MEMORIAL ON THE CASE

‘NAVEEN KOHLI VS NEELU KOHLI’

SUBJECT: FAMILY LAW-1

SUBMITTED TO:                                         SUBMITTED BY:

DR.SARIKA TYAGI ABHAYAJIT

(ASST PROFESSOR) B.A.LL.B 4TH SEMESTER

SARDAR PATEL SUBHARTI INSTITUTE OF LAW

SWAMI VIVEKANAND SUBHARTI UNIVERSITY,
MEERUT, U.P.

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

1
 IN THE HONABLE SUPREME COURT

NAVEEN KOHLI...........................................................................PETITIONER

V/S

NEELU KOHLI...............................................................................RESPONDENT

Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At the very outset, I would like to pay thanks to the almighty God. It gives me immense pleasure
to acknowledge and to say thanks to the ones who helped me throughout the course of my work.
I am really thankful to our respected subject teacher DR.SARIKA TYAGI (ASST
PROFESSOR) Sardar Patel Subharti Institute of Law, Swami Vivekananda Subharti University
as well as our principal Dr. Vaibhav Goel Bhartiya who gave me the golden opportunity to do
this wonderful project which also helped me in doing a lot of Research and I came to know about
so many new things. She helped us in a passive way. She gave me moral support and guided me
in different matters regarding the topic. She had been very kind and patient while suggesting me
the outlines of this Memorial and correcting my doubts.

I thank her for overall supports. Constructive suggestions have always been soothing and desired
effect, hence it my duty to express my gratitude for her constant support and encouragement.

ABHAYAJIT
BA.LLB
4TH SEMESTER

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………….4

2. Index of Authorities..........................................................................................................5

3. Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………..6

4. Facts of the case………………………………………………………………………....7

5. Issues Raised……………………………………………………………………….…....8

6. Arguments ........................................................................................................................9

7. Prayer................................................................................................................................10

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

4
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:

A.I.R All India Reporter

B/W Between

H.C. High Court

Hon’ble Honourable

i.e., That is

V/S Versus

Sec. Section

U/S Under Section

No. Number

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES:

5
Books

 MODERN HINDU LAW by DR. U.P.D. KESARI

 MODERN HINDU LAW by DR.PARAS DIWAN

Links Referred

 www.indiankanoon.com
 http://www.manupatra.com
 http://www.indlaw.com
 http://www.lawyerclubindia.com

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION:

6
This Honorable Supreme Court of India has the jurisdiction to try, adjudicate and entertain this
matter under Art.136 of Constitution of India, 1950.

Article 136 in The Constitution Of India 1950

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order
in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India

(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order

passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

FACTS OF THE CASE:

7
Naveen Kohli (appellant) and Neelu Kohli (respondent) got married on 20th November, 1975
after those three sons were born out of their marriage. Appellant constructed three factories with
a purpose to provide distinct factories to each of his sons and also constructed a shack for their
accommodation. All of their three sons were well educated in the general school of Nanital. The
respondent is a woman of of bad personality and impertinent behavior as stated by the appellant.
Also after the marriage respondent started fighting and behaving in bad manner with the
appellant and his parents by which the appellant was forced to leave the family home and started
staying in the rented house also the respondent by the help of her parents got enough of the
business and property shifted to her name.

The appellant claimed that when he went Bombay with the respondent and his three sons to
attend the golden jubilee marriage anniversary of his father in law then he saw that the
respondent was pleasing in a rude manner and also saw that she was in a position of agreement
with the person named Biswas Rout, soon after that the appellant started staying differently from
the respondent in the rented house and also he suffered extreme physical and mental
persecution. After that both the parties made several levelled allegations against each other & the
principal judge of the family court framed some of the issues relating to the case and from there
this matter was brought to the Supreme Court.

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

ISSUES RAISED:

8
 1. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT HANDLED THE PLAINTIFF WITH
CRUELTY BY USING REGISTERING MANY CRIMINAL CASES, GETTING
THE INFORMATION PUBLISHED AND INITIATING CIVIL COURT CASES.

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:

9
ISSUE: WHETHER THE RESPONDENT HANDLED THE PETITIONER WITH
CRUELTY BY USING REGISTERING MANY CRIMINAL CASES, GETTING THE
INFORMATION PUBLISHED AND INITIATING CIVIL COURT CASES:

 THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT HUMBLY SUBMITS

BEFORE THIS COURT THAT THE RESPONDENT DID NOT
HANDLE THE PETITIONER WITH CRUELTY BY REGISTERING
MANY CRIMINAL CASES, GETTING THE INFORMATION
PUBLISHED AND INITIATING CIVIL COURT CASES:

 Since the issue deals with the concept of cruelty, it is necessary to first
understand the concept of cruelty:
1. Cruelty under the Code of Indian Penal Code:
For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"—

(a) anywilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or
physical)of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is
on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

 It is humbly submitted that the mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the

Hindu Marriage Act,1955 can broadly be defined as that conduct which
inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it
not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty
must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live
together.
 It is humbly submitted that the petitioner’s claim for cruelty is illegitimate as
the respondent is the one who has been subjected to mental cruelty by the
petitioner by his acts and behaviour. To support this contention the counsel on
behalf of the respondent would like to bring the attention of the court towards
the various complaints filed by the respondent against the petitioner.
 The respondent had filed various FIR against the appellant under Section
420,379,498a of the IPC , this clearly shows the extent of suffering as a
reaction to which the respondent was forced to file the complaint.

2. Publishing of information in the newspaper:

 The status of husband in the registered company was only that of an
employee and if any news item is published, in such a situation, it could not,
by any stretch of imagination be taken to have lowered the prestige of the
husband.

10
  In the company, Nikhil Rubber (P) Ltd., the petitioner was only a Director
along with the respondent whom held 94.5% share of Rs.100/- each in the
company.
  The news item was intended to caution business associates to avoid dealing
with the petitioner as the petitioner was acting against the spirit of the of the
Association of Nikhil Rubber (P) Ltd., had caused immense loss of business
and goodwill.
 The mere act of cautioning the business associates to avoid any loss cannot be
in any way termed as contributing to the cruelty against the petitioner.

3. Decision of the High Court:

The counsel on behalf of the respondent would like to draw the attention of the hon’ble
bench towards the decision of the Allahabad High Court dated 07.07.03 against which the
petitioner has filed this petition :

 According to the High Court, the Trial Court had not properly appreciated and
evaluated the evidence on record. According to the High Court, the petitioner had
been living with one Shivangi. As per the High Court, the fact that on Trial Court's
directions the petitioner deposited the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- within two days after the
judgment which demonstrated that the appellant was financially well off. The
Division Bench of the High Court held that actions of the petitioner amounted to
misconduct, un-condonable for the purpose of Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage
Act. The appeal was allowed and the Trial Court judgment which granted divorce to
the petitioner on the ground of cruelty was set aside.

ALL THESE CONTENTIONS CLEARLY PROVE THAT THE PETITIONER WAS

NOT SUBJECTED TO CRUELTY BY THE PETITIONER .

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

11
 PRAYER:

In the light of the facts stated,issues raised and arguments advanced, it is humbly submitted to
the Hon’ble Bench to adjure and hold:

1. The Petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.
2. The respondent did not handle the petitioner with cruelty by using registering many
criminal cases, getting the information published and initiating civil court cases

Pass any other order which the court seems to deem fit in the light of Justice , Equity and Good
Conscience and the respondent shall forever; beseech the Hon’ble Bench for its cognitive
consideration.

All this is humbly submitted by

(Counsel for Respondent)

ABHAYAJIT

12