TC - 107

TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAV RACHNA LAW AND TECHNOLOGY NATIONAL MOOT
AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY, HARYANA
COURT COMPETITION, 2022
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 2021 COMPETITION, 04
AMITY INTRA MOOT COURT 2024
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 16th February,2024 05

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 09

Before
STATEMENT OF FACTS 10

BEFORE
STATEMENT THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT OF BOMBAY
OF ISSUES 12

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 13

In the matter of:

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
‘ Sana Rana’

PRAYER
… Petitioner
Vs.
‘Vicky Jain ’
… Respondent

PETITION INVOKED UNDER ARTICLE 13 OF THE

Hindu Marriage Act, 1995

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND HIS LORDSHIP’S COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON’BLE COURT OF BOMBAY

COUNSEL
LIST OF APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
ABBREVIATIONS
MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENTS FOR THE PETITIONER
 Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2024 TC - 107

HMA Hindu Marriage Act

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

IPC Indian Penal Code

HC High Court

AIR All India record

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES sections

Indian penal code

498-A

The family courts act, 1984 Section 7

Section 13
Hindu marriage act and 9

LEGAL DATABASES PAGE(S)

Manupatra Passim
SCC Online Passim

2
~ Memorandum of Arguments for the Petitioner ~
 Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2024 TC - 107

CASE LAWS REFERRED:

APPEAR ON
S. NO. TITLE CITATION PAGE(S)

1 Payal Sharma v. Umesh Sharma 2023 SCC 09

(2002)
Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra
AIR2002SC591
2 Pandey 10

Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 10

3
Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v.
4 Neela Vijaykumar Bhate SC 2462 11

5 Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh 2006 SCC 2968 11

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner has filed the petition regarding the dissolution of marriage in the family court
of Bombay under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. The Respondent reserves the
right to contest the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and humbly submits the same.

3
~ Memorandum of Arguments for the Petitioner ~
 Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2024 TC - 107

STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of this Hon’ble Court, the facts of the instant case are
summarised as follows:

1. The current appeal concerns a Petition filed by Sana, the Petitioner wife, under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995, requesting that the parties' marriage be
dissolved by a court order.
2. On 9 September 2001, the parties to the dispute signed a marital agreement.
According to the wife's claims, the parties' marriage was not consummated. She was
mistreated by her spouse, and they never shared a bed. After 5 days, she returned to
her parents' house.
3. Despite five years of marriage to the Respondent's spouse, the situation remained the
same with no signs of improvement. According to her testimony, the Respondent
spouse would come home late at night, inebriated, and physically, verbally, and
emotionally assault her. He would beat her up if he was inebriated.
4. She made a concerted attempt to persuade him. She also found out that the spouse had
a bad reputation. He had several extramarital affairs with different women, was an
alcoholic, and used to drink and use drugs.
5. The Respondent husband went on to say that the Petitioner's wife did not want to live
in the village and continued persuading him to go to the city. Perhaps he was jobless
and couldn't afford to live in the city, so the demand seemed ludicrous and
unreasonable to him.
6. Following that, he filed a plea for recovery of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court granted his request. The wife did not object to
the petition, and she did not return to her marital residence. The petition's additional
significant averments were denied, and the petition was requested to be dismissed
with costs.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

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?

4
~ Memorandum of Arguments for the Petitioner ~
 Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2024 TC - 107

III. Whether the Petitioner has any cause of action and locus standi to file and maintain
the present petition?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

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?

The petitioner's grounds for divorce, as stated in the petition, are deemed adequate for the
court to grant a decree. According to the case details, the respondent subjected the
petitioner to physical abuse, often while under the influence of alcohol. These actions
constitute severe cruelty and gross misconduct on the part of the husband, resulting in an
environment that poses a danger and threat to any reasonable individual. It is
unreasonable to expect anyone to endure such conditions. The facts of the case align with
the provisions outlined in Section 13(1) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Whether the petition is maintainable?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the petition presented is valid, as it
conforms to the jurisdiction outlined by the Family Court Act, 1984, making it admissible
before the family court

3. Whether the Petitioner have any cause of action and locus standi to file and maintain
the present petition?

The petitioner possesses both the cause of action and the legal standing to initiate and uphold
the petition before the Hon'ble court. This is because the grounds specified in Section 13(1)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are met, and it is undisputed that the petitioner is the
lawfully wedded spouse of the respondent.

5
~ Memorandum of Arguments for the Petitioner ~
Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2024 TC - 107

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?

1.1 section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955

6
~ Memorandum of Arguments for the Petitioner ~
 Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2024 TC - 107

(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this
Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved
by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party--

1
[(i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse
with any person other than his or her spouse; or

(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with
cruelty; or

(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years
immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or]

(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; or

[(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or
intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the
petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.1

1.2 Grounds stated by petitioner in the case

a. Adultery – According to the petitioner, the respondent-husband was a man of

weak character He was involved in extramarital relationships with multiple women.
b. Cruelty – As per the contentions laid down by petitioner, the Respondent husband
would return home late at night in a drunken state and would physically, mentally, and
emotionally abuse her. He would beat her in a state of drunkenness. She extended efforts
to persuade and convince him but things did not improve. This behavior of respondent
husband cannot be justified and any reasonable human will not be able to live in such an
environment and life conditions.
Marriage was not consummated between the husband and wife for five years. The
petitioner wife even discussed this with her parents but they sent her back assuring her
that the situation would change with time but they did not. It is acknowledged that non-
consummation of marriage may make a marriage eligible for annulment under section 12
of The Hindu Marriage Act. Non-consummation of marriage for such a long period also
amounted to mental cruelty for the wife.

It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that the respondent was an alcoholic and would
mentally, physically, and emotionally abuse the petitioner in a state of drunkenness. He
would beat her badly in a state of drunkenness.

1.3 section 498-A of IPC2

1
The Hindu Marriage Act 1955
2
Indian Penal Code 1860
7
~ Memorandum of Arguments for the Petitioner ~
 Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2024 TC - 107

Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 498A safeguards married women from
cruelty. This section broadly defines cruelty as any deliberate action that may lead to
suicidal circumstances for the wife or physical, mental, and emotional abuse. It covers
threats, verbal, and emotional abuse, as well as physical violence, protecting women
from domestic violence and offering a strong legal remedy. This case adheres to the
statements in section 498-A of IPC.

In the case of Payal Sharma vs Umesh Sharma 3, Chhattisgarh HC said that Excessive
drinking habit by the husband amounts to mental cruelty against the wife.

Thus, it is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the grounds laid down by
petitioner wife are sufficient enough to entitle her to obtain a decree of divorce.

II. Whether the petition is maintainable?

It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that when a suit or proceeding of parties to a
marriage for decree of nullity or annulment of a marriage, for restitution of conjugal
rights, dissolution of marriage or judicial separation. jurisdiction of section 7 of the
Family Curts,1984 act may be revoked.

2.1 SECTION 7 OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT,1984

Jurisdiction.—
(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

3
Payal Sharma v. Umesh Sharma 2023 SCC CHH 3107
8
~ Memorandum of Arguments for the Petitioner ~
 Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2024 TC - 107

(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;4

Thus, it is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the petition filed by the petitioner
wife is maintainable.

2.2 PETITIONER DOES HAVE LOCUS STANDI :

It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the petitioner does have locus standi and
a cause of action to maintain the petition filed against her respondent husband who
has abused her physically, emotionally, and mentally, causing severe stress and loss
to the petitioner.

III. Whether the Petitioner has any cause of action and locus standi to
file and maintain the present petition?

The Petitioner wife in this case has a legitimate basis and standing to file and uphold the
petition under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking to dissolve the marriage.
Here's the argument, along with relevant Supreme Court case laws:

1. Allegations of Cruelty and Lack of Conjugal Relations: The Petitioner wife has accused
the Respondent husband of subjecting her to physical, mental, and emotional abuse, as well
as engaging in extramarital affairs, which constitutes cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.

4
THE FAMILY COURTS ACT,1984

9
~ Memorandum of Arguments for the Petitioner ~
 Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2024 TC - 107

The case of Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002)5 established that continuous
cruelty can justify divorce.

2. Failure to Maintain Conjugal Relations: Despite the Petitioner wife's efforts to

reconcile, the Respondent husband continued mistreating her, leading her to leave the
matrimonial home. The case of Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh (2006)6 determined that refusal
to maintain conjugal relations can constitute cruelty.

3. Non-Consummation of Marriage: The Petitioner wife claims that the marriage was never
consummated, which can be a valid reason for seeking divorce. The Supreme Court in Samar
Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007)7 recognized non-consummation as a ground for divorce.

4. Refusal to Return: Although the court granted the Respondent husband's petition for
restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Petitioner
wife did not return. However, her refusal can be justified based on the allegations of cruelty.
Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate (2003)6 established that if
circumstances justify the refusal to return, the court cannot enforce conjugal rights.

In summary, the Petitioner wife has a valid basis and standing to seek dissolution of the
marriage under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing cruelty, non-
consummation, and refusal to maintain conjugal relations.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in the light of issues presented, authorities cited and arguments advanced, it
is most humbly and respectfully prayed and implored before this Hon’ble Court of Bombay
that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge and grant a decree of divorce.

AND/OR

5
Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) AIR2002SC591, (2002)2SCC 73
6
Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh,[ (2017) 4 SCC 85]
67
Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate (AIR 2003 SC 2462)
10
~ Memorandum of Arguments for the Petitioner ~
 Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2024 TC - 107

Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the Best
Interests of Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed

Counsel Appearing on Behalf of the Petitioner

11
~ Memorandum of Arguments for the Petitioner ~