FIFTH YEAR CLASS MOOT COURT, 2022-23

ROLL NUMBER: 1823

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW CLASS MOOT COURT, 2022-23

BEFORE THE HONORABLE SESSIONS COURT

AMAN………………………………………………………………. PETITIONER

v.

PRIYA……………………………………………………………...RESPONDENT

CASE No. ___/2022

Most respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble District Judge of the District Court

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

DRAWN AND FILED BY COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1
 FIFTH YEAR CLASS MOOT COURT, 2022-23

TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF CONTENT………………………………………………………………………2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………..3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………...……………………5
STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………….…………………..6
STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………….………………….7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………….8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………….……………………………………….9

I. THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL

RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955....……9
II. THAT ACTS OF PRIYA AMOUNTED TO CRUELTY ON AMAN……….12

PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………….13

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2
 FIFTH YEAR CLASS MOOT COURT, 2022-23

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& AND
͗
͗Sec. SECTION
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
HMA HINDU MARRIAGE ACT
SC SUPREME COURT
HC HIGH COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
V. VERSUS
Punj. PUNJAB
Ed. EDITION
RCR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS
Hon’ble HONOURABLE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3
 FIFTH YEAR CLASS MOOT COURT, 2022-23

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

1. Tirath Kaur v. Kirpal Singh, AIR 1964 Punjab 28

2. Gulab Kaur vs Gurdev Singh Rattan Singh, AIR 1963 Punjab 493
3. Gaya Prasad vs Mst. Bhagwati, AIR 1966 MP 212
4. Rosamma Kurian V. State of Kerela, 2014 (2) KHC 64.
5. Dastane v. Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534
6. Darshan Gupta vs Radhika Gupta, AIR 1996 1 ICC 183 (MAD)

LEXICONS

1. Black’s law dictionary (Bryan Garner ed., 9th ed., west publishing co.2009).

ONLINE SOURCES

1. SCC Online
2. Indian Kanoon
STATUTES

1. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

BOOKS AND DIGESTS

1. Mulla’s Hindu Law, 24th Ed. (2021)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4
 FIFTH YEAR CLASS MOOT COURT, 2022-23

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE HON’BLE COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION TO TRY THE INSTANT MATTER
UNDER SECTION 19 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

19. Court to which petition shall be presented. - Every petition under this Act shall be presented
to the District Court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction:

(i) the marriage was solemnized, or

(ii) the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides, or

(iii) the parties to the marriage last resided together, or

[(iiia) in case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the
petition; or]

(iv) the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the
respondent is at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not
been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would
naturally have heard of him if he were alive.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

5
 FIFTH YEAR CLASS MOOT COURT, 2022-23

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Aman and Priya studied together in college in 2013 and developed a friendship over the years.
They got married soon after they finished their education in the year 2017. Priya was very outgoing
and independent.

2. Soon after they got married Aman got promoted and consequently got more responsibility at
work. Priya was although supportive of Aman’s work but started to feel neglected at home owing
to long work hours which Aman was putting.

3. This led to fights on various occasions between the couple. In order to resolve their matrimonial
issues, they decided to plan for a family. They were blessed with a baby girl in the year 2020.

4. Things started getting better as Aman would stay at home as there was a nation-wide lockdown
owing to the Covid 19 Pandemic. He started spending time with Priya and his daughter. Things
started getting better amongst them.

5. With the passage of time, as their daughter grew older Priya wanted to pursue her higher studies
so that she could also work. But Aman was not keen on this idea. He thought it would be better
that Priya look after their daughter. Priya was not very happy but for the sake of her family she
gave in and continued to be at home looking after her daughter.

6. Priya started behaving indifferently with Aman. She lost interest in the daily chores of her home
and also of her daughter. With passage of time the behavior became stranger and more indifferent,
though Aman adjusted and tried to save the marriage at every step.

7. Once their daughter was 5 years and she started going to school full time Priya convinced Aman
that she should start looking for a job. Aman agreed to her demand.

8. Priya started looking for a job and fortunately she got a very good offer in a Multi-National
Company in Mumbai. She asked Aman to relocate to Mumbai with her, but he refused.

9. Priya left with her daughter for Mumbai leaving Aman.

10. Aman files for restitution of Conjugal Rights.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

6
 FIFTH YEAR CLASS MOOT COURT, 2022-23

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL

RIGHTS

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE ACTS OF PRIYA AMOPUNTED TO CRUELTY ON AMAN

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

7
 FIFTH YEAR CLASS MOOT COURT, 2022-23

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL

RIGHTS

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the petitioner is entitled to restitution of
conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The spouse had withdrawn from
the society of the husband and had taken their daughter with her. The spouse had no valid or
‘reasonable excuse’ to withdraw from the marriage and under section 9 of the HMA and hence the
husband is entitled to the Restitution of Conjugal rights by the Hon’ble Court.

2. THAT THE ACT OF PRIYA AMOUNTS TO CRUELTY ON AMAN

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the acts of respondent amounts to cruelty
on the petitioner. The wilful neglect by Priya and her indifferent behavior towards Aman leads to
cruelty over Aman. Furthermore the act by Priya of leaving her matrimonial home along with her
child can be clearly inferred as cruelty on Aman.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

8
 FIFTH YEAR CLASS MOOT COURT, 2022-23

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS

1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the petitioner is entitled to restitution of
conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. (Hereby referred to as the Act).

2. Section 9 of the Act states “When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse,
withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district
court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the
statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not
be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.” In light of the facts of the case,
it is submitted that there was no reasonable cause for the petitioner to withdraw from the society
of the respondent.

3. The term ‘reasonable excuse’ used under Section 9 of HMA might mean the following:

I. A reasonable excuse can be anything that could grant the respondent matrimonial relief.

II. If the petitioner is guilty of matrimonial misconduct which is not a ground for divorce or
separation under the Act, but it is grave enough to form a reasonable excuse.

III. If the petitioner is guilty of conjugal misconduct or any such act or omission that makes it hard
or almost impossible for the respondent to live with the petitioner then that would also be
considered as a reasonable excuse.

4. In the pertinent case the parties, Aman and Priya, were married in 2017 after having a friendship
for over 4 years. After the marriage Aman got promoted and by the virtue of that drew in more
responsibility at his work, which ultimately lead him to giving less and less time to his family.
This left respondent, Priya, feeling neglected and the friction between the parties exhibited itself
through fights on various occasion

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

9
 FIFTH YEAR CLASS MOOT COURT, 2022-23

5. To save their marriage the couple they decided to plan for a family and were soon blessed with
a baby girl. At the same time the nation went into a lockdown resulting in Aman getting to spend
more time with his family, all of this ensured that the relationship between the couple got better.

6. Moving forward, soon the respondent wanted to work, the petitioner was against the idea as he
felt family and its welfare comes first and he was already putting in hours and doing well at his
job, so working for Priya wasn’t a necessity, additionally their daughter was quite young and
required to be looked after. Following this the respondent withdrew from the society of the
petitioner whilst also neglecting their daughter though they still cohabitated. In Gaya vs Bhagwati1
the court observed that the wife must perform her matrimonial duties and if she obtains a job away
from home and refuses to live with her husband it can be claimed that she is living away without
a reasonable excuse

7. Once the daughter turned 5 years old, Aman and Priya agreed to look for a job for Priya. Priya
found a job which required relocating and without giving any due consideration to the family and
matrimonial ties she moved to Mumbai with child, following which Aman filed for restitution of
conjugal rights.

8. Furthermore, in Tirath Kaur v. Kirpal Singh2, 12 the Apex Court held that “A husband has the
right to require his wife to live with him wherever he may choose to reside and special
circumstances apart, the court will not absolve the wife from discharging her corresponding duty
and the court is satisfied that the attitude of the wife does not furnish any reasonable excuse or just
cause for living apart”. It is submitted that with the collective understanding of this case with
Section 9 of the Act, the respondent is entitled to restitution of conjugal rights by the petitioner

9. The Law Commission of India in its 217th report 13 states, within the context of irretrievable
breakdown of marriage, that “A too technical and hypersensitive approach would be

1
Gaya Prasad vs Mst. Bhagwati, AIR 1966 MP 212
2
Tirath Kaur v. Kirpal Singh, AIR 1964 Punjab 28

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

10
 FIFTH YEAR CLASS MOOT COURT, 2022-23

counterproductive to the institution of marriage. The courts do not have to deal with ideal husbands
and ideal wives. It has to deal with particular man and woman before it.” Thus, a reasonable
inference of the facts of the instant case reflects that the differences between the parties are not out
of the scope of reconciliation.

10. In further reference to irretrievable breakdown of marriage, in the judgement of Gulab Kaur v.
Gurdev Singh, AIR 1963 Punjab 4933 the court held that “In order to arrive at a definite conclusion
that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the court must endeavor to analyze the attendant
circumstances in order to determine the veracity of such allegations before arriving at a conclusion.
Moreover, it is submitted that the fact that the parties are parents to a very young daughter along
with the respondent’s willingness to reconciliate should also be held into due consideration.

1.1 THAT THE ACT OF PRIYA LEAVING AMAN IS WRONG.

11. It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the act by Priya of leaving her matrimonial
home along with her daughter is totally wrong and Aman has every right to enforce the Restitution
of conjugal rights.

12. It was observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rosamma Kurian V. State of Kerela4,
that The usual and common domestic discord in any matrimonial home are ordinary in nature and
cannot constitute a reason to leave the matrimonial home.

13. In the current case it can be clearly seen from the fact matrix that Priya started neglecting Aman
and started acting indifferently towards him even though Aman adjusted and tried to save the
marriage at every step.

14. The uncooperative behavior by Priya and her neglect to save her matrimonial relationship
indicates the fact that she had no interest in fulfilling her matrimonial relationship. Priya also left
along with her daughter without even discussing it with Aman, this act by Priya had a great impact
over Aman. Hence Aman is very well within his right to enforce Restitution of conjugal right.

2. THE ACTS OF PRIYA AMOUNT TO CRUELTY ON AMAN

3
Gulab Kaur vs Gurdev Singh Rattan Singh, AIR 1963 Punjab 493
4
2014 (2) KHC 64.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
11
 FIFTH YEAR CLASS MOOT COURT, 2022-23

15. It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the acts of Priya amounts to cruelty on
the petitioner. The wilful neglect by Priya and her indifferent behavior towards Aman leads to
cruelty over Aman. Furthermore the act by Priya of leaving her matrimonial home along with her
child can be clearly inferred as cruelty on Aman.

16. In the current case Priya lost interest in her daily chores of her home and also of her daughter.
With the passage of time her behavior became stranger and more indifferent, on the other hand
Aman tried his best to save the marriage at every step.

17. The Supreme Court in the case of DASTANE V. DASTANE,5 held that court must keep in
mind the peculiar habits, ideas, susceptibilities and expectations of persons belonging to the strata
of society to which the party belong.

18. The Supreme Court in the case of Darshan Gupta vs Radhika Gupta6, the court observed
that leaving the matrimonial home by the wife without any adequate reasons will amount to cruelty
on the husband. It is clearly stated in the fact matrix that the respondent not only left the
matrimonial home without any reason but aslo took away the child with her. In the current case
the acts of Priya amounts to metal cruelty on Aman.

5
Dastane v. Dastane AIR 1975 SC 1534
6
AIR 1996 1 ICC 183 (MAD)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
12
 FIFTH YEAR CLASS MOOT COURT, 2022-23

PRAYER

In Light of the facts of the case, arguments advanced, issues raised, and authorities cited the
counsel on behalf of the petitioner humbly pray before the Hon’ble court to kindly adjudge and
declared that:

1. The withdrawal of the wife from the society of the husband, that is, the petitioner was
without a reasonable excuse and henceforth is an unreasonable withdrawal

2. The petitioner is entitled to Restitution of Conjugal rights and decree of restitution must
be passed

and/or

Pass any other order that the court deems fit in the best interest of justice, equity and good
conscience and for this act of the kindness the counsel on behalf of the petitioner shall pray forever.

Humbly submitted by

Council on behalf of the petitioner

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

13
FIFTH YEAR CLASS MOOT COURT, 2022-23

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

14
FIFTH YEAR CLASS MOOT COURT, 2022-23

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

15