IN THE HON' BLE

6UPREME COURT OF JHINDYA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURTSDICTION

C.R.A NO. 123 OF 2021

RADHA & SARALA

APPELLANT

vevswsS

KUTUMBA SAmITI RES PON DENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHHLF OF THE APPE LLANT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR
NO. PARTICULARS PAGE
No

Bibli oqraphy
List of Abbsevioations

Indeeo Audhorti ties

L Statement of Jwusdiction
State mmt of Focts 5-

G Stotememt of Iue 10

Swmmary of Araum emts 11 12

A rqum ems Advam ce d 13 19

I. Does the da Finition o bude" Umden

Section 5 Hindu Mayioge Act 1965
imclud2 tamsqende7 13 15
I Uhe then the Cositdion døes not
g7amt the fundamental zughts Pon
ams q en der ? 15 19
9. pJtouy 20
 BI BLILOGRA PHY

Books Ra Fervred

paTOS D.womn Hind Mariaqe Aci, 1955

Sukh deb Sing : Hindu law of mauiage a

Di vence (2nd ehon)

Stodues Reterel

The Indi omn Constittron

The Hindu oarvu age Aci. 1955

websownees Re Fevred

www. i n d i a kaneom Com

.
https:/ blog-ipleadervs. iv

www lawhmes Jowmal i n

WW iw
Scoa line Comm

-
 LTST OF ABBRE
VIATIONNS

ABBREvIATIONS FUll FORM

ALR
All Inda RapoTten

SL Suprenme (owt

Hc High Cowt

1to ble Homo a ble

Law Kev iew

LR
 INDE OF AUTHORITIES

So.No Cane Nome

Page No
Aawn kuman&SreeTa Ipecto
Cnemral oF
Roaistoohion omd 0ns

Nati omol Legal Service Authou ty v.

Union oP Tndia I5-17

RO14) 5 Scc 438

Shatin Jaham . Aso kan k.M omd Os

20I)16 Sec 368 18

NavteT Sng Johan v. Union of ndia 13

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellont
The has oppouoae he d to the Hov' ble

Suprwme Couwntwndan Aorhicle 36 fIndian

Cowstitution Pon am 0-ppeal.

Azrhicle 136 Appeal by Special Leave

Undar Apticle 136 the Suporeme Cownt is

oucthoised to 9ramt n its discreation 3peeial

Joave to opPeal foiom ) am Judgement,

doterminati on ,semlence Onden b) n
doerroo
Care anmotter c) pase on made by

Omy Co wnt Houbunal n

in
any tervi tory e

Inda.

-4
STATE MENT OF ISSUES

I . Does the dainition ob>ude wndon

Section 5 Hindu Marvioge Act 1955
include tonans gemdwr?

I. Whethw the Constitudion does not

mot
9ant the fumdamantal zuig hts fn

tamsgemdun?

10-
 SUMmARY OF A RGUmENTS

Tse1. Does the dekinition ef bruide wnder

Seethion 5 The Hindu Marviage Act
1955 inmcu de Hoonsgen dar?
Sechion. 5 s The Hindu Marvi age Aet, 1955
Tmain focused en Maviage between o
Hindus 0s pe7 sicion.2 oHhis Act
Accordina to Section 5 G::) bouide meams she
must have complated that the dge of 18

yearvs Ond fuorthen that the teum bzido

Com only refer to a woman he
e
day otF
weddinq
AfHer in ten
poetinq the Hevm b>uide wndon
Section 5 (:) o4his Act t e Cownt aid
4hat Boude m no+
only woman it
aso included Traoms Womam

Isue L whethen the Cowstitution does no

gPLamt the fumdam ental >uights fay
fmansgomde?
Totans gen der Persons e entitled to
tum dametal ights wmdor Atiele 14, 15 ond

11
zI of the Comstitudion.
The teUm PUUmom incudeed men wOmem amd

thind ndey wmdsn Aticle 14 the

Cowstitdion.
Aticle 1 says thot ught to e
quality mon4
evy pusem
A4icle 15 hich do.als with the p>0hibition
oP discrimimadion on the gpou nd roligi om,
Lace Caste amd ex
includes the third
9emdan umdar 1ts ambit a being the
citizems Hhey have the ught o noto
be discuminated om
+hein the g0und of
eligion, Caste, zoee Omd se.They have
he sight to poteet thovr gemda
ecpuesion which is
mago auly e lee tel
+oough thei drssOs ochom amd
behaviouo
,

Aticle z1 Sas hot fumdam emtal ug hs to

dignity. B0 Tamsqenden has
7u ht to
masUY Om pUue

12
 ARGUmENTS ADVANCE
Lsue1. whethw the dePini tion ofbude' indude
Howns qemdon wmden he pwview o

4indu Mavu og Act 1955 ?

The daPini ion brude ine wdes tvzomsgenden

Omd maJvu oge 3 vald

1. Aim& obyeet oP section 5 This seeth on aums

validity ot Hindu m a u e g e , which

Sys Ovm p U s Om Who is hin du by 7eligion

Com marvuyoy
Omy amother indu loy zeigion,

vaid maJviag e
Complete a

I I n tthe istomt Casethe appellants

Rad ha and Sarala) both ate HindL by faith

Omd eligio The maUU age s also lowed
ies
COtem on
or vai d ndn mauaqe
all
he Party wemt to te temp
Arct Both
narUued FoUowing Hindu zutes amd
thoy qot
got

Cstom
in toont fthair uends ondamily
WitnoY o f anvu age
hose

R. Seeion 5 of indu Mauage Act cdeary

tated masUuOLge betweem two PaniesI+

13
 not
spetkically indicades ormy gendur.
toLos qemden also
0y gendur So
incude
omy
amy in
he em
Brude Ond Cvaom

3. Im this Cose be
ponties (huwin the appollont)|
Pul l s ollthe
Conditis oavaid
marvi age
Nomel
) Neithwn PaTtyhos the po wse ot the ime
o mavu ag

) Mithon PooTtie Ote wwowmd mind

in Cop ble
3ive a volld Cosent af the tima

aU Oqe

i bo th the paties Com ple ted he age o

maToi ty at the Hme o mavu age

iv te pties we not doq ees o ptohibi ted

orelatiomshi P

) p a r hes au f in
sapindas relatiomship
4.
4 Tn
In the Cose o Azum leumaq & Szea ..-

Ma dwai bench of Pive Judges of sthe adas

Hiah Cownt cleaty 5toted tat, thetem b de

mot Omy a womoam also includes a

me oms
o ho i denti Pied huselP a a
o woYman

wOmam
 5.
6. Fwrther in the Cose of
of
of NLSA
India Supeme Cownup te
v.
Union
ught o
Cowr up he
ha ldld tu
mauty fon Hnomsq mdon
Te
T pamon
Cownt in fts Judgememt hald that
tat O a

paruon who is born a

nteustxbu
coanise himselk 0

ds cused / brude
a
wOmamshould be
nden seetion 5s ot
Hind Marou age Act The CoLwnt is not
developing 0 mDw gO und

So te gesti on Jraised by te
totrolly spchdant
wme4hictal ond balomte lo
PP:Led They
the Comditiows o valid
Omd nD such Case of
marouage
mulikyina made anlen
SOmet mas to see the obviow One nia not ony
physical >ughts n te yes of
labud alao
Love in the heant

Ie 3 whethe the cowsti tuuhion doos not gamt

the ondamerdal zughts of
tonowsq emdan ?
T
Th Ccmstituion o? Lndia gamtmdamodal
ughts f tams genda
4 The aims and obyiet of Arhiele 14, 15
19 () (a ) , 21 These Fund amindal >ighbs
 quaiom eed evy citizem of is nation
Gve
ive oa ie e oB peaca Om ha7 many
Com

te
the thouahout
thoOuahout
eroutuy o Irdia md
hene iahts
includel in th Cosituiom b teause
hey ene
Cowbidrud to be esemtial fsr the
of eoch Omd
developnint
eseuy indivi dug

The suahs omsg enden was hrst time

Cowsi
doredumdar the 2014 NL SA Jdgoment.T
Tn
the Land mark Judge ment et Napa . Uniom oF
India tt thind 9endan gain
Leq al 7wcsqni tion
he yes of Jaw os the Homoable Supreme
Couwtt Julostho Hhe tuwmdom@mtal sights sheul
be avoilable to the thind gendor as in t
seme
hoy OTe provi dad to the othen male an
tenales. The Cowrt por0 vides he nansa emdon with

the
e e ual Oond proleetion wnden Anhicle 4, 15, 16
14 (1) (A) , 21.

AccoTding to the ovs-htutióOn o Tdia

Anticle 14 clearthy stated trot, he state hall no

demy to peruon equaity be Pare law of he

egha potecthi o te as within t e t u u t y

e ndia

16
 4. The
opex
Oper CoL
CoLwn mter
poe ted the terw
pOmon Omd
Ond povom.
evi demt y Ts is
qemden meutra
eforredto hwmem beina qemder mautra
mot ohy male That take
Omdemale q3ender
ender but abso
but abso
amsgemdon y oll
amy othon
emhitledleoal protecthi onm
Gitizews of ths Cout

5 .Aticle 15 of te
Indiom onsthitution tate
iho sumi masion nat
Cam not be
be made
made
izem eruy ony
g7townds on oF
elq ion JaLL ,
Coste O
place oPbih o7 may
othem
So the tem eeizon also in cude
thizd
3emdn peop They hare the ught to pottet
theur q emdan epwmiom +hin the
ma-outy rekecte
twouagh their drwnes chon Omo
behaviouS
6. Aso in the UghtoP Jhdici l pruonounCmest
by
Dy e Justice Swamimat ham hne pune Pa ameun ced
by e Supreme Count in National Legal Sezvice

Authouty V
Union Lndia 2014) S sc
438)
O he i n d gendon T+ held thaF Se is mott

te 8m genden both ae diHeront. A

determined at te
perom s Se is bio logi cally
obith omd ot so in he Cane o gendon

17
 7. Undorn Apvticle 19(1)
(a) The cownt oalso
e ferved ams q endon
Permonaty Cam be
epeses bbY osqendtn be kavioun
ond presentahons
Ond prüsentations
Com not be eotoicted Durr P o h i b i te

Navta SimaJdhan v Uni of

on Tndio
the awme Cont tated thay oso hove
ht pore thoir Seua idorhity
B. Ahicle Sa n pouyem h a l be2
deporives of
oP ks Jie o pernonal ibenty eeept
cCATnto pro Ce duwre etab ishel ay las
we stae
earuien e dePnitiow of peon alo it To
bansatadon.
Beinathe hzem o Tndia ley also
have PJU
>uaht Pottcct thun ugkt amd
perveral ibenty
Ln NLSA Case Suprneme Count albo
ceanised thot u'g ht to
diqnity by cognisina
g emdtn identity woutinq tne Ombid of Anhele 21

Tn She tin Taham v. Asokam k.m amd Ons

2018) 16 SCC 362

Cae the Suupeme Cowt obsevedthe ug to

Competent >ught Amy pUUo Cam

Cho ose hs Septulal Pat n Com YmaTUY

raoy
after Qtainima te age
age oof maTauty

18
 9. Gnodmade d:Plownt eind o
people
T>as qemdan alo pant o Community
We
shoud d u hom th ove, esptct
Omd prOvidos them aU oPPpnHni ties J ke
Oten
Tey obo have hwmarn
a s omd
wndommetod uahts, esem thouah hy have
ig ht e sOnd wftn e Bo dety
C Cepted
 PRAYER

whertetore, in the iaht o the foctual madzux

poeseded o7 addiCadion Contentows

Jaised m athoused elied upon i i m
Couwt
huumbly pluyed, thad the Hon'ble may be

ploaned to

1. To alow the Appeal

S e t 0ide hhe daon the Hioh (ount

And/m pa Omy t hen o hat this CoLt

may daem PE in he inteest o Juotice ,

Equity
amA heo Com Sciemte PaT whick te Appellant

shalin duty boumd reven pJoy

CoUNSEL ON BEHALF OF A PPE LLANT

20~