Moot Proposition

Vinay Shukla is a Marketing Consultant and works in an advertising company by the

name Mad-Men Advertising Inc. Vinay lives alone in a rented house at Hastinapur, Kaurav
Pradesh a state in the country Aryavarta. Rohini Yadav is a law graduate from Indraprastha,
Pandav Pradesh another state in the country Aryavarta, but doesn’t practice law and works
instead as a Freelance Content Creator from her home. She has a father and lives with him in
a rented house. Both are Hindu by religion. Vinay married Rohini according to Hindu rituals
and customs in an arranged marriage ceremony in February 2015 at Indraprastha. After their
marriage Vinay has purchased a flat at Hastinapur where both of them have been residing since.

In January 2016 Vinay and Rohini were blessed with a daughter who they named Ira.
Both of them were living a happily married life until December 2016 when Rohini started to
notice some surprising facts about her husband. One fine day while cleaning up the house she
chanced upon an adult gay magazine in her husband’s wardrobe. Though surprised, she kept it
exactly where she found it, didn’t bring it up to Vinay and kept mum about it. About a month
later, somewhere in January 2017, Rohini came across her husband’s mobile phone which he
had forgotten at home while leaving for office and found intimate chats of her husband with a
person named Kartik. Rohini recalled that Kartik was earlier introduced by her husband to her
as a college friend. She could now connect the dots and was shocked at this sudden revelation
that her husband is gay. That evening Rohini brought this all up with Vinay upon his return
from office. However, to her utter dismay Vinay blatantly denied everything and refused to
have any discussion on this topic. Vinay was anguished that Rohini had intruded in his privacy
and started staying in separate room therefrom. Over the course of a couple of weeks Rohini
tried several times to have a discussion about this but Vinay was adamant on not having any
conversation about it nay stopped speaking to Rohini altogether. Weeks turned into months
but the communication between the two had completely broke down.

On 15th of May 2017, after Vinay went to office Rohini packed her bags and left their
home along with her daughter Ira without leaving any note. Rohini wanted to end the
relationship and wanted a divorce but she was aware of the fact that Vinay’s intimate
relationship with another man is an offence under the laws of Aryavarta and was afraid that
the father of her daughter could face severe repercussions, both legally and also from the
society at large, if the matter went to court. She therefore did not proceed to get legally
separated but at the same time let Vinay know over telephone that she doesn’t want to live with
him anymore and the only reason she’s not proceeding legally for obtaining divorce is because
she doesn’t want their daughter to see him disgraced. Rohini moved to Indraprastha and started
living with her father. More than a year had passed since Rohini moved out of Vinay’s house
but neither of them tried to reconcile their relationship and the communication between them
remained broke. In September 2018, the Supreme Court of Aryavarta decriminalised
consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex. Rohini somewhere hoped that
Vinay would now come clean before her but that did not happen, making her determined to
proceed legally. Vinay on the other hand started feeling apprehensive that any day he might be
served with a court notice for divorce and the entire truth about his sexual orientation would
come out.

Being apprehensive, Vinay approached Rohini several times to try and reconcile their
relationship. Upon Rohini’s request, he underwent counselling sessions as well as narco
therapy, in an attempt to prove that he is not gay. However, sometime between January of 2019
– April 2019, Vinay realised that Rohini had already made up her mind, and the relationship
was probably over.

Rohini filed two petitions before the Family Court at Indraprastha – one for grant of
divorce (under various sub-heads), and – two for maintenance of Ira and herself on 11 October
2019. The petitions were to be heard together as they related to the same parties. Vinay, after
being served, appeared on 24 October 2020. The matter is now listed for final arguments.

In addition to the above, the following facts are deemed to have been proved in evidence by
both the parties, by leading chief and cross. The moot participants should take them into
consideration for the purposes of oral arguments.

1. Salary of Vinay is about Rs. 45,000/- per month. His expenses, including EMI for the
purchased flat, and other necessities are about 25,000/- per month.
 2. Rohini, though qualified in law, and experienced in content creation, is not working
and has chosen to stay at home.
3. Rohini has claimed joint maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- for herself and Ira, factoring in
the rent that she has to pay at Rs. 18,000/- per month and other necessities.
4. During arguments, Vinay has taken a defence of desertion on the ground of Rohini as
she left the matrimonial house. Whereas, Rohini claims that by shifting into a separate
bedroom, Vinay had already deserted her earlier, and therefore, he deserted her.
5. Vinay has not contested maintenance to Ira ever.
6. Vinay has also pleaded that he took intensive therapy for all the issues, and counselling
for more than 1 year, and Rohini has steadfastly refused therapy and counselling and
that is the root of all issues. He offered to pay for her sessions.
7. Compulsory mediation / counselling sessions in Family Court have been suspended
due to COVID-19 virus.
8. Vinay claims the cell-phone was an office allocated phone, and the chats were that of
another colleague with his boyfriend Kartik as it was that colleague who had been
previously given that phone. Vinay therefore claims that the chats were not his. Vinay
claims that Kartik and the other colleague are now in a same sex marriage also.
9. Rohini dismisses all claims as being after-thought and says Vinay is trying to hide the
fact that he is gender-fluid.

The matter is listed for joint hearing of the petition for divorce and application for maintenance.
Argue accordingly.

Note: 1. Laws of Aryavarta are pari materia to that of India. Laws of Pandav Pradesh are pari
materia to that of the State of Maharashtra.

2. Though the matter would technically be listed in front of single judge, for the Moot Court
this matter would be listed before the division bench.