LL.B.

V Term, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

LB-501: Moot Court, Mock Trial and Internship

CASE (Analysis) PLANNING CHART (10 Marks)

Student’s Name: SHWETA ARYA

Class Roll No: 182095

Exam Roll No: 180654

Section: E

Term: III TERM , V SEMESTER

Name of the Centre: CAMPUS LAW CENTRE

Fill the form as the lawyer in the case you shared in the Client Interview Exam

Client Goals, Objectives, or Concerns (immediate / long term): The immediate client goal would be to
that either petitioner withdraw the instant matter and let her take the children back to London or the
court disposes of the matter speedily as she has to report back to the job next week in London and
cannot stay back in New Delhi to contest the custody and guardianship case.

The long term objective or concern are to get the FULL CUSTODY of the children as well as to get the
restraining order against the petitioner so as to avoid any such future acts and also to have equal share
of petitioner in maintenance and education of children which would serve as a lesson for him for his
unlawful acts.

Brief Facts: The brief facts of the case are as follows , Petitioner and Respondent were living in London
and knew each other for long , They solemnized their marriage on 15 th January 2009 according to Hindu
rites and ceremonies , and had 2 children out of the wedlock named Muskaan and Rohan( who are
presently 6 and 8 years old). Later the marriage did not work well and they got divorced on 10th January
2019, the London court awarded the decree of divorce and both the parties agreed that minor children
would remain in the custody of the respondent and the petitioner having temporary custody on the
weekends. The decree exclusively directed that any party taking children out of UK would have to apply
for such permission from the London Court and the parties were directed to contribute in the
Maintenance and education of children equally. The petitioner has stated that on January 3rd he came to
know about his father being hospitalized and on January 10th along with children petitioner took the
flight from London to new Delhi . The petitioner has filed custody and guardianship proceedings before
the Guardians Judge Delhi.
Possible Case Theories:

Which among them is the most Persuasive Story in your opinion? Give reasons:

Good Facts: (Which facts go in your favor?) = Good facts which can be said to be in favor of respondent
are ;

That plaintiff did not take permission from London court and violated the decree.

That plaintiff gave in his statement that his father was seriously ill and hospitalized, but he came to the
airport and hasn't been visiting to the doctors regularly foe checkups ,according to the statement given
by children to Guardians Judge.

That the plaintiff has admitted that his mother does all the major work for taking care of children and he
independently would be incompetent to take care of children.

That the plaintiff didn't even bother to inform their mother before taking children with him overseas ,
neither he cared enough to inform for two days and respondent came to know the same from plaintiffs'
neighbor about her own children.

That baby Muskaan in her statement to Guardians Judge did mention that she misses her home back in
London, and both children went quite when asked about their preferences and also it was seen when
children sat in court room for 30 mins , baby Muskaan sat throughout clutching the hand of the
respondent , who was constantly comforting her.

Bad Facts: (Which facts go against you?) = Bad facts which can be used against respondent are:

That respondent has recently started a live in relationship with Mr. Ajay Khanna without informing the
petitioner.

That Ajay Khanna himself doesn't work and has no earlier experience with children.

That the respondent came to know about the children on January 11 th and she filed for the warrant in
London court on January 19th , the delay is questionable.

That Rohan in his statement to Guardians Judge has mentioned that respondent slapped him once for
lying about his homework.
What are you going to say to counter your bad facts? To counter bad facts =

That in London , a divorcee to have a partner does necessarily outrages sensibilities nor does considered
to be morally deprived. Ajay Khanna on the other hand is compatible with children , he brings presents
for them looks after them in absence of respondent and children too gave that he is really nice to them
and gives them fatherly love.

That respondent is successful enough to manage a home , and Ajay being unemployed doesn't shoe he
is completely incapable to have a family that would be really wrong to have such presumptions as he has
shown he is really good with children in taking care of them .

That the delay can be explained with respondent being caught up in all formalities to apply for visa and
other as her priority was to visit India and see her children as early as she could, and she was doing all
this with her work which definitely took her time to sort things up.

That parents duty is to correct their children to teach them good ethical and moral values , respondent
intention was to teach Rohan that he should not have lied and Afterall mother cannot ever be cruel to
her children.

Case Analyses Chart

Legal Elements Facts to Source of Informal Formal Opponent’s

Claim of Claim support Proof Discovery Discovery Defenses
Claim (Theory, Proof,
Discovery)
1 RES 1 Res 1 . RES 1 CROSS 1, There are DISCREDITIN 1, The respondent
JUDICATA judicata JUDICATA EXAMINAT the hints that G RAJ is an independent ,
UNDER under According to ION OF plaintiff have MALHOTRA self-sufficient
SECTION section 11 the THE been (PETITIONER women ,after her
of CPC of PETITIONE planning to S) divorce with
11 and statement of
1908 R UNDER leave London STATEMENT petitioner it was
SECTION (A) There
Ms. Shivani SECTION for a month 1, Raj
13 OF malhotra she who got the
must be 137 OF which can be Malhotra in custody from the
CODE OF one former The decree INDIAN picked up his London Court of
CIVIL previously of divorce EVIDENCE from the statement the two children
PROCEDU decided and was passed ACT OF information gave that on
and the petitioner
RE , 1908 a by the 1872. given by the 3rd January
is the one who got
subsequent London neighbors to his father
weekend custody,
2. suit. Court on 10th 2.EXAMIN the fell seriously
as for granting
CUSTODY (B)Parties of January ATION IN respondent. ill and was
claiming CHIEF OF hospitalized,
custody always
OF 2019 ,which seen the best
should be THE 2. The same but
CHILDREN the same. included the RESPONDE can be ACCORDING interest of the
UNDER minor child and children
SECTION 7 (C)The children NT UNDER verified from TO THE here in present
AND 25 matter of would be in SECTION the plaintiffs STATEMENT case were just 3
OF subsequent the custody 138 OF office where OF MASTER and 6 years old
GAURDIA should be of THE he gave his ROAHN AND back then hence
the same as INDIAN resignation. BABY granted custody to
N AND respondent
former EVIDENCE MUSKAAN respondent.
WARDS either
and ACT OD 3. Plaintiff on 9th
ACT OF actually or petitioner to 1872. had made up January 2.The petitioner
1890 constructive get weekend his mind to their taking the unfair
ly. custody also 3. not to return grandfather advantage of his
3. (D)The case it directed STATEMEN back to Their
weekend custody,
DEPRIVE must be the parties if T GIVEN BY London as he grandfather
brought children
WEEKEND finally wish to take CHILDREN had left the was their at
to India without
CUSTODY decided children out TO job there and the airport
applying for the
TO THE between of UK would GUARDIAN sold his to pick
the parties S JUDGE belongings them,
permission from
PETITIONE have to the London court ,
(E)The ADMISSIBL too including showing raj
R UNDER former suit
apply for the E UNDER property in Malhotra violating the
SECTION should be permission SECTION London.(pres cooked up decree of the
17 OF THE decided by to London 118 OF umed fact) story of his same, neither did
GAURDIA the court of Court and to INDIAN fathers he inform the
N AND competent contribute EVIDENCE 4.It can be illness. respondent,
WARDS jurisdiction equally for ACT OF seen in the showing his utter
ACT OF (F)Parties to maintenance 1872. cctv footage 2. irresponsible
1890 be litigating and of the airport corroboratin behavior, and his
under the 4. MR. RAJ that plaintiff g the same, conduct of
education of
same title. MALHOTR father has Mr. raj abducting the
4.MAINTE children.
A CAME come to Malhotra children does not
NANCE OF 2.Custody
This is also TO KNOW airport to left for India inspire confidence
CHILDREN of children affirmed by ON 3RD receive them , on 9th that he is fit and
UNDER (i) section 7 petitioners JANUARY showing how January, suitable person to
SECTION of guardian statement. ABOUT HIS plaintiff stating that be entrusted with
26 OF and wards According to FATHERS conveniently his father custody and
HINDU act of 1890 section 13 of HEALTH cooked a was guardianship of
MARRIAG (A) It is CPC 1908 BUT LEFT story about extremely children
E ACT required to Foreign LONDON his fathers sick he
,1955 appoint a Courtis a ON 9TH OF illness to an waited for 3. In the case of
guardian of JANAUARY excuse of not weekend to Deepti Mandlaus
AND competent
a person , DIDNT taking have the
SECTION court, hence v. State (Govt of
(B)It is foe TAKE THE permission to custody ,
125 OF the present NCT) and Anr.of
the welfare PERMISSIO leave London. clearly
CODE OF petition 2011, it was given
of the N OR shows his
CRIMINAL should not that “An issue of
minor. INFORM 5. Plaintiff fathers
PROCEDU be allowed. custody of a
(ii) section HIS WIFE, was illness was a
25 of the RESIGNED infuriated to excuse to minor is actually a
RE, 1973
guardians AT THE know that elope from facet of the
2.CUSTODY
wards act of JOB IN respondent London minor’s right to
5.RESTRAI OF life guaranteed
NING 1890 CHILDREN. LONDON moved to without
(A)Ward is SHOWS ajay Khanna's taking under Article 21
ORDER ACCORDING of the Constitution
removed CONDUCT home with permission
FOR ANY from the
TO SHIVANI UNDER children and with his of India.
SUCH custody of MALHOTRAS SECTION 8 couldn't kids. Irrespective of
FUTURE STATEMENT OF INDIAN digest the anything, the
ACTIONS the The children EVIDENCE fact that his 3.It was on courts have to
i.e. guardian were born ACT OF children the same look after the
PERMANE (B) It is in and brought 1872. would live day that is interests of the
NT the welfare up in London with some 3rd January minor, and not let
of the 5.CCTV other man Mr. Raj themselves to be
INJUCTIO and still
minor to FOOTAGE hence made a came to sucked into the
N UNDER return to
accustomed OF THE plan and know about
SECTION and ugly battles of the
the custody AIRPOT waited for Ajay Khanna minor’s parents,
38 OF THE of guardian. acclimatized, SHOWING weekend and Considering all
SPECIFIC they were MR custody to Respondent the judgments,
RELIEF 3.Deprive doing their MALHOTR have them living
there is one
ACT OF weekend schooling A FATHER and left together
principle i.e., the
1963 custody to from CAME TO London with which
first and
the London. PICK THEM them. shattered
paramount
6.PERJUR petitioner The children UP AT THE him ,
(i) section AIRPORT 6.Plaintiff has indicating
consideration is
Y UNDER are of very the welfare of the
17(1) of the AND WAS always been that it was
SECTION guardians
tender age NOT SICK, jealous of not his child. In the
191 AND and wards that is just 6 DOCUMEN respondent as fathers present case
193 OF act of 1890 and 8 years TARY she is illness but petitioner lied
INDIAN (A)In old and need EVIDENCE successful respondent about his fathers
PENAL appointing their mother UNDER and living with illness to use it as
CODE OF guardian be around in SECTION 3 independent Ajay made a excuse for his
1860 guided by their AND 65B woman him take the sudden flight , and
what in the growing age OF INDIAN capable to step. This brought children
circumstanc EVIDENCE maintain can be to India , a place
7. BEAR specially
es appears ACT herself and concluded where they never
THE COST baby
to be for OF1872. children too from his visited before
OF the welfare
Muskaan. and now after statement petitioner brought
PROCEEDI of the Respondent 6.DIVORCE their divorce itself where them unlawfully,
NGS minor. was given DECREE BY when she he gave that hence can be
UNDER (ii) section the custody LONDON decided to it was clearly seen that is
SECTION 17(2) of the of minor COURT AS move on in unethical the mother with
35 OF guardian children by PRIMARY her life and respondent whom benefit of
CODE OF and ward the EVIDENCE looked for a living with the children lies.
CIVIL act of 1860 Competent IN man for her Ajay and
PROCEDU (A)The London DOCUMEN comfort would be 4.Keeping in mind
court shall TARY plaintiff better if he that it is the duty
RE , 1908 Court.
regard to EVIDENCE decided to had the
ACCORDING of the courts in all
the age sex UNDER separate her custody.
TO THE countries to
of the SECTION from her her
SATEMENT ensure that the
minor 62 OF children and 4. The
OF BABY wrongdoer does
(B)The INDIAN brought them Plaintiff in
MUSKAAN not gain an
character EVIDENCE to India his
and ACT OF without even statement advantage by his
She gave
capacity of 1872 . informing has given wrongdoing, to be
that she
the her. that his careful that does
misses her not encourage the
proposed home back 7. MR. RAJ mother who
guardian. MALHOTR 7.Plaintiff is around 63 tendencies of
in London. sudden and
AS heard stories years of age
4.Maintena
ACCORDING MOTIVE about Ajay prepares unauthorized
nce of TO THE BEHIND Khanna from food for the removal of
children STATEMENT his children , children, children from one
(i) section OF MR. RAJ LEAVING that how ajay gets them country to another
26 of hindu MALHOTRA LONDON was so nice to ready for as decided in In
marriage He himself WITHOUT them bought school, does RE
act 1955 as a INFORMIN them all the major H.(INFANTS)
(A) Court G AND presents work , that 1966, Court
individual is
may pass TAKING played with is he should consider
interim
incompetent PERMISSIO them went independent
to take care that in present
order as it N UNDER for outings, ly is case the petitioner
may deem of children SECTION 8 plaintiff by all incapable of has done wrong ,
just and and needs OF INDIAN these got taking care if an illegal and
proper with his mother EVIDENCE shattered and the children
unauthorized act
respect to to prepare ACT OF scared to the and will
by bringing
custody and them food , 1872. thought that definitely
children to India
maintenanc for getting his kids will need his
and should not be
e of child. them ready accept ajay as mother for
(ii)section their father the same.
allowed to take
for school advantages of his
125 of code and he would
of criminal
and all other lose them , 5. Plaintiff in own wrong.
procedure major works which made his
of 1973 and his him decide to statement 5. The children in
(A)Person mother is take the kids has the present case
having around 65 away from mentioned are tender in age
sufficient years of age , respondent that and totally
means to for her and ajay . Muskaan immature to be
maintain managing (presumed and raj have able to form any
refuses to fact) adapted to independent
efficiently
maintain. the opinion of their
children of
(B)His environment own to which
legitimate
such tender and are parents they
minor child age would happy in should stay with.
unable to not be easy. India The children are
maintain whereas citizen of UK and
itself. 3.DEPRIVE BABY were born and
(C)court can WEEKEND MUSKAAN brought up there,
pass order CUSTODY TO IN HIS were doing their
for monthly THE STATEMENT schooling in
allowance PETITIONER. TO London only, so it
of GUARDIAN will be in their
ACCORDING
maintenanc JUDGE has
TO THE best interest to go
e. given that
STATEMENT back to London
she misses
OF BABY with respondent ,
5. her home
MUSKAAN making my
permanent back in
AND argument based
injunction London and
under when asked on the case law
MASTER
section 38 on MRS
ROHAN.
of specific preferences ELIZABETH
Their DINSHAW V.
relief act of grandfather both the
1963 children ARVAND M
came to pick DINSHAW 1986
(A) to went silent
prevent the them at the proving that , as the same was
breach of airport. they still decided by
an need their JUSTICE
obligation He has not mother and BALKRISHNA
existing in been visiting miss her by ERADI .
his favor, their side. It was also given
to the doctor
whether in the same case
expressly or regularly.
6. Plaintiff that illegal act
by He has been
has given cannot be justified
implication keeping in that
good health by stating that
. Muskaan children have
and playing has got been admitted to
6.Perjury with them more some school as
under cricket too. comfortable
section 191 the petitioner tried
ACCORDING with her
of IPC 1860 to do the same in
TO THE grandmothe
(A)Being the present case.
STATEMENT r, whereas in
legally the court
bound by OF MR. RAJ 6. The Hon’ble
room it was
the court to MALHOTRA Supreme Court in
notices that
state the His father baby the case of Jai
truth. had a heart Prakash Khadria
(B)makes Muskaan
attack and was really v. Shyam Sunder
any
was so sick scared and Agarwal 2001 has
statement
which is therefore he did not observed that the
false or had to rush leave her orders relating to
knows or is the reason mothers custody of
believes to given by him hand for children are the
be false is even a very nature not
for nor
said to second and final but are
make false informing
also interlocutory in
statement. the respondent nature and subject
Section 193 respondent could be to modification at
of IPC 1860 neither seen her any future time
states the obtaining comforting upon proof of
punishment
the her so it was change of
for perjury.
permission not her circumstances
7. Bear the and violating grandmothe requiring change
cost of courts r but her of custody, but
proceedings decree which own mother such change in
. she looked custody must be
is a blatant
Section 35 up too for
lie told by proved to be in the
of code of comfort .
him and paramount interest
civil
should not of the child.
procedure 7.Plaintiff
of 1908 be allowed Considering the
told the
(A)The cost to take above judgement
court that
of all suit he has and acts of the
advantage of
shall be in admitted petitioner , his
his own
discretion students in a complete
of the wrong. disregard towards
new school
court. the decree of
of Delhi, so
(B)The 4.MAINTENA London court ,
that they
court have NCE OF and highly
full power didn't miss
CHILDREN on their irresponsible
to
studies, but behavior about
determine According to his act informing the
by whom , the decree of doesn't respondent about
out of what justifies his where her children
London court
property statement were , the Hon'ble
and to what The parties
because he court should
extent such were
was if at all deprive the
costs are to directed to bothered
be paid. contribute petitioner of the
about their weekend custody
equally for studies he too so also to
maintenance wouldn't avoid any such
and have
further acts by
education of brought
him in near future.
children them to
And same India in such
7.Taking into
was affirmed a manner
and put
consideration the
in the territorial
them in this
statement of situation jurisdiction, that
Mr. Raj and and the where should the
Ms. Shivani excuse of child reside , case
Malhotra. school law Pooja
cannot be Bahadur v. Uday
5.PERMANE allowed to Bahadur 1999
NT use as to and Ruchi
INJUNCTION take Manjoo v. Sanjv
advantage Manjoo 2011 can
BASED ON
of his own be looked upon
THE
wrong. where court gave
STATEMENT
that if their is any
OF MS. foreign decree the
SHIVANI same should also
MALHOTRA be considered as
The under section 13
petitioner of CPC of 1908,
did not even Interest and
bother to welfare of the
inform minor being
respondent . paramount, a
He brought competent court in
children to this country is
India entitled and
without indeed duty bound
taking to examine the
matter
permission
independently,
from the
taking the foreign
London judgment, if any,
Court only as an input
violating the for its final
decree . adjudication. Case
Petitioner of Dhanwanti
cooked up Joshi and Sarita
story about Sharma 1998
his father respectively also
being ill and supported the said
told a lie to proposition”.
Hon'ble
court justify 8. As the
all his illegal petitioner claimed
that he is the
acts .
natural guardian
His conduct
under Hindu law,
of abducting it can be given
the children that respondent
does not too is a natural
inspire guardian and as
confidence given in
that he is fit judgement of In
and suitable the case of Anjali
person to be Kapoor v. Rajiv
entrusted Baijal 2010 it has
with the also been
custody and observed that
guardianship welfare of child
of children. prevails over legal
The children rights of parties
while deciding
in their
custody.
statement
And as discussed
have also
above welfare of
affirmed the children clearly
fact that lies with the
thier respondent , as
grandfather Muskaan and
was not ill Rohan are of very
and has been tender age an will
keeping in need their mother
good health. around in their
growing years
6.PREJURY also to notice in
ACCORDING the court room
TO THE baby Muskaan
SATEMENT didn't leave hand
OF BABY of respondent
even for a minute
MUSKAAN
and respondent
Her
was continuously
grandfather comforting her ,
has not been proving that
keeping in Muskaan need her
bad health. mother by her
ACCORDING side, also taking
TO THE into consideration
STATEMENT that petitioner
OF MASTER himself is
ROHAN incompetent to
His take care of the
grandfather children and
came to pick highly depends on
them up at his mother for the
same so there lies
the airport,
no question that
his
respondent is well
grandfather suited for children
didn't even custody for their
visit the welfare.
doctor
regularly and 9. one of the
also played measures to
cricket with discipline the
him father, and punish
regularly. him that if he
ACCORDING cares for his child
TO THE he must pay
STATEMENT maintenance. If
OF MS. the non-custodial
SHIVANI parent fails to
return the child to
MALHOTRA
the custodial
She said she
parent and keeps
had the
the child for long
reasons too period of time
believe that even after the
the custodial parent
petitioners has demanded the
father was child, the non-
never ill and custodial parent
he cooked can face criminal
up all just to charges.
justify the Vinodchandra v.
urgent flight Anupama 1993
and he Relying on the
cannot be above case law
allowed to the court is
take pleaded to order
plaintiff to grant
advantage of
maintenance to
his own
children and other
wrong. Oder as it think
fits.
7.BEAR THE
COST OF 10. To conclude
PROCEEDING there is one
S. principle of
Keeping in paramount
mind all the consideration, i.e.,
facts of the the welfare and
case . interest of the
child is of prime
importance
irrespectively
wherever he
resides. The same
is supported by
child welfare
laws. The issue of
custody and
access are
dependent upon
the facts and
circumstance of
each case. The
court order is to
be specific so that
the rights of the
parent as regard
visitation are
clear. If the same
is disobeyed then
the court has to
select a remedy
and impose the
same in order to
reinforce the
credibility of the
courts, and a
general attitude of
public deference
to judicial
authority