KESHAV MEMORIAL COLLEGE OF LAW,
INTRA-LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
CIVIL APPEAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL 458 OF 2023
IN
IN THE MATTER OF
Arohi ………. APPELLANT
V/s
Amit Kumar……… RESPONDENT
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HIGH COURT
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
● List of Abbreviations
● Index of Authorities
● Statement of Jurisdiction
● Statement of Facts
● Statement of Issues
● Summary of Arguments
● Arguments Advanced
● Prayer
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations Keywords
Hon'ble Honorable
S. Section
AIR All India
Report
HC High Court
Vs Versus
Ors Others
US Under Section
SCC Supreme
Court Cases
SC Supreme
Court
CPC Civil
Procedure
Code
No Number
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Legal Databases:
1. Manupatra
2. SCC Online
3. Westlaw
Cases
1. Russell v. Russell - 865 S.W.2d 929 (Tex. 1993)
2. Subbarama Reddiar vs Saraswathi Ammal 16 March, 1966/ 2 MLJ 263
3. Dastane vs Sucheta Narayan Dastane 1975 AIR 1534, 1975 SCR (3) 967
Statutes and Acts
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
3. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Appellant (Aarohi) and the Respondent (Amit Kumar) have agreed to submit
the Case Concerning Dissolution of marriage in the Family court of Hyderabad
pursuant to Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The jurisdiction of the Court
has not contested. There is no dispute as to the jurisdiction of the Court.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The present appeal relates to a Petition filed under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 by Aarohi,
the Appellant wife, praying that the marriage between the parties be dissolved by a decree of the court.
2. The parties to the dispute entered into a marital agreement on 01.04.2017. As per the contentions laid down by the
Appellant wife, the Appellant wife resided in her matrimonial home for 5 days post the solemnization of marriage,
but marriage between the parties was not consummated.
3. 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 pass by, situations will get better and the husband’s approach towards the tie would
improve.
4. Inspite of spending five years with the Respondent husband, situations remained the same with no sign of
improvement. As per her submissions, the Respondent husband 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
5. However, all her attempts to mend ways were proved to be in vain. She also discovered that the Respondent
husband 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.
6. The Respondent husband replied to the contentions in a contradictory manner and stated that the Petitioner wife
was given a bona fide treatment during their stay together. He further stated that the Appellant wife was not
interested in residing in the village and kept convincing him to move to the city. Perhaps, he was an unemployed man
and could not afford the city life, and so the demand was totally absurd and unacceptable to him.
7. Thereafter, the Appellant wife moved out of the matrimonial home without citing any reasonable and valid
justification along with her personal belongings, including stridhan. He consistently made efforts to get her back
to their matrimonial home, but she refused to return.
8. Thereafter, he filed a petition under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for restitution of
conjugal rights. The court was pleased to grant his prayer. The said petition was neither contested by the wife nor
did she return to her matrimonial home. All other material averments of the petition were denied, and it was prayed
that the petition be dismissed with costs.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether the grounds stated in the petition by the Petitioner are sufficient enough to entitle her to obtain a
decree of divorce by the court?
2. Whether the petition is maintainable?
3. Whether the Petitioner has any cause of action and locus standi to file and maintain the present petition?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the grounds stated in the petition 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 Appellant are not sufficient
enough to entitle her to obtain a decree of divorce by the court.
2. Whether the petition is maintainable?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that the petition raised by the appellant is not maintainable
due to insufficient grounds.
3. Whether the Petitioner has any cause of action and locus standi to file and maintain the present
petition?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that the appellant does not have any cause of action and
locus standi to file and maintain the present petition
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Whether the grounds stated in the appeal by the Appellant 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 appellant are not sufficient
enough to entitle her to obtain a decree of divorce by the court.
1.1 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 the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Hindu Marriage Act
defines divorce as a dissolution of the marriage. For the interest of society, Divorce is permitted only for a
grave reason otherwise given other alternatives
1.2 Section 13 of the hindu marriage act, 1955
This section deals with the concept of divorce between two parties in a lawful
marriage. 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 solemnization of the marriage, treated the appellant with cruelty; or
(ib) has deserted the appellant 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 a kind and to such an extent that the appellant cannot reasonably be expected to
live with the respondent.
1.2.1 Grounds stated in the petition by the appellant to obtain a decree of divorce by court
1.2.1(a) Cruelty
The petitioner had mentioned that “the Respondent 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 respondent with no proof and this caused further mental stress to the respondent.
1.2.1(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 spouses 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 this case, the appellant 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.
2. Whether the Appeal is maintainable?
2.1 Jurisdiction of Family court under Family Courts Act, 1984
It is humbly submitted before this 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 marriage1
arises, the jurisdiction conferred under Section 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 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 exercising 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.
2.2 Appellant 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 appellant are clearly not
sufficient enough to entitle her to obtain a decree of divorce by the court.
The appellant raised false allegations of cruelty and adultery. The appellant (Aarohi) had over exaggerated
the facts of the case and was mentally cruel to the respondent.
1
Section 7, (1) explanation (a) of the Family Courts Act, 1984
3. Whether the Appellant has any cause of action and 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 appeal
3.1 Locus standi to file and maintain present petition by appellant (Aarohi)
Under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, section 13(1), lays down nine fault grounds of divorce.
Some of which include Adultery, Desertion, Cruelty, Insanity, Leprosy, Venereal Disease, and others such
as Conversion, Or Renunciation 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 appeal
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 solemnization of the marriage, treated the appeal with cruelty; or
(ib) has deserted the appellant for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the
presentation of the petition.
3.1.1 Cruelty
The appellant does not provide a full picture as to what actually goes in their matrimonial house.
It is in fact the appellant who mocks the respondent based on his income and inability to afford to move to the
big city.
3.1.1(a) entered into a marital agreement as per the contentions laid down by the appellant
The appellant 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 respondent financial status and would still pester him into wanting to move
out of the sub urban Hyderabad to live in the urban city.
3.1.1(b) False allegation of cruelty and adultery
The appellant had mentioned that “the Respondent 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
respondent with no proof and this caused further mental stress to the respondent. 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 Jagesha2 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
3.1.1(c) The Petitioners allegations were excessive and caused mental strain for the respondent.
In Gurbux Singh vs Harminder Kaur3The 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 ground of cruelty.
Balram Prajapati vs Susheela Bai4, In this case, Balram proved that his wife's behavior with him and his
parents was Aggressive and uncontrollable and that she filed the false complaint against her husband numerous
times. The court held the wife guilty of her actions and granted divorce to Balram.
It is humbly submitted before the hon'ble court that the appellant had over exaggerated the facts of the case and
was mentally cruel to the respondent.
3.1.2 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 subsisting.
8. There must be sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove the liability of another spouse.
In this case, the appellant 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.
2
Smt. Nirmala Manohar Jagesha vs Manohar Shivram Jagesha AIR 1991 Bom 259
3
Gurbux Singh vs Harminder Kaur(2010) 14 SCC 301
4
Balram Prajapati vs Susheela Bai 22 April II (2003) DMC 708
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon‟ble Court be pleased to:
● Dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant at all costs since there exists no locus standi to file
and maintain the appeal.
AND/OR Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience. And for this, the Appellant as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
