CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru – 560 029

MID SEMESTER EXAMINATION - October 2021

IX  Semester

PROGRAMME NAME: BALLB / BBALLB                            MAX. MARKS: 20

COURSE NAME: DPC                                                                     TIME: 2 Hrs.

COURSE CODE: BAL/ BBL 975                                                                                      

INSTRUCTIONS

a.          Please start answering below the question, in this sheet itself.

b.         DO NOT delete/modify the questions in this sheet

c.          Plagiarism check is enabled. Run your answer script through plagiarism
check before you submit.

d.         Click on “Turn in” tab to submit your answers.

e.          Malpractices will be viewed very seriously.

f.           You can insert any graph/table/picture etc., required for any answer, in this
sheet itself

Part - A

Answer ANY ONE of the following:                                                                     1x10=10

1.      Explain the differences between, verification, verifying affidavit and an

affidavit and discuss the format  while drafting, verifying affidavit and an affidavit and
explain its legal significance.
2. Elucidate the meaning of bail and anticipatory bail and under which provision and
under what circumstance one can file bail and anticipatory bail application.

ANSWER

Bail is the procedure of the court in any criminal or civil matters to provide for a release of the
accused charged with any offence under any law in India, on the grounds that the accused
assures the court that he/she would be present for any future proceeding or attendance. Bail
essentially deals with the release of any accused on certain grounds and conditions prescribed by
the court. Bails can be granted in bailable and non-bailable cases and in this situation, the courts
have interpreted and held that the granting of bail is to be considered as a matter of right. In the
case of Govind Prasad v State of West Bengal, it was observed that bail is a security given to the
court to ensure the appearance of the accused , when he is released from custody, during the
pendency of the case. 

The scheme of CrPC provides for 3 types of bail which are default bail (U/s. 167), Bail
(U/s.436) and Anticipatory Bail (U/s.438). Under s.436, bail is granted for the release of persons
accused in a bailable offence and is seen to be mandatory in its nature. S.436 provides for the
grounds on which bail can be taken and are:

Under clause 1 of the section, bail can be granted  to the accused of a non-bailable offence (post
his/her arrest or detention) at any stage of the proceeding. When there are no reasonable grounds
and there is no commission of a non-bailable offence then the accused shall be released on bail
and the bail is to be considered as a matter of a right.

The second clause deals with the ground on which the court may refuse the release of the
accused on bail primarily when the accused has failed to comply with the provisions and
conditions of the bail (or bond).

Bails can be given by the Police officer in charge of the station as well by the court and the same
is provided under s.437 CrPC. Furthermore, s.437 deals with the powers of a trial court (and
Magistrate) to grant or refuse to grant bail to the suspect or accused person in a non-bailable
offence and such a power to grant baiul is not obligatory.  The court, while having the power to
grant bail, can also cancel the bail granted at any time by means of s.437(5) and s.439(2) of the
CrPC. Hence the grounds for the grant of bail can be summarised as follows:

1. Dependent on the nature and seriousness of the offence.

2. The stage of investigation and the potential threats to the investigation that may arise if
the accused is let out on bail.
3. There is a reasonable possibility that the accused may abscond or may not be present on
the days required by the court
4. Reasonable apprehensions of evidence tampering or threats to the witnesses.
5. Furthermore, the release on bail becomes mandatory by the court on the following
occasions:
6. When the arrested or detained person is not accused of any non-bailable offence and the
refusal of bail would amount to illegal confinement under s.342 IPC
7. When the investigation is not completed within the time prescribed
 8. When there are no reasonable grounds that exist for believing that the accused in guilty of
non-bailable offences
9. When the trial before the magistrate has not concluded within 60 days
10. When there are no reasonable grounds that exist to believe that the accused would be
guilty after the conclusion of trial but before the delivery of the judgement.

Anticipatory bail can be understood as the bail that is applied for before the court in the
anticipation of the bail, and can be taken by any person under sufficient apprehension or
anticipation of being arrested  in the near future for any non-bailable offence, and is applied for
under s.438 CrPC.  Anticipatory bail is applied for before the High Court or the Court for
sessions seeking for a remedy or direction granted by the court that in case of an arrest, the
accused is to be released on bail. The two essentials of anticipatory bail can be understood that
the accused should have sufficient grounds to believe that he/she would be arrested and such an
arrest would pertain to the commission of a non-bailable offence. The grounds under which the
Court may grant an anticipatory bail are:

1. The person shall assure the court that he shall be readily available for any interrogation or
subsequent proceeding as and when required by the police or the court.
2. The person shall refrain from making any form of threats, promises, inducements either
directly or indirectly to any such persons that would jeopardize the investigation and
proceeding.
3. The person shall not without the permission of the court leave India
4. Any other condition that the court may deem fit to the extent of securing and assuring the
presence of the accused in the said matter.

Unlike normal and default bails which are matters of right, in the case of Lilaram, L
Revani v RD Gandhi 1998  it was held that anticipatory bail is not granted as a matter of right
but rather is based on the discretion of the court and would be ideally granted when there is a
‘special case’ that is presented before the court and the court is to be convinced that the person
applying for the bail would not misuse his liberty. The scope and ambit of anticipatory bail was
laid down in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa v State of Maharashtra where the Supreme court
held the following:

S.438 CrPC is to be interpreted in light of Art.21 and the court must carefully and judiciously use
its discretion, FIR being filed is not a precondition for the exercise of bail under s.438.The order
of anticipatory bail would not come in the way of the police investigating. Although the power to
release on anticipatory bail is of an ‘extraordinary nature’ the cannot be used by the court on all
occasion and must be exercised in exceptional cases only.

A few notable differences between bail and anticipatory bail can be summarised as:

Bail is granted after arrest and anticipatory bail is granted in apprehension (or anticipation) of
arrest therefore being granted before the arrest.

Every petition of an anticipatory bail is to be accompanied by an Affidavit.

The rationale behind the granting of bail is that the person is to be released and is a matter of his
right and liberty, whereas anticipatory bail tends to ensure that the accused does not face any
form of loss in reputation and trauma due to the arrest.

Bails are to be presented along with a surety affidavit.

Part - B

Answer ANY ONE of the following:                                                                      

1x10=10

a) Draft a suit for Permanent Injunction along with application under sec. 39 of CPC and  
affidavit in relation to the following problem.

Ramraj Shetty S/o Seetharam Shetty, who is residing at House no: 120, 6 Cross, th

Jayanagar, Bangalore-560022, has purchased the house where he is presently residing from
its previous owner Donald Jerry during 2015. Since then he has been in peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the property. Which is hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule
property. On the Eastern side of the suit schedule property, there was an existing
compound wall of 3 Feet height when he purchased from the original owner, which was
increased by another 3 feet by Ramraj shetty. One Kalyan Rao, S/o M.N Rao, purchased
the adjacent property on the western side of Ramraj’s property on 20/10/2019.
Subsequently, the said Kalyan Rao started demanding to reduce the height of the
compound wall by 2 feet which was not acceded by Ramraj Shetty stating that the wall was
in existence before the purchase being made by Kalyan Rao.  On 20/6/2021 Kalyan Rao
came along with his henchmen and threatened Ramraj that he will demolish the whole
compound wall if the wall height is not reduced in 2 days.

OR

b) Draft an Original Petition based on the following problem.

Ravi and Radha married as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. From the date of the marriage
there was no understanding and compatibility between the two. The interests and thoughts
of both of them were completely different. Both are highly qualified and have independent
thinking capabilities and have worldly knowledge. Both are employed. They discussed
thoroughly about their future and found that their marriage was not workable. Thus, they
amicably decided to set apart. (Draft a consent divorce petition under the appropriate
provision of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955)

ANSWER
 

BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT BENGALURU   

MC NO.                   /2021

RADHA

W/o RAVI KUMAR

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

APS CAMPUS,

BENGALURU                                    .…       FIRST PETITIONER

RAVI KUMAR

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

S/o NARSAPPA

R/at Toronto, Canada,

Represented by his father Sri NARSAPPA

 Advocate (appearing in person) GPA Holder

 R/at

#111, YUKTA IV CROSS

VII MAIN, Vidyagiri LAYOUT

NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU       – 560 072  …     SECOND PETITIONER

Vs

NIL                                                                          …     RESPONDENT
 

MEMORANDUM OF PETITION UNDER SECTION 13(B)

OF THE HINDU MARRIAGES ACT, 1955

The Petitioners above named state as follows:

1)               The address of the first Petitioner for service of summons, notices, etc from
this Hon’ble Court is as stated in the cause title above and that of her Counsel
Shri.K.N. Subhash, Advocate, Rajajinagar  Bangalore – 560 040.
2)               The address of the second Petitioner for service of summons, notices, etc from
this Hon’ble Court is as stated in the cause title above.
3)               The Petitioners state that their marriage was solemnised 09.03.2019 at Sri
Kameshwara Sugnana Mantapa, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru as per Hindu customs &
rites. Subsequently, the marriage was registered under the Hindu Marriages Act, 1955
on 10.03.2019.
4)               The Petitioners state that both Smt Bhavani and her husband Jay Kumar went
to Toronto, Canada on 25-03-2020 and have stayed together till 15-06-2020 at
Canada. The 1st petitioner voluntarily left the company of the 2nd petitioner on 15-
06-2020 and she stayed at her parent's house. The   1st petitioner never returned to the
company of the 2nd petitioner after 15-06-2020 and the 2nd petitioner has returned to
Canada. Both Smt. Radha and her husband  Ravi Kumar, and parents of both the
family members along with the well-wishers of the family have discussed the matter
and tried to reconcile the husband and wife but could not able to reconcile the matter.
Both are highly qualified and have independent thinking capabilities and have worldly
knowledge. Both are employed. They discussed thoroughly about their future and found
that their marriage was not workable. Therefore, both the husband and wife with their
parents have amicably agreed to conclude that the marriage would not survive any
further as their nature is poles apart and hence decided to dissolve the marriage by
filing the petition mutually.
5)               The 1st petitioner   gave an undertaking in the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court
to file a petition before the family court for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent
duly signed by the 1 petitioner and her Counsel on 29-03-2021. After prolonged
st

sufferings from the 2 petitioner and his parents the 2 petitioner has expressed his
nd nd

desire to settle the matter amicably by filing   divorce petition before the Family
Court for mutual consent. And he is staying at Toronto, Canada, he could not able to
attend the court personally due to unavoidable circumstances. Therefore, he decided
to authorise his father through GPA for the said purpose.
6)                That, the marital life between the first & second Petitioner has not been
fruitful from the 15-06-2020, and they have been living separately since 15-06-2020.
Further all mediations & conciliations for retrieving the marital relation between the
 parties herein, by the elders of the family have not been fruitful; consequently, both
the parties mutually agree to dissolve the marriage.
7)               The Petitioners therefore state that the marriage has irretrievably broken down
and there is no compatibility whatsoever between them.
8)               Both the parties hereby declare that they shall not have any other manner of
claims, demands whatsoever including maintenance, property rights against each
other.
9)               It is submitted that there are no articles, ornaments or any kind of things of
either parties.
10)           That the 1st petitioner has agreed that she shall not claim any kind of claims,
maintenance and alimony.
11)           Under the circumstances explained above, and after understanding the
consequences, and without any force, coercion or undue influence, both the
Petitioners have decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent by approaching
this Hon’ble Court.
12)           That the petitioners have paid the Court fee of Rupees One hundred on the
petition as required under Karnataka Court Fees Suit Valuation Act.
13)           The Petitioners state that they last resided within the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court. Hence this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain & try the above
matter.

WHEREFORE, the Petitioners humbly pray this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass
Judgement & Decree:
(a)             Dissolving the marriage Dt. 09.03.2019 between the first & second Petitioners
herein; and
(b)            Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court, deems fit, in the interest of
justice & equity.

ADVOCATE FOR FIRST PETITIONER                      FIRST PETITIONER

Shri.K.N. Subhash                                                  RADHA

ADVOCATE FOR SECOND PETITIONER             SECOND PETITIONER through

GPA  
 

Sri NARSAPPA                                                              RAVI KUMAR

VERIFICATION

We, Radha & Ravi Kumar represented by his father, NARSAPPA  Advocate ,aged about 63
years , GPA holder, the Petitioners abovenamed do hereby solemnly verify & declare that the
averments made hereinabove are true & correct to the best of our knowledge, faith,
information & belief.

BENGALURU                                                                            PETITIONERS

DATE:04.10.2021                                                        Radha

                                                                                    Ravi Kumar

BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT BENGALURU   

MC NO.                   /2021

 
RADHA                                                                    …     FIRST PETITIONER

RAVI  KUMAR

 Rep.by GPA                                   …                             SECOND PETITIONER

Vs

NIL                                                                          …     RESPONDENT

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT

We, RADHA, aged about 28 years, W/o RAVI KUMAR, APS Campus,, BENGALURU       
& RAVI KUMAR, aged about 32 years, S/o NARSAPPA, Advocate , represented by
his father, GPA Holder, Sri NARSAPPA , Advocate   aged about 63 years R/at #111, Yukta
IV Cross, VII Main, Vidyaguri Layout, Agrahara, BENGALURU        – 560 072, do
hereby solemnly affirm & state on oath as follows:
1)               We are the Petitioners in the above matter. We know the facts of the case and
hence deposing hereto.
2)               We state that the averments made at Paras 1 to 8of the accompanying petition
are true & correct to the best of our knowledge, information, faith & belief.

What is stated hereinabove is true & correct.

IDENTIFIED BY ME                                                                        

RADHA

SWORN TO BEFORE ME                                                                               

RAVI KUMAR
BENGALURU                                                                                                                

DATE: 04.10.2021

BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT BENGALURU   

MC NO.                   /2021

RADHA

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

D/o RAKESH

W/o RAVI KUMAR

APS CAMPUS,

BENGALURU                                …     FIRST PETITIONER

Ravi Kumar Aged about 32 years,

S/o NARSAPPA, represented by his

Father, GPA Holder Sri NARSAPPA

Advocate  aged about 63 years R/at #111, Yukta,

 IV Cross, VII Main,VidyaguriLayout,

Agrahara, Bengaluru – 560 072, …        SECOND PETITIONER

 
 

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 13 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT

 
For the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit, the first Petitioner prays that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit her to appoint a counsel to appear/represent her in
the above matter on her behalf and conduct the case, in the interest of justice & equity.

BENGALURU                                                 FIRST PETITIONER

DATE: 04. 10.2021                                                    RADHA

BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT BENGALURU   

MC NO.                   /2021

RADHA                                                                    …     FIRST PETITIONER

 
RAVI KUMAR

Rep by his father GPA holder                               …. SECOND PETITIONER

Vs

NIL                                                                          …     RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I, Radha, aged about 28 years, D/o Rakesh, W/o Ravi Kumar, APS Campus,,
BENGALURU, do hereby solemnly affirm & state on oath as follows:
1)               I am the first Petitioner in the above matter. I know the facts of the case and
hence deposing hereto.
2)               I state that the above matter involves complicated question of law & facts and
assistance of the legal counsels are required to conduct the proceedings in the above
matter. In view of the same, I may be permitted to engage a counsel to
appear/represent me in the above matter.

WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the
accompanying application in the interest of justice & equity.

IDENTIFIED BY ME

Radha

SWORN TO BEFORE ME

ADVOCATE

Shri.K.N. Subhash 

BENGALURU 
DATE: 04.10.2021

BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT BENGALURU   

MC NO.                   /2021

RADHA

W/o RAVI KUMAR

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

APS CAMPUS,

BENGALURU                                  …     FIRST PETITIONER

RAVI KUMAR Aged about 32 years,

S/o NARSAPPA, represented by his

 GPA Holder Sri Ningappa, Advocate 

aged about 63 years R/at #111, Yukta,

 IV Cross, VII Main,Vidyaguri Layout,

Agrahara, Bengaluru – 560 072,                    SECOND PETITIONER

 

MEMO OF APPEARANCE

(APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 13 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT)

 
For the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit, the second Petitioner prays that this
Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to permit him to appear in person as he is an Advocate
by profession to appear/represent as GPA Holder of his son in the above matter on his behalf
and conduct the case, in the interest of justice & equity.

BENGALURU                                                          SECOND PETITIONER        

        RAVI KUMAR

                                                                                             REP.BY HIS FATHER

DATE: 04.10.2021                                                   

BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT BENGALURU   

MC NO.                   /2021

BHAVANI                                                                …     FIRST PETITIONER

JAY KUMAR
 Rep.by GPA                                           …     SECOND PETITIONER

Vs

NIL                                                                          …     RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I, NARSAPPA S/O Late Fakkeerappa aged about 63 years R/at, #111, Mukta IV Cross, VII
Main,Vidyaguri Layout,Agrahara, BENGALURU – 560 072, do hereby solemnly affirm &
state on oath as follows:
1)               I am the father of the second petitioner and my son, Ravi Kimar has authorised
me to appear and defend on his behalf as General Power of Attorney. The second
petitioner is now residing at Canada and he could not able to attend the case
personally, he is not likely to return to India due to unavoidable circumstances. The
reasons are more elaborately described in the GPA itself. I know the facts of the case
as I am the father of   second petitioner and hence deposing hereto. I am appearing in
person to conduct the proceedings in the above matter.

WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the
accompanying application in the interest of justice & equity.

IDENTIFIED BY ME                                                                        

DEPONENT

Ravi Kumar

ADVOCATE SWORN TO BEFORE ME

Shri Narsappa

BENGALURU 

DATE: 04.10.2021

BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT BENGALURU   

 
 MC NO.                   /2021

RADHA

D/o RAKESH

W/o RAVI KUMAR

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

APS CAMPUS,

BENGALURU                                  …                 FIRST PETITIONER

RAVI KUMAR, Aged about 32 years,

S/o NARSAPPA, , Advocate   represented by his

 GPA Holder Sri NARSAPPA

Aged about 63 years R/at #111, Yukta,

 IV Cross, VII Main,VidyaguriLayout,

Agrahara, BENGALURU – 560 072, …       SECOND PETITIONER

 

Vs

NIL                                                                          …     RESPONDENT

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 14   OF THE HINDU MARRIAGES ACT, 1955

 

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the Petitioners pray that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to dispense with the statutory period of six months waiting period for
decreeing the dissolution of marriage, in the interest of justice & equity.

BENGALURU                                             

ADVOCATES FOR PETITIONERS

Shri. Narsappa

Shri.K.N. Subhash 

DATE:     04.10.2021

BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT BENGALURU   

MC NO.                   /2021

RADHA                                                                    …     FIRST PETITIONER

RAVI KUMAR                                              …     SECOND PETITIONER

Vs

NIL                                                                      …     RESPONDENT
 

AFFIDAVIT

We, RADHA, aged about 28 years, D/o Rakesh, W/o RAVI Kumar, APS Campus,
BENGALURU  & RAVI Kumar, aged about 32 years, S/o NARSAPPA, Advocate
represented by his father GPA holder R/at, #111, Yukta IV Cross, VII Main, Vidyagiri
Layout, Agrahara, Bengaluru – 560 072, do hereby solemnly affirm & state on oath as
follows:

 
1)               We are the Petitioners in the above matter. We know the facts of the case and
hence deposing hereto.

 
2)               We state that the averments made in the main petition may be read as part &
parcel of this affidavit in order to avoid repetition and for the sake of brevity.

 
3)               We state that due to irretrievable break-down of marriage and after all possible
counselling & mediation having failed and after taking expert’s consultation too, both
of us decided to dissolve the marriage in the interest of our lives & future. As such
this petition for dissolution of marriage for mutual consent.

 
4)               We state that due to physical, emotional & mental incompatibility, our marital
life has not been fruitful from the inception of the marriage, and we are living
separately for a period of more than one year .There were several mediations &
conciliations for retrieving the marital relation between the parties herein, by the
elders of the family, but the same have not been fruitful, consequently, both of us
have now mutually agreed to dissolve the marriage and have filed the consent petition
for divorce, in interest of our respective lives.

 
5)               We state that any more waiting for obtaining dissolution of our marriage,
would seriously affect our respective lives apart from causing severe hardship &
inconvenience. No purpose whatsoever would be served by waiting any longer as all
efforts and expert opinion in this regard is not favouring the continuation of our
marital life. Under these circumstances, it is very much essential that the waiting
period be dispensed and our marriage be dissolved. Such dissolution would be highly
proper in all respects.

 
WHEREFORE, we pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant the prayer made in
the accompanying application, in the interest of justice & equity.

What is stated hereinabove is true & correct.

IDENTIFIED BY ME                                                                         DEPONENTS

Radha

Ravi Kumar

SWORN TO BEFORE ME

ADVOCATE

Shri. Narsappa

Shri.K.N. Subhash 

BENGALURU 

DATE: 04-10-2021

 
  

******