Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Family Law Final Moot Court 3
Family Law Final Moot Court 3
List of Abbreviations:
Statutes:
Case Laws:
Statement of Jurisdiction:
Introduction:
The present petition has been filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, seeking divorce by mutual consent between the parties, namely Radhika and
Madhav, who were married as per the Hindu traditions and customs.
Jurisdiction of the Court:
This Honorable Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition for divorce by
mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as the parties
were married as per Hindu customs and rituals and the respondent, Madhav, is
currently residing within the jurisdiction of this Court.
Legal Provisions:
Conclusion:
Considering the above facts and legal provisions, it is evident that this Honorable
Court possesses the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the mutual consent divorce
petition filed by the parties. The parties have complied with the necessary conditions
stipulated under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for the grant of
divorce by mutual consent.
Statement of Facts:
Background and Marriage:
Radhika and Madhav entered into matrimony as per the customs and traditions
prevailing in their community. Their union was blessed with a child named Raju.
Mutual Consent Divorce Petition U/S 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
After five years of marital life, both Radhika and Madhav mutually decided to part
ways and filed a mutual consent divorce petition under Section 13B of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. Both parties consented to the following conditions:
1. Child Maintenance: Madhav agreed to pay Radhika two lacs per month as child
maintenance for Raju until he attains 18 years of age.
2. Custody of Raju: Raju was to reside with Radhika at their home in Bhopal.
3. Advance Child Maintenance: An amount of two lacs was to be paid to Radhika
immediately after filing the mutual consent petition as an advance towards child
maintenance until the divorce decree was granted.
4. Regular Maintenance: Post the divorce decree, Madhav committed to making
regular monthly payments of two lacs to Radhika as child maintenance.
Reply by Madhav:
In response to Radhika's withdrawal application, Madhav filed a reply opposing the
withdrawal. He argued that unilateral withdrawal under Section 13B cannot be
permitted since both parties had initially acted upon mutual consent.
Issues for Consideration:
1. Whether Radhika's application for withdrawal can be allowed and on what grounds?
2. Can the court reject Radhika's application for withdrawal, and if so, on what grounds?
3. Whether the court has the jurisdiction to convert the mutual consent divorce case
into a contested one?
Statement of Issues:
Summary of Arguments:
The present case revolves around the application filed by Radhika seeking withdrawal of the
mutual consent divorce petition filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The primary contention is the inadequacy of child maintenance in the original agreement
between Radhika and Madhav.
Arguments Advanced:
Conclusion:
Radhika, as a concerned mother, seeks the court's intervention to ensure that Raju's
future is secure and that he receives proper maintenance from Madhav. The
withdrawal of the mutual consent petition is not a mere procedural formality but a
necessity to address the inadequacies in child maintenance. Thus, Radhika's
application for withdrawal should be allowed, and the court should ensure that Raju's
interests are protected by reevaluating and revising the child maintenance amount.
Prayers:
In light of the above arguments and facts, the petitioner respectfully prays that this
Honorable Court may be pleased to:
1. Allow the withdrawal of the Mutual Consent Divorce petition U/S 13B of the HMA
filed by the petitioner.
2. Convert the MC case to a contested case to ensure adequate child maintenance for
Raju.
3. Award costs of the petition to the petitioner.
4. Pass any other order(s) that this Honorable Court deems fit and proper in the interest
of justice.