSUE 2 : Whether the petitioner has any cause of action, locus standi to file and
maintain the present petition?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the petitioner does not
have any cause of action and locus standi to file and maintain the present petition.
Issue 3: Whether the grounds stated by the petitioner are sufficient enough to entitle
her to obtain a decree of divorce by the court?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that ground stated in the
petition by the petitioner are not sufficient enough to get her decree of divorce due to
insufficient and false ground.
Memorial On Behalf of Defendant

ARGUMENT ADVANCED
I :- WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?
1.1 JURISDICTION OF FAMILY COURT UNDER FAMILY COURT ACT,1984
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that whenever a suit or proceeding
between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the
marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be, annulling the marriage ) or
restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage arises, the
jurisdiction conferred under sec.7 of the FAMILY COURTS ACT,1984 can be invoked.
Section 7 of the FAMILY COURTS ACT,1984 is as follows;
(1)Subject to the other provisions of this Act,a Family Court shall-
(a)have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any any
subordinate civil court under any Law for the time being in force in respect of suits and
proceedings of the nature referred to in the
Explanation; and
(b)be deemed, for the purposes of excerising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a
district court or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil court for the area to which
the jurisdiction of the Family court extends.

In case of SAROJ RANI vs. SUDARSHAN KUMAR CHADHA(1984),It considered court’s

interference in mandating compulsory cohabitation a gross violation of personal
choice ands autonomy and observed that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights
denied the woman sexual autonomy and the free choice of procreation, thereby
denying her privacy over her most intimacy decisions.
Above mentioned case was a landmark case that overruled the Andhra Pradesh High
Court T.sareetha vs. Venkata Subbaiah(AIR1983 AP 356) and affirmed the Delhi High
Court judgment of Smt. Harvinder Kaur vs. Harmander Singh Choudhry(AIR 1984 Delhi
66).The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of conjugal rights under Sec.9 of
Hindu Marriage Act,1955 which was considered violative of the fundamental right to
privacy of T.Sareetha.
The SC here observed that restitution of conjugal rights offered a husband and wife
the opportunity to settle any issues amicably and thus served a social purpose as an
aid to the prevention of break-up of marriage. The court stated that sec.9 did not
mandate sexual cohabitation because conjugality went beyond mere procreation and
sexual relations. The grounds considered by the single Judge decision in T.sareetha
(i.e,that restitution of conjugal rights infringed upon women’s sexual autonomy,
freedom to procreate and to act by their private choice ) were not accepted by the
court.
1.2 PETITONER HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION AND LOCUS STANDI TO MAINTAIN THE
PRESENT PETITION
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the grounds stated by the
petitioner are clearly not sufficient enough to entitle her to obtain a decree of divorce
by the court.
The petitioner raised false allegations of cruelty and adultery. The petitioner(Aarohi)
had over exaggerated the facts of the case and was mentally cruel to the defendant.

II): WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS ANY CAUSE OF ACTION,LOCUS STANDI TO FILE
AMD MAINTAIN THE PRESENT PETITION?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the petitioner does not has any
cause of action and locus standi to file and maintain the present petition.
2.1 LOCUS STANDI TO FILE AND MAINTAIN PRESENT PETITION BY PETITIONER(Aarohi)
Under the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT 1955, sec.13(1) lays down nine fault grounds of
divorce.
Some of which include Adultery,Desertion, Cruelty,Insanity,Leprosy, Veneral disesase
and others such as conversion or Renounciation of the world.
Section 13(1)of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,1955 states that;
(1)Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this
Act,may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a
decree of divorce on the ground that the other party-
(ⅰ) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with
any person other than his or her spouse;or
(ⅰa) has, after the solmnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty;or
(ⅰb) has deserted the petitioner for a continuousperiod of less than two years
immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.
In the case of R.Rajgopal Reddy vs. Padmini Chandrasekharan(1995),this case discuss
the importance of locus standi in matrimonial cases and emphasizes that a petitioner
must have a personal and legal interest in the outcome.
In the case of K.A. Abdul Jaleel vs.T.A. Shahida(2023) The court explained that locus
standi requires the individual filing the petition to have been directly affected by the
legal dispute in question.
2.1.1. CRUELTY
The petitioner does not provide a full picture as to what actually goes in their
matrimonial house.
It is in fact the petitioner who mocks the defendant based on his income and inability
to afford to move to the big city.
2.1.1.(a) entered into a marital agreement as per the contentions laid down by the
petitioner
The petitioner had entered into a marital agreement on 01.04.2017 as per the
contentions laid down by herself(Aarohi), she was well aware of the defendant
financial status and would still annoy him into wanting to move out of village to the
city.
2.1.1.(b) False allegations of cruelty and adultery
The petitioner had mentioned that “the defendant husband would return home late at
nights in a drunken state and would physically, mentally and emotionally abuse her”.
These were allegations that were thrown at the defendant with no proof and this
caused futher mental stress to defendant. These allegations were false and the court
was pleased to grant his prayer for restitution of conjugal rights. It is to be noted that
said petition was neither contested by the wife nor did she return to her matrimonial
home.
In the case of Smt.Nirmala Manohar Jagesha vs. Manohar Shivram Jagesha Court held
that “case for divorce, false, baseless, scandalous, malicious and unproven allegations
made in the written statement may amount to cruelty to the other party.
2.1.1(c)The petition allegations were excessive and caused mental strain for the
defendant.
In Gurbux Singh vs.Harminder Kaur The court held that simple minor aggravations,
squabbles, normal wear,and tear of married life which occurs in everyday life in all
families would not be satisfactory for an award of separation on the the ground of
cruelty.
In case of Balram Panjapati vs. Susheela Bai , In this case, Balram proved that his
wife’s behaviour with him and his parents was Aggressive and uncontrollable and that
she filed the false complaint against her husband numerous times. The court held that
wife guilty of her actions and granted divorce to Balram.
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that petitioner had over exaggerated
the facts of the case and was mentally cruel to the defendant.
In the case of Narender vs. K.meena (2016) The SC held that making unfounded
allegations or refusing to live with the husband could be ground for mental cruelty.

2.1.2 ADULTERY
Adultery means the consensual and voluntary intercourse between a married person
with another person, married or unmarried , of the opposite sex.
The concept of Adultery was added into the Hindu Marriage Act by the Marriage laws
Amendment Act, 1976.
There are certain essentials required of an act to be the considered as an act of
adultery, They are as follows;
5. One of the spouses involved in the intercourse with another person, married or
unmarried, of the opposite sex.
6. Intercourse should be voluntary and consensual.
7. At the time of the act, the marriage was subsiting.
8. There must be sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove the liability of another
spouse.
In this case, the petitioner has no evidence to prove that the defendant had voluntary
and consensual intercourse with another person, married or unmarried, of the
opposite sex during the period of their marriage.
In the case of Subrata Roy vs. Union of India(2014), this case addressed that burden of
proof, emphasizing that mere suspicion or hearsay is not sufficient to prove adultery.
In the case of Savitri vs. Mulchand(1987), the court held that evidence of opportunity
and inclination is needed to prove adultery, which must be established beyond
reasonable doubt.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

Ⅲ):WHETHER THE GROUNDS STATED BY THE PETITIONER ARE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO

ENTITLE HER TO OBTAIN A DECREE OF DIVORCE BY THE COURT?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the grounds stated by the
petitioner are not sufficient enough to entitle her to obtain a decree of divorce by the
court.
3.1 THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955
The Hindu Marriage Act 1955 is an act to amend and codify the law relating to
marriage among hindus. The provision for divorce was introduced in Hindu Marriage
Act,1955. The Hindu Marriage Act defines divorce as a dissolution of the marriage . for
interest of society , divorce is permitted only for a grave reason otherwise give other
alternatives.
3.2 Section 13 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT ,1955
This section deals with the concept of divorce between two parties in a lawful
marriage.
Section 13(1) of The Hindu Marriage Act ,1955 states that;
(1)Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this
Act ,may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife , be dissolved by a
decree of divorce on the ground that the other party----
(i)has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntarily sexual intercourse with
any person other than his or her spouse; or
(ia)has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty;or
(ib)has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years
immediately preceding the presentation of the petition;or
(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion ;or
(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind ,or has been suffering continuously or
intermittently from mental disorder of such kind and to such an extent that the
petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with respondent.
3.3 GROUNDS STATED IN THE PETITION BY THE PETITIONER TO OBTAIN A DECREE OF
DIVORCE BY COURT
(a) CRUELTY
Cruelty generally means the matrimonial act which causes pain and distress of
any kind such as physical, mental,
Economical to others. The concept of cruelty is subjective which always depend
on time, place and person,facts and circumstances of the case.
The petitioner had mentioned that The respondent comes home late at night in
a drunken state and physically, mentally and emotionally abuse her, these were
allegations that were thrown at respondent with no proof .
In the case of Jamieson vs. Jamieson,1952 AC 525 it was further mid down that cruelty
has to be inferred from all the facts and the matrimonial relations of the parties and
their inter-action in their daily life disclosed in the evidence. The question whether the
husband treated the wife with cruelty is always a question only to be answered after
all the facts have been taken into account. It will be a mistake to put the various
alleged acts or conduct into series of separate compartments and then say of each of
them that by themselves they cannot pass the test of cruelty and, therefore, that the
totality cannot pass the test.
In case of Maya Devi vs.Jagdish Prasad(2007),The SC ruled that mental cruelty can be
faced by either spouse, not just the woman.

(b)ADULTERY
Adultery means the consensual and voluntary intercourse between a married
person with another person, married
Or unmarried, of the opposite sex .
The following are essentials of adultery;
1.One of the spouse involved in the intercourse with another person, married or
unmarried, of the opposite sex.
2. Intercourse should be voluntary and consensual.
3. At the time of the act, the marriage was subsisting.
4. There must be sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove the liability of
another spouse.
In the case Augustin vs. Augustin(1882)4 all 374 appears to be the leading case.It was
ruled there that a false charge by a husband against his wife of adultery, although
such charge is made wilfully, ,maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause, is
not an act amounting at law to cruelty, so as to entitle the wife to a judicial
separation.This decision it is true cannot be said to lay down that this principle will be
applicable even to cases where physical or mental injury as a consequence of this
allegation is also proved. The general principle referred to above that in such cases
the totality of relations of the parties and all the relevant circumstances must be
considered, is in this respect of special significance. When cruelty consists not of
violent acts but of injuries,reproaches accusations or taunts, what the said decision
says is that wilful accusations of adultery may be made,which are not true and for
which there are no probable grounds and yet they would not amount cruelty at law.

In our case, the petitioner has no evidence to prove that the respondent had voluntary
and consensual intercourse with another person, married or unmarried, of the
opposite sex during the period of their marriage.

Memorial On Behalf of Defendant

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues framed, arguments
advanced and authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the
HON’BLE District Court of Mohali that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge and
declare that;

1.Dismiss the petition filed by petitioner at all cost since there exists no locus standi to
file and maintain the petition.

2.Granting restitution of conjugal right is valid.

Also, pass any other order that it may deem fit in the favour of the
PLAINTIFF in the light of Equity, Justice and Good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the DEFENDANT shall be duty bound forever pray.

Place: sd/-
Date: Counsel for Defendant;

Memorial On Behalf of Defendant