TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF ABBREVIATION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(I) Whether the grounds stated in the petition by the Petitioner are
sufficient enough to entitle her to obtain a decree of divorce by the
court?
(II) Whether the petition is maintainable?
(III) Whether the Petitioner has any cause of action and locus standi to file
and maintain the present petition?

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

TABLE OF ABBREVIATION

ABBREVIATION DEFINITION

& And

AIR All India Report

Art Article

Anr Another

Hon’ble Honourable

HC High court

SC Supreme court

I.e. That is

Ors Others

SCC Supreme court case

UOI Union Of India

Vs. Versus
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

a ) CASES :

1.  Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh Choudhary, AIR 1984 Delhi 66, ILR 1984 Delhi 546,
1984 RLR 187

2. Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 591

3. Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh(2007) 4 SCC 511

4. Saroj Rani vs. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984)1,

5. Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit AIR 2006 MP 52

6. Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another", AIR 2002 SC 396

7. Rajni Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi" 2005 (12) SCC 237,

b) STATUS :

THE HINDU MARRIGAE ACT 1995

THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

1 AIR 1984 SC 1562

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE

HONOURBLE FAMILY COURT OF BOMBAY FOR DIVOCE UNDER SECTION 13 OF
THE HINDU MARRIGAE ACT 1995 ON THE GROUNDES OF CRUELTY . THE
APPLEL. THE APPEAL LAYS DOWN BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
BOMBAY UNDER THE SECTTIO 28 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

S28. APPEALS FROM DECREES AND ORDERS.

(1)All decrees made by the court in any proceeding under this Act shall, subject to the provisions of
sub-section (3), be appealable as decrees of the court made in the exercise of its original civil
jurisdiction, and every such appeal shall lie to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the
decisions of the court given in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction.

(2)Orders made by the court in any proceeding under this Act under section 25 or section 26 shall,
subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), be appealable if they are not interim orders, and every
such appeal shall lie to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of the court given
in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction.

(3)There shall be no appeal under this section on the subject of costs only.

(4)Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of
the decree or order.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The present appeal relates to a Petition filed under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage
Act, 1995 by Aarohi, the Petitioner wife, praying that the marriage between the
parties be dissolved by a decree of the court.
2. The parties to the dispute entered into a marital agreement on 01.04.2001. As per the
contentions laid down by the Petitioner wife, the Petitioner wife resided in her
matrimonial home for 5 days post the solemnization of marriage, but marriage
between the parties was not consummated.
3. The husband mistreated her, and they never shared the bed together. She returned to
her parents’ home after 5 days. Following the cultural practice in the Indian society,
her parents sent her back to her matrimonial place explaining that with time pass by,
situations will get better and the husband’s approach towards the tie would improve.
4. In spite of spending five years with the Respondent husband, situations remained the
same with no sign of improvement. As per her submissions, the Respondent husband
would return home late at nights in a drunken state and would physically, mentally
and emotionally abuse her. He would beat her in the state of drunkenness. She
extended efforts to persuade and convince him.
5. However, all her attempts to mend ways were proved to be in vain. She also
discovered that the Respondent husband was a man of weak character. He was
involved in extramarital relationships with multiple women, was an alcoholic and
used to consume intoxicants. She moved out of her matrimonial residence in May
2006 and since then has been staying with her parents at her parents’ place.
6. The Respondent husband replied to the contentions in a contradictory manner and
stated that the Petitioner wife was given a bona fide treatment during their stay
together. He further stated that the Petitioner wife was not interested in residing in the
village and kept convincing him to move to the city. Perhaps, he was an unemployed
man and could not afford the city life, and so the demand was totally absurd and
unacceptable to him.
7. Thereafter, the Petitioner wife moved out of the matrimonial home without citing any
reasonable and valid justification along with her personal belongings, including
stridhan. He consistently made efforts to get her back to their matrimonial home, but
she refused to return.
8. Thereafter, he filed a petition under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
praying for restitution of conjugal rights. The court was pleased to grant his prayer.
The said petition was neither contested by the wife nor did she return to her
matrimonial home. All other material averments of the petition were denied, and it
was prayed that the petition be dismissed with costs.
 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

ISSUSE 1:

WHEATHER THE GROUNDS STATED IN THE PETITION BY THE

PETITIONER ARE SUFFICIENT ENOUGHT TO ENTITLE HER TO OBTAIN A
DECREE OF DIVOCE BY THE COURT?

ISSUSE 2:

WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE ?

ISSUSE 3:

WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS ANY CAUSE OF ACTION AND LOCUS

STANDI TO FILE AND MAINTAIN THE PRESENT PETITION .
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUSE 1:

WHEATHER THE GROUNDS STATED IN THE PETITION BY THE

PETITIONER ARE SUFFICIENT ENOUGHT TO ENTITLE HER TO OBTAIN A
DECREE OF DIVOCE BY THE COURT?

Yes, the grounds stated in the petition by the Petitioner are sufficient enough to entitle her to
obtain a decree of divorce by the court Under section 13 of Hindu marriage act 1995 . As
mentioned in the statement of facts that is including non-consummation, cruelty,
adultery, and domestic violence. Instances of mental and physical abuse, along with the
Respondent's extramarital affairs, contribute to a compelling case for dissolution.

ISSUSE 2:

WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE ?

The petitioner petition is unquestionably maintainable under Section 13 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955. The legal grounds asserted align with statutory provisions, and
procedural compliance is evident. The case of non-consummation, mental and physical
cruelty, and other factors support the petition.
 ISSUSE 3:

WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS ANY CAUSE OF ACTION AND LOCUS

STANDI TO FILE AND MAINTAIN THE PRESENT PETITION.
It is submitted that petitioner undeniably possesses a valid cause of action and the
requisite locus standi to file and maintain the petition seeking a divorce under Section 13
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The legal grounds, including non-consummation,
cruelty, adultery, and the failure of conjugal rights, align with legislative provisions, and
petitioner's personal interest as a directly affected party establishes her standing to seek
legal redress.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

 _____________________________________________________________________
_
ISSUE – 1 : WHETHER THE GROUNDS STATED IN THE PETITION BY THE
PETITIONER ARE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO ENTITLE HER TO OBTAIN A
DECREE OF DIVORCE BY THE COURT?
______________________________________________________________________________________

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Family Court of Bombay that the grounds
stated in the petition by Arohi are sufficient enough to entitle her to obtain a decree of divorce

under Article 51-A of Constitution of India also envisage that it shall be fundamental
duty of every citizen of India to uphold the dignity of woman.
 The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in which Section 13 enumerates the grounds on which a
Hindu married individual can seek a divorce.The aggrieved party has the right to file for
divorce on the ground of Adultery provided under Section 13(1)(i) that the course of action
which is done by the respondent husband to the petitioner wife

Similarly Cruelty includes any willful conduct that is of such a nature as to cause grave
mental suffering or harm to the other party. Continuous ill-treatment, harassment, or conduct
that makes it impossible for the spouse to live with the other is an important ground for
divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) that respondent husband was done it on purpose to have an
extra marital relationship .

By the aspects of mental cruelty, physical cruelty, and domestic violence in Aarohi's case for
divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The landmark case of Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit2 (2006) established that continuous
mental cruelty is a valid ground for divorce. Aarohi's detailed accounts of the Respondent's
abusive behaviour provide a strong foundation for claiming mental cruelty

______________________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE - 2 : WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?
______________________________________________________________________________________
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the petition filed by the Petitioner wife is
maintainable. The maintainability is applicable as the Petitioner wife was abused physically, mentally
and emotionally by her Respondent husband. In order to seek divorce and justice, the petition is
maintainable.

The Petition wife was been literally suffocated by living with the husband for straight 5 years without
no other go as her parents advised her to accept and stay with him following the cultural practice. As
she returned back to her parents home after 5 days of her marriage.

One such relevant case is :

Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh Choudhary (1984) in this case, the SC of India emphasized the
voluntary and willing withdrawal from cohabitation as an essential element for the success of a
restitution of conjugal rights petition. The court held that if the withdrawal is not voluntary but due
to factors beyond the control of the spouse (such as mistreatment, cruelty, etc.), it may not be a
ground for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

By looking at the present case, where the wife alleges mistreatment and abuse, this case might be
relevant to assess whether the court's order for restitution of conjugal rights adequately considered
the specific facts of the case.

2 AIR 2006 MP 52
 Legitimate Grounds for Divorce:

• Non-Consummation of Marriage: The petitioner asserts that despite residing in her

matrimonial home for five days post the solemnization of marriage, the marriage was not
consummated. This constitutes a significant ground for seeking dissolution.

• Mistreatment and Abuse: a. The petitioner faced mistreatment, both physical and emotional,
during the five years spent with the respondent. b. The respondent would return home late at
nights in a drunken state and subjected the petitioner to physical, mental, and emotional abuse.

• Extramarital Relationships: The petitioner discovered that the respondent was involved in
extramarital relationships with multiple women.

• Unbearable Circumstances: The Petitioner's move out of the matrimonial home, coupled with
the alleged mistreatment and abuse, demonstrates the existence of unbearable circumstances,
justifying the filing of a divorce petition.

can also site the above mentioned case Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit (2006)\,the trauma
that the petitioner Aarohi by the respondent husband is clearly an maintable to award a decree
of divoce .

______________________________________________________________________________________
 ISSUE – 3 : WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS ANY CAUSE OF ACTION AND
LOCUS STANDI TO FILE AND MAINTAIN THE PRESENT PETITION?

It is humbly submitted that, the petitioner wife, has a valid cause of action and the requisite
locus standi to file and maintain the present petition seeking a decree of divorce under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
As the Petitioner wife was married she was being mistreated by her Respondent husband and also
there is no such grounds of Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which is been prayed by the
Respondent husband.
On this cause of action, the Petitioner wife can file a locus standi and seeking for the legal remedy by
The Petitioner, having suffered continuous mistreatment and abuse, and facing unbearable
circumstances, has legitimate grievances forming the cause of action for filing the divorce petition.
In Saroj Rani vs. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984)3, the Supreme Court emphasized
that a cause of action arises when there is a breach of legal rights, and in the case of
matrimonial matters, the cause of action arises from the infringement of marital duties.
After the Respondent obtained a decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9, did not
return to the matrimonial home. This non-compliance is justified given only if there is no alleged
mistreatment and abuse , denying mistreatment in the Section 9 petition and later alleging a bona
fide treatment, raise questions about the credibility of his claims and the validity of the decree. The
circumstances, including the alleged abuse, the Respondent's lack of effort to reconcile, and the
irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, fulfill the legal grounds for canceling the Section 9 decree.
In a case, Savitri Pandey v.. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) where the SC emphasized that persistent
cruelty or harassment by a spouse can be a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of The Hindu
Marriage Act. The court held that the conduct of the respondent should be of such a nature that it
makes it impossible for the petitioner to live with the respondent.

By this relevant case that we could see that this petitione section 9 of restitution of
conjugal rights is completely made out of fear and it’s a false petition to be dismissed by
the honble court of the Bombay and hence to maintain the petitioner present petition on
section 13 of the Hindu marriage act 1995.

______________________________________________________________________________________

3 AIR 1984 SC 1562

 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

______________________________________________________________________________________

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY REQUESTED THAT THIS HON’BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ADJUDGE AND DECLARE THAT :

1.THE GROUNDS STATED BY THE PETITIONER ARE VALID AND SUFFICIENT

ENOUGH TO OBTAIN A DECREE OF DIVORCE

2. THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AND IS ALLOWED

3. THE PETITIONER HAS VALID CAUSE OF ACTION AND LOCUS STANDI TO

FILE AND TO MAINTAIN THIS PETITION

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT IT MAY DEEM FIT
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.