ICFAI UNIVERSITY INTRA CLASS MOOT COURT COMPETITION

BEFORE

TC-
THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Section 13 of Hindu Marriage act

IN THE MATTER OF

ROHIT SHARMA………………………………………………………..PETITIONER

V.
REENA SHARMA...………………………..…………………………RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS LORDSHIP’S COMPANION
JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Page | 1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. ABBREVIATIONS ………………………………………………………………
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………………………….
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………….
4. SYNOPSIS OF FACTS…………………………………………………………...
5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………………
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ………………………………………………...

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………...………………..

1. WHETHERTHEY WERE ENTITELED FOR DIVORCE UNDER SECTION 13 OF

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.?

2. WHETHER REENA WAS ENTITLED FOR COMPENSATION AND MAINTENANCE

OR NOT ?

Memorandum on behalf of RESPONDENT Page 2

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.No Abbreviation Full Form

1. & And
2. AIR All India Reporter
3. SCR Supreme Court Reports
4. Anr Another
5. Art. Article
6. Cl Clause
7. Para Paragraph
8. Edn. Edition
9. HC High Court
10 Hon’ble Honourable
11 www World wide web
12 Ors Others
13 P. Page
14 Pp. Pages
15 SC Supreme Court
16 SCC Supreme Court Case
17 Sec Section
18 UOI Union Of India
19 v. Versus
20 Vol. Volume

Memorandum on behalf of RESPONDENT Page 3

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDIAN CASE LAWS

1. Maya Devi v. Jagdish Prasad……………………………………………………………10

2. Sadhana Srivastava v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava……………………………………….12
3. NeeluKohli v. Naveen Kohli….…………………………………….12
4. Jai Dayal v. Shakuntala Devi…………………………………………………………14
5. BN Pandurangashet vs SN Vijayalaxmi……………………………………………….14
6. Yudhishter Singh v. Sarita…………………………………………………………14
7. Vimlesh v. Prakash Chand Sharma……………………………………................16
8. Ganja devi vs purshottamgiri………………………………………………………16
9. Sareetha vs T venkatasubhai………………………………………………………..17
10. Mrsveenakalia vs dr. jitendrakalia………………………………………………18
11. Satyadhamghoshal vs smtdebi…………………………………………………..18
12. R. gopal vs subhaiya…………………………………………………………….18

Memorandum on behalf of RESPONDENT Page 3

STATUTES & GUIDELINES

1. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

BOOKS

1. Cases and materials on the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 by Sukhdev Agarwal
2. The Civil Procedure Code by Avtar Singh

WEBSITES

1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.lexis-nexisindia.com
3. www.westlawindia.com
4. www.indiankanoon.com
5. www.advocatekhoj.com

Memorandum on behalf of RESPONDENT Page 4

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The respondent humbly submits before the Hon‘ble Supreme court of India, the memorandum for
the respondent in an appeal filed by them under section 13of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 and
section 11 civil procedure code.

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.

Memorandum on behalf of RESPONDENT Page 7

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of this Hon‘ble Court, the facts of the present case are
summarised as follows:

Rohit Sharma and Reena Sharma married on 1990 as per the provisions of Hindu marriage act
1955.

TIMELINE OF EVENTS

1990 Rohit and Reena got married and registered as per the provisions of hindu
marriage act.

1990 Rohit and Reena stayed together for someperiod and thereafter, the
appellant left India for France. The respondent was asked to join him after
having obtained the visa and completing other formalities. The respondent,
after a period of six months, joined the appellant in France.
1992 A daughter, Radha, was born toRohit and Reena.

June, 1993 The appellant, respondent and their daughter Radha came to India.

December, 1993 The appellant returned to France

May, 1994 Respondent also returned to France and Joined him

February, 1995 The respondent along with her daughter returned to India

January 1997 The appellant filed application for divorce under section 13 of Hindu
Marriage Act 1955alleging that after the solemnization of their marriage,
the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty.
September, 1999 Family Court Judge after assessing the rival contentions and evidence
adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that the respondent had
treated the appellant with mental cruelty and, therefore, the appellant was
entitled to get a decree for dissolution of marriage.

June 2003 Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment reversed the decision of
the Family Court holding that the appellant was at fault and he had been
trying to take advantage of his own wrongs, hence, hewas not entitled to
get a decree in his favour in view of section 23(1) (a) of the Hindu
Memorandum on behalf of RESPONDENT Page 7
 Marriage Act.  

July 2003 The judgement of the Division Bench was challenged before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India Argue the case on the behalf of the Appellant and
Respondent before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Memorandum on behalf of RESPONDENT Page 7

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

-ISSUE 1-
WHETHERTHEY WERE ENTITELED FOR DIVORCE UNDER SECTION 13 OF HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

-ISSUE 2-

WHETHER REENA WAS ENTITLED FOR COMPENSATION AND MAINTENANCE OR NOT

Memorandum on behalf of RESPONDENT Page 10

 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS

Issue1:WHETHER THEY WERE ENTITELED FOR DIVORCE UNDER SECTION 13 OF

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

 1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon‘ble Supreme court that, the Rohit and Reenaare entitled for
Divorce as per the provisions of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as the matter involves a substantial
question of lawwhich affects the basic rights of respondent.According to Sec 13(1)(A) of Hindu
Marriage Act,1955 Any marriage solemnised, 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 has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the
petitioner with cruelty; If the Court does not intervene, it will result in grossinjustice .

Issue2: WHETHER REENA WAS ENTITLED FOR COMPENSATION AND

MAINTENANCE OR NOT?

 It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Supreme court of India that the Respondent is
entitled for the Compensation as She had Faced Mental and Physical Torture by Appellant, Even
she was not given proper medical aid when she was in labour pain and had to give pre-mature birth
to the baby without any medical assistance.

Memorandum on behalf of RESPONDENT Page 11

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

 Issue1:WHETHERTHEY WERE ENTITELED FOR DIVORCE UNDER SECTION 13 OF

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

 1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon‘ble Supreme Court that, Rohit and Reena are entitled for
Divorce as per the provisions of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as the matter involves a substantial
question of lawwhich affects the basic rights of respondent. According to Sec 13(1)(A) of Hindu
Marriage Act,1955 Any marriage solemnised, 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 has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the
petitioner with cruelty; If the Court does not intervene, it will result in grossinjustice .
 According to Sec 23(1)(A) of Hindu Marriage Act,1955 In any proceeding under this Act, whether
defended or not, if the court is satisfied that, any of the grounds for granting relief exists and the
petitioner 47 [except in cases where the relief is sought by him on the ground specified in sub-clause
(a), sub-clause (b) or sub-clause (c) of clause (ii) of section 5] is not in any way taking advantage of
his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief and where the ground of the
petition is the ground specified  48 [***] in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 13, the petitioner
has not in any manner been accessory to or connived at or condoned the act or acts complained of,
or where the ground of the petition is cruelty the petitioner has not in any manner condoned the
cruelty ; ; If the Court does not intervene, it will result in grossinjustice .
 2. The following cases also support the arguments that they are entitled for Divorce.

Maya Devi v. Jagdish Prasad1

Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable
conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise
to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in
the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society, to which the parties belong, their social

1
(1994) AIR A.P. 26
Memorandum on behalf of RESPONDENT Page 12
values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of the
spouse it is established or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is
such that it causes apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then
this conduct amounts to cruelty;
 The expression “Cruelty” as envisaged under section 13 of the Act clearly admits in its ambit and
scope such acts which may even cause mental agony to aggrieved party. Intention to be cruel is not
an essential element of cruelty as envisaged under section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act. It is sufficient that
if the cruelty is of such type that it becomes impossible for spouses to live together;NeeluKohli v.
Naveen Kohli2

 Jai Dayal v. Shakuntala Devi3The levelling of false allegation by one spouse about the other
having alleged illicit relations with different persons outside wedlock amounted to mental cruelty
 In support of the case of Yudhishter Singh v. Sarita4. A husband cannot ask his wife that he does
not like her company, but she can or should stay with other members of the family in matrimonial
home. Such an attitude is cruelty in itself on the part of the husband

 In Vimlesh v. Prakash Chand Sharma 5case , Solitary instance of cruelty would not constitute
cruelty so as to grant a decree for divorce rather the behaviour of the other party has to be
persistently and repeatedly treating the other spouse with such cruelty so as to cause a reasonable
apprehension in the mind of the husband/wife that it will be harmful or injurious for him or her to
live with the other party. The expression “persistently” means continue firmly or obstinately and the
expression “repeatedly” means to say or do over again
It is Crystal Clear that  there is no other legal ground why relief should not be granted, then, and in
such a case, but not otherwise, the court shall decree such relief accordingly.

2
(1993) AIR M.P. 54
3
2001 PARA 14 SCR 454
4
II(1991) SC 74 (DB)
5

Memorandum on behalf of RESPONDENT Page 13

 Issue2: WHETHER REENA WAS ENTITLED FOR COMPENSATION AND
MAINTENANCE OR NOT

 It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Supreme court of India that the Respondent was mentally
and Physically tortured by the Appellant. The appellant had no interest to live with the respondent and
was all time attending parties, watching TV and playing cards and the respondent was completely
neglected by the appellant.

o Appellant was not providing the proper care and Maintenance to the Respondent during her Labour
Pain and Delivery shall be considered as another piece of evidence.

o Appellant had no interest to Live with the Respondent because she has gave Birth to a Girl Child and
he want a Boy Child. That may be a Reason of fake allegations made by Appellant.

o In acase of Shri Govimd Singh vs Govind Singh Rawat6the Supreme Court did come into the
questions of the provisions that whether the Interpretation of the Cr.P.C. Provides the Provision for
Interim Maintenance.

o In another case of ShabanaBano vs Imran Khan7 the Supreme Court did come across the situation
where the wife after getting divorced from her husband appeals for Maintenance.

6
(2017) 2 SCC 253, 262
7
(2017) 2 SCC 253, 262
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 4|Page
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to:
1. To counter the above curative petition filed by the Appellant.
2. To Provide the Proper Maintenance and Compensation to Respondent.

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

(COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT)

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENT FACTION SHALL BE DUTY

BOUND FOREVER

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 5|Page

Memorandum on behalf of RESPONDENT Page 5
Memorandum on behalf of RESPONDENT Page 6