INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022

_______________________________________________________________________
[TABLE OF CONTENTS]

ABBREAVIATIONS 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
BOOKS 4
CASE LAWS 4
STATUTES 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS 7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES 8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10
I. Whether the Conversion of Roshan is valid?
II. Whether the conversion by Fatima is valid?
III. Whether RCR be granted to Roshan?
IV. Whether Marriage of Roshan and Fatima is valid?

PRAYER 14

[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022
_______________________________________________________________________
[ABBREAVIATIONS]
ABBREAVIATIONS

IIC Internal Investigation Command

HMA Hindu Marriage Act

FIR First Information Report

HAMA Hindu Adoption and Maintenance

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

PS Police Station

DVA Domestic Violence Act

PWDVA Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022
_______________________________________________________________________
[INDEX OFAUTHORITIES]
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS

Family Law – I by Dr. Ashok K. Jain

Mulla Hindu law by Dinshah Fardunji Mulla and Satyajeet Atul Desai

Family Law by Poonam Pradhan Saxena

Family Law by Paras Diwan

Hindu Law by N H Jhavla

Hindu law by S.R Myeni

CASE LAWS

Guntur Medical college v.Mohan,AIR 1976

S.Anbalagan v.B.Devrajan and others,AIR 1983

Kalyani and ors v.Union of India, AIR 1995

Valsamma Paul v.Coachin university, AIR 1996

Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development

1994 AIR SCW 4116; Valasama Paul v. Cochil University [1996]1SCR128;
S. Swvigaradoss v. Zonal Manager, F.C.I [1996] 1SCR995
C.M. Arumugam v. S .Rajgopal, 1975

Noor Jahan Begum and Ors v. State of U.P

[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022
_______________________________________________________________________
[INDEX OFAUTHORITIES]
STATUTES

Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (Sections: 9, 24, 25)

Indian Penal Code 1860 (Sections: 34, 323, 341, 498A, 506)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Sections: 125(1,3) )

Dowry Prohibition Act 1961

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005

(Sections: 17(1),19,20 )

Hindu adoption and maintenance Act, 1956 (Sections: 18)

[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022
_______________________________________________________________________
[STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION]
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Family court has the jurisdiction of taking cognizance of the scheduled offences under
Section 7 of Family Courts Acts,1984, such section has been reproduced below :-
Section 7 FCA 1984:- Jurisdiction of the High Courts

1. Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall :-

(a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate
civil court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings
of the nature referred to in the Explanation; and
(b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a
district court or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil court for the area to which
the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends.
Explanation:-The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and
proceedings of the following nature, namely:-
(a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage
(declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be, annulling the
marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of
marriage;
(b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the
matrimonial status of any person;
(c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of
the parties or of either of them;
(d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstance arising out of a marital
relationship;
(e) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of any person;
(f) a suit or proceeding for maintenance;
(g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or
access to, any minor.
2. Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall also have and exercise :-
(a) the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the first class under Chapter IX (relating
to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); and
(b) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by any other enactment.

[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022
_______________________________________________________________________
[STATEMENT OF FACTS]
STATEMENT OF FACTS

1) Roshan, born to Biju alias Bahamutullah khan and Runa alias Ruksana Khan, lived with
his maternal grandparents in a Hindu household, it was explained to him later that his
parents were also Hindu although belonging to lower, converted to Islam due to fear of
discrimination.
2) When he applied for a seat in Cuttack medical college for higher education, he was denied
on the ground of being a backward class as he underwent conversion from Hinduism. Thus,
to continue studies he converted to Hinduism again and was given admission in college as
member of Madiga caste.
3) In fifth year of his college, he fell in love with Fatima, a Muslim girl and he later married
with her after she underwent conversion ceremony in a temple. The marriage was first done
as per Hindu rites.
4) Later when her father came to know of this, he forced her to get out of the conjugal domicile
of her husband, cut off any means of communication in the doubt oh him being a non-
Muslim.
5) Roshan thus filed for Restitution of conjugal rights under HMA,1955 in family court
Cuttack Odisha

[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022
_______________________________________________________________________
[STATEMENT OF ISSUES]
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I. Whether the conversion of Roshan is valid?

ISSUE II. Whether the conversion of Fatima is valid?

ISSUE III. Whether the Restitution of conjugal rights be granted to Roshan?

ISSUE IV. Whether the marriage between Roshan and Fatima was valid?

[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022
_______________________________________________________________________
[SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS]
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Conversion of Roshan is valid

Any individual or group in a democratic country such as India with the freedom of
religion as a fundamental right can practice religion as they please without any
restrictions or limitations. As Roshan was raised by his maternal grandparents who were
practicing Hindus, it is also probable that he is more familiar with Hindu customs and
traditions. His conversion to Hinduism was accompanied by a Hindu priest in a formal
suddhi ceremony with all the prescribed rites and rituals.
II. Conversion of Fatima is valid
The freedom of religion also includes freedom to convert and follow the religion of one's
choice. In this case, it can be deduced from the fact that she converted to Hinduism upon
her own volition as specified by Indian majority act 1875 and underwent a Hindu rites
ceremony prior to her wedding.
III. Whether the Restitution of Conjugal rights be granted to Roshan
According to the facts of this particular case, Roshan received restitution of his conjugal
rights in accordance with section 9 HMA,1955, despite the fact that she voluntarily
withdrawn from her husband's domicile without any valid reason whatsoever, except
perhaps for some unsolicited advice from her father, which he gave to undermine her
mental peace and conjugal life.
IV. Whether the Marriage between Roshan and Fatima is valid
The couple were both Hindus at the time of their marriage and underwent the Hindu
marriage rites in accordance with the ancient Hindu texts and section 7 of HMA,1955,
thus giving them validity.

[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022
_______________________________________________________________________
[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. Whether the conversion of Roshan is valid

a)In a secular and democratic country with a very much secular constitution that guarantees
freedom of religion, Roshan's conversion to Hinduism could be viewed as valid as well as the
decision in Guntur medical college v. Mohan Rao, in which the respondent converted to
Hinduism to gain admission to a medical school.
b)A clear faith and belief are the only requirements to convert to Hinduism in such a case, not
any clear or formal ceremony. Moreover, Roshan lived with his maternal grandparents in a
Hindu household, so it is likely that his conversion was valid because he was already familiar
with Hindu customs and traditions.
• In Guntur medical college v Mohan1 the apex court upheld the conversion of the
respondent for admission into a medical college as valid.
1. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Principle, Guntur Medical
College v. Mohan Rao, has laid down, that a person whose parents or grandparents, originally
belonged to a scheduled caste before their conversion to some other religion can, on
reconversion to Hinduism, be regarded as a member of the scheduled caste, only if he is
accepted as a member of that caste by the other members of the caste.
2. Therefore, it is clear that on conversion to Hinduism, a person born to some other religion
converts can become a member of the caste to which his parents belonged, prior to their
conversion, subject to the acceptance of the other people of the community.
3. This principle was reiterated in the case of Slevi M. Shyamala v. Tamil Nadu State
Scrutiny Committee (6 (2009) 2 MLJ 278, see also N.S. Ziauddeen v. S. Ashok Kumar,
Principal Sessions Judge, Kilpauk, Chennai and Ors. 2002(2) CTC 257.) wherein the court
propounded that though the relevant consideration has been provided to the acceptance of the
community for such conversion but the person has liberty to re-convert in the caste to which
his parents belonged.
4. It is pertinent to note that in the case of Principle, Guntur Medical College v. Mohan Rao,
which has the similar fact, therein the respondent got converted to Hinduism to take
admission in the college and the Apex Court held it too valid. Thus, following the decisions it
can be said that the conversion of Mohan is valid and he at the time of the marriage was a
Hindu.
5. Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Valasama Paul v. Cochil University, S.
Swvigaradoss v. Zonal Manager, it is a settled law through various decisions that a person
who was born to converted parents, originally belonged to Hindu religion and of Scheduled
Caste, is entitled to claim the status of Scheduled Caste, after his re-conversion to Hinduism
and having been accepted by the said community people.

[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022
_______________________________________________________________________
[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
6. The question of conversion was answered by the court in the case of C.M. Arumugam v. S.
Rajgopal, wherein a person belonged to Adi Dravida caste before his conversion to
Christianity, could, on reconversion to Hinduism once again become a member of the Adi
Dravida caste. Supreme Court, after examining the question on principle and referring to the
decided cases, pointed out that the consistent view taken in this country since 1886 was that
on reconversion to Hinduism, a person can once again become a member of caste in which he
was born and to which he belonged before conversion to another religion, if the members of
the caste accept him as a member.
7. Supreme Court opined that there was no reason, either on principle or on authority, which
should compel it to disregard this view which has prevailed for almost a century and lay
down a different rule on the subject and concluded that on reconversion to Hinduism.
• In S. Anbalagan v B. Deverajan and others the apex court held that formal ceremony
for conversion to Hinduism was unnecessary.
• In Kalyani and ors v.Union of India3 the apex court held that conversion is an integral
part of freedom of religion.

II. Whether conversion of Fatima is valid?

Fatima is also entitled to choose any religion she desires under the Indian constitution, and
she used her right to convert to Hinduism as a major with sound mind, and since Hinduism
does not require formal conversion ceremonies and she still underwent such process, her
conversion may be considered valid.
• In S.Anbalagan v.B.Deverajan1 and others the apex court held that formal ceremony
for conversion to Hinduism was unnecessary.
• In Kalyani and ors v. Union of India2 the apex court held that conversion is an
integral part of freedom of religion.
1. In the instant case, it is evident from the facts that the Roshan (hereinafter referred to as
'Petitioner') and Fatima (hereinafter referred to as 'Defendant') were in love and for the
purpose of their marriage Defendant decided to get converted into Hinduism.
2. Constitution of India provides freedom to every person to profess and practices any
religion.4 This includes the right to relinquish his or her faith and embrace another religion.5
Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani and Others v. UOI6 held
that conversion is an integral part of the freedom of religion guaranteed under Article-25 of
Constitution of India.

____________________
1. Guntur Medical college v. Mohan, AIR 1976
2. S. Anbalagan v.B. Devrajan and others, AIR 1983
3. Kalyani and ors v. Union of India, AIR 1995
4. C.M. Arumugam v. S. Rajgopal, 1975
5. Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development 1994 AIR SCW 4116; Valasama Paul v. Cochil
University [1996]1SCR128; S. Swvigaradoss v. Zonal Manager, F.C.I [1996] 1SCR995

[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022
_______________________________________________________________________
[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
3. In every case of conversion or reconversion to Hinduism, performance of expiatory
ceremonies is not essential.7 Event there is no requirement to observe any ceremony, in the
instant case, it is evident from the facts of the case that Fatima has undergone suddhi
ceremony8 and thus her conversion is valid in the eyes of law.
• Allahabad High Court in the case of Noor Jahan Begum and Ors. v. State of of U.P.
observed that, conversion to another religion basically requires change of faith and
belief of personal relations of a major individual of sound mind by his free will.
Further, in Perumal Nadar (dead) by Legal Representative v. Ponnuswami Nadar
(minor), it was held by the Apex Court as under, "A person may be a Hindu by birth
or by conversion. A mere theoretical allegiance to the Hindu faith by a person born in
another faith does not convert him into a Hindu, nor is a bare declaration that he is a
Hindu sufficient to convert him to Hinduism. But a bona fide intention to be
converted to the Hindu faith, accompanied by conduct unequivocally expressing that
intention may be sufficient evidence of conversion. No formal ceremony of
purification or expiation is necessary to effectuate conversion."

III. Restitution of conjugal rights may be granted

As the Marriage is valid and lawful, recognition by community or the parents is not
required1. Here hence it does not matter as what the father of the respondent thinks regarding
her marriage and it is not a void2 or voidable3 marriage according to their respected sections
either in the HMA, 1955.thereby it is certainly clear that the defendant left the plaintiff
without any valid reasons and as per section 9 of HMA,1955 he may be granted RCR.
• In Valsamma Paul v. Coachin University it was held that for validity of marriage, no
recognition by community or parents is required.
1. If the marriage is valid according to law and provisions of Section 5, for the validity of the
marriage, recognition by the community or the parents is not necessary, as marriage being the
personal rights of the spouses in Valsamma Paul v. Coachin.
2. The marriage between Mohan and Fatima was valid in the instant matter, as does not
contravene the provisions of void (section- 11 of HMA 1955) and voidable marriage
(Section-12 HMA 1955), for consent has been provided wilfully wherein parties agreed for
such arrangement. If the marriage was according to Hindu Law, it would be presumed that it
took place according to an approved form in Jotiram v. Bai Divali, AIR 1939 Bom 154.
3. The guardianship for the purpose of marriage is not so much a right as a duty and the
consent of the guardian, was not a condition precedent to the validity of the marriage. A
marriage duly solemnised and otherwise valid under the Act was not rendered invalid nor
voidable because it was brought about without the consent of the guardian in marriage. The
marriage solemnized without the prior consent of the father of the respondent would thereby
not render it to be voidable, as consent is not a condition precedent to the validity of such
marriages.

[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022
_______________________________________________________________________
[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
IV. Whether conversion of Fatima is valid?

Roshan and Fatima married in a valid way as per the sections 5 and 7 of HMA respectively
and have validly and voluntarily converted from Islam for such marriage and any
recognition from society is absolutely not necessary
• Section 5,HMA1 speaks about conditions of Hindu Marriage
• Section 7,HMA2 speaks about Ceremonies for Hindu Marriage
• In Valsamma Paul v.Coachin3 University it was held by apex court that for validity of
marriage, no recognition by community or parents is required.
1. The court held in the above case that, if the marriage is valid according to law and
provisions of Section 5, for the validity of the marriage, recognition by the community or the
parents is not necessary, as marriage being the personal rights of the spouses. The marriage
between Mohan and Fatima was valid in the instant matter, as does not contravene the
provisions of void and voidable marriage, for consent has been provided wilfully wherein
parties agreed for such arrangement.
2. For obtaining the remedy of restitution it would not be necessary that the parties should
have at some time cohabited with each other and then separated.34 If the wife withdraws
from the society of her Petitioner and does not return in spite of repeated requests by him the
withdrawal is without any reasonable cause.35 Thereby, in the instant matter, petitioners’
right of invoking the provision of restitution of conjugal rights would stand valid as
Defendant failed to provide any reasonable ground for such withdrawal.

____________________
1. S. Anbalagan v.B. Devrajan and others, AIR 1983
2. Kalyani and ors v. Union of India, AIR 1995
3. Noor Jahan Begum and Ors v. State of U.P
4. Valsamma Paul v.Coachin university, AIR 1996
5. Section 11, HMA 1995
6. Section 12, HMA 1995
7. Jotiram v. Bai Divali, AIR 1939 Bom 154.
8. Section 5,HMA,1955
9. Section 7,HMA,1955
10. Valsamma Paul v.Coachin university, AIR 1996

[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022
_______________________________________________________________________
[PRAYER]
PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, the Counsels on behalf of the Petitioner humbly pray before this Hon’ble Court that it
may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

I. Conversion of plaintiff as valid.

II. Conversion of Defendant as valid.
III. Marriage of Plaintiff and Defendant as valid.
IV. Restitution of conjugal rights between both the parties.

In the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience, please pass the order that this Hon'ble
court deems appropriate.
Counsel for the Plaintiff shall forever pray for this act of kindness.

Sd/-

(Counsel for the Plaintiff)

[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]