1

MOOT PREPOSITION

1. Marriage of ‘G’ (a girl) and ‘B’ (a boy) was solemnized as per Hindu rituals at
Jaipur on 24.03.2010. Husband ‘B’ is resident of Jaipur whereas parents of ‘G’
are resident of Uttar Pradesh. ‘B’ at the time of marriage was pursuing his
Engineering degree but this fact was not disclosed to ‘G’ and her family and
rather they were made to believe that ‘B’ is an Engineer. ‘G’ herself was a
qualified Engineer at the time of marriage. Soon after marriage, the truth about
qualification of ‘B’ was disclosed to ‘G’ and her parents. ‘G’, despite the truth
of husband’s lie about qualification coming to her knowledge, continued in the
matrimonial home by deposing faith in her husband.
2. ‘B’ still didn’t even attempt to complete his education but he started trading in
share market which fetch him huge dividends. ‘B’ started trading in properties
as well and earned huge income. He even purchased four properties in his
name. ‘B’ despite having decent income, was not giving a single penny to his
wife or at home for meeting out the day to day expenses at home. His parents
made ‘B’ and his wife leave their home and reside at a separate place on their
own. ‘B’ started living at a separate place with his wife but still he did not
spend a single penny for meeting out the day to day expenses of matrimonial
home. ‘G’ had to take regular financial help from her parents to meet out the
requirements of matrimonial home including the food requirements of the
couple.
3. ‘B’ started visiting another woman namely ‘W’ and developed relationship
with her. ‘G’ came to know about this relationship and opposed the same. Upon
being opposed, ‘B’ left the matrimonial home and started residing with the said
‘W’. ‘B’ married with the said woman in a temple. ‘G’ waited for ‘B’ to return
to matrimonial home for more than 2 years but he didn’t return and deserted
her during the said period and thereafter.
4. ‘G’ filed application under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance
Act, 1956. During pendency of proceedings, ‘B’ gifted his two out of total 4
properties, in favour his cousin and remaining two properties were sold by him
 2

to a bonafide purchaser known as ‘K’ against consideration. All four properties

were transferred on same day during pendency of aforesaid proceedings U/s18
of the Act.
5. ‘G’ upon coming to know about the aforesaid action, issued public notice in
local newspapers having sufficient circulation in the area and made public at
large aware about her right to receive maintenance from properties of her
husband. Cousin of ‘B’, upon witnessing the newspaper publication, sold the
properties to yet another close and near relative of ‘B’ known as ‘A’, who
happens to be resident of same area.
6. The purchasers of properties, i.e. ‘A’ & ‘K’ were impleaded as defendants in
the matter but ‘W’ was not impleaded upon her application through which she
claimed her right on property in the capacity of wife of ‘B’. Court held that
‘W’ was not a legally wedded wife as the marriage of ‘B’ & ‘G’ was still
surviving. Court after hearing all the parties, the proceedings U/s 18 as initiated
by ‘G’ were decreed and a charge of bearing the burden of maintenance amount
and its arrears was created on all the four properties.
7. ‘A’ and ‘K’ filed separate miscellaneous appeals and challenged the decree to
the extent of properties owned by them at the strength of registered sale deeds
executed in their favour. ‘B’ also filed appeal on the ground that he is wedded
with ‘W’ and the couple even has a child and therefore ‘G’ is not entitled to
any maintenance.

ISSUES UPON WHICH ARGUMENTS ARE TO BE FORWARDED:

i) Whether ‘A’ is entitled to have the property sold to him by cousin of ‘B’ and
whether the charge for the purpose of bearing burden of maintenance, created
upon the property registered in the name of ‘A’ was valid ?
ii) What was the status of property received in gift by the cousin of ‘B’ ?
iii) Whether ‘K’, a bonafide purchaser, is entitled to have the property sold to him
by ‘B’ and whether the charge created upon the property registered in the name
of ‘K’, for the purpose of bearing burden of maintenance, was valid ?
 3

(- Refer to Section 18 & 28 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956)

iv) What is the right of ‘W’ in this matter, if any and whether the defense of ‘B’
on the basis of his alleged marriage with ‘W’ worth granting relief to him ?

11