BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJRAT

Case NO. ____/20__

APPEAL FILLED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973

SHALINI AND FALGUNI ……………………………………...…………. APPELLANT

VERSUS

TARA AND TANMAY….………………………………………………… RESPONDENT

BEFORE SUBMISSIONS TO HON’BLE JUDGES

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1
 Table of Contents

I. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ……………………………………………….. 3

II. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………… 4

III. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………… 5

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………. 6

V. STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………………. 7

VI. SUMMERY OF ARGUMENT…………………………………………………8

VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………… 10

VIII. PRAYER…………………………………………………………………… 16

2
 List of Abbreviation

ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION

Appellate Jurisdiction AJ

District Court DC

Appellant App

Respondent Resp

Legal Error LE

Legal Validity LV

Evidentiary Basis EB

Marital Claim MC

Financial Independence FI

Legal Procedure LP

Marital Status MS

Legal Criteria LC

Legal Presumptions LP

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
NO. Name of Case

1. Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. (2002)

2. State Bank of India v. M/s. M.P. Constructions (2000)

3. Smt. Savitri Devi v. Ram Chander" (1977)

4. Nayantara v. Prabhu (2018)
5. Nachimuthu v. Muruga Gounder (1994)

6. Tripurabati Behera v. Laxmi Narayan Sahu & Ors (2017)

7. Gita Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India" (1999)

8. Hiralal Malhotra v. Mst. Chandravati" (1979)

9. Kusum Sharma v. Ved Prakash & Ors" (2002)

10. Y.N. Anandra Reddy v. Y. Manchala" (2009)

11. Paramjit Kaur v. Surjit Singh & Ors" (2010)

12. Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani" (2007)

13. Mayawati v. Om Prakash" (2010)

14. Ram Prakash v. Sangam Devi" (2015)

15. Laxmibai v. Ganpat" (1923)

No. Statues
1 Code of civil procedure, 1908

2 The Hindu Succession Act, 1956

3 Hindu Marriage Act, 1956

4
 4 The Insurance Act, 1938

Website:

• https://indiankanoon.org/

• https://www.scconline.com/

Statement of Jurisdiction

The jurisdiction of this Honourable Court is invoked pursuant to Section 96 of the Civil
Procedure Code 19081, which grants authority to the High Court to hear appeals from decrees
passed by subordinate courts, including the District Court of Ahmedabad. The appellant,
Shalini, has appealed the lower court's decree, contesting its findings regarding the
recognition of Tara as the legal wife of Dr. Akash Malhotra and the distribution of the
deceased's assets.

The Respondent would like to humbly submit that this appeal is not maintainable.

1
96. Appeal from original decree
(1)Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for
the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising
original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court.
(2)An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.
(3)No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of parties.
(4)No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature
cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the
original suit does not exceed [ten thousand rupees.]

5
 Statement of the facts

 Akash Malhotra, a doctor, died in 2020 at age 61 after contracting coronavirus, having
served the Gujarat state government post-retirement during the COVID-19 pandemic.
He had married Shalini in 1990 in Ahmedabad, and they purchased a 3BHK flat
together in 1991, co-owning and cohabiting it since then. Shalini largely financed the
property through a bank loan. They have one daughter, Falguni, born in 1992.

 Upon Akash's death, Shalini and Falguni sought to secure their legal rights over his
pension, the “Corona Warriors Compensation Scheme,” property ownership, and his
life insurance benefits, having been nominated by Akash for these benefits.
Unexpectedly, Tara, claiming to be Akash’s first wife from a 1978 temple marriage in
Surat, contested their claims, presenting their son Tanmay as Akash's legal heir. She
argued that they separated in 1983 but never divorced, as evidenced by a dismissed
divorce suit in 1985 due to non-appearance by either party.

 The legal dispute centred on the validity of Akash's marriage to Shalini, given his
undissolved marriage to Tara. The court ruled in Favor of Tara based on the divorce
petition, which it considered proof of a valid marriage between Tara and Akash. Since
this marriage was never legally dissolved, Akash’s subsequent marriage to Shalini
was deemed void due to bigamy, according to section 5(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

6
  The district court allocated Tara, Tanmay, and Falguni each one-third of Akash's
assets, including the compensation from the Corona Warriors scheme and the life
insurance benefits. Additionally, Tara received Akash's pension and other death
benefits. The court also ruled that the property be divided, giving Tara, Tanmay, and
Falguni equal shares of Akash’s half, and granted Shalini and Falguni two years to
either compensate Tara and Tanmay for their shares or vacate the property.

Statement of Issue

1. Whether the case is appealable in the High Court?

2. Whether Tara can establish the validity of her marriage claim to Dr. Akash, thereby
challenging Shalini's assertion as his lawful wife?
3. Whether Tanmay can assert his status as a legitimate child of Dr. Akash and claim his
entitlement to inherit a share of Dr. Akash's assets and benefits?
4. Whether Tara and Tanmay can contest Shalini's claim to a share in the jointly-owned
3BHK property in Ahmedabad, challenging her financial contribution and emphasizing
their own rights to ownership?
5. Whether Tara and Tanmay have the right to receive benefits and compensation under
various schemes, including the "Corona Warriors Compensation Scheme" and insurance
benefits, as legal heirs of Dr. Akash?

7
 Summary of Arguments

1. Whether the case be appealed to the High Court?

Tara and her child Tanmay argue that the case does not warrant an appeal to the High
Court. First, he contends that the jurisdictional aspect of the case falls squarely within the
jurisdiction of the Ahmedabad District Court, which is subordinate to the Gujarat High
Court. He argues that any appeal should be dealt with within the established hierarchy of
the district court system. He further contends that the lower court's decision was based on
sound legal principles and a thorough consideration of the evidence presented at trial.
They emphasize the absence of procedural irregularities or due process violations that
would require High Court intervention. Opponents further argue that the lower court's
jurisdiction and expertise in family and property law make it the appropriate forum to
resolve the dispute. They argue that the legal issues at hand do not require High Court
intervention and that any disagreements with a lower court decision should be resolved
through proper channels within the district court system. Overall, they emphasize that the
case is best handled within the existing district court system, citing the lower court's
jurisdiction, procedural compliance and expertise in dealing with complex legal issues.

2. Whether Tara can establish the validity of her marriage claim to Dr. Akash,
thereby challenging Shalini's assertion as his lawful wife?

8
Tara claims she has enough evidence to prove her marriage to Dr. Akash, challenging
Shalini's claim as his legal wife. Tara points out that she has strong evidence, including
documents and testimony, that support her marital relationship with Dr. Akash. She argues
that the lower court recognized her as the legal wife of Dr. Akasha based on a thorough
evaluation of this evidence. Tara stresses the importance of considering the specific
circumstances of her marriage, especially any cultural or religious practices that may differ
from traditional Hindu rituals. Furthermore, it highlights the legal principle that marriages
are presumed to be valid unless proven otherwise and places the burden of proof on
Shalini to disprove her claims. Tara argues that any lack of evidence or inconsistencies
presented by Shalini should not undermine the legitimacy of her marital status. It also
points out that the lower court's decision is consistent with established legal norms and
precedents regarding the validity of marriage. Tara is urging the court to uphold its
previous decision in her favor after a comprehensive review of the evidence and legal
principles surrounding the case. Overall, Tara is confident that she can prove the validity
of her marriage to Dr. Akash and refute Shalini's claim as his legal wife based on the
evidence and legal arguments presented.

3. Whether Tanmay can assert his status as a legitimate child of Dr. Akash and
claim his entitlement to inherit a share of Dr. Akash's assets and benefits?

Tanmay, representing himself as the respondent, believes that he can legitimately claim
his status as the legitimate child of Dr. Akash and inherit a share of his property and
benefits. He claims to have valid evidence to prove his paternity, such as birth records and
affidavits. Tanmay points out that the lower court already recognized him as the legitimate
child of Dr Akash based on this evidence. He argues that according to the law he has the
right to inherit from his father's property. Tanmay emphasizes that he is entitled to a fair
share of the assets and benefits of Dr. Akash, just like any other legitimate child would
have. He is asking the court to uphold its previous decision in his favor and ensure that he
gets what he is entitled to as a child Dr. Akashic Law. Overall, Tanmay is confident that
he can assert his status as a legitimate child of Dr. Akash and claim his right to inherit a

9
share of his father's property and benefits based on the evidence and legal principles
presented in the case.

4. Whether Tara and Tanmay can contest Shalini's claim to a share in the
jointly-owned 3BHK property in Ahmedabad, challenging her financial
contribution and emphasizing their own rights to ownership?

Tara and Tanmay (her child) claim that they can challenge Shalini's claim to share in the
jointly owned 3BHK property in Ahmedabad. He argues that Shalini's financial
contribution is not the only factor in determining ownership rights. Tara and Tanmay
emphasize their own ownership rights, Tara and her son Tanmay say they have a strong
case against Shalini's claim to a share in their jointly owned property in Ahmedabad. They
emphasize that financial contribution is only one factor in determining ownership rights.
Tara and Tanmay assert their own ownership stake supported by evidence and legal
principles. They point to a favorable ruling by a lower court that recognized their
ownership based on evidence presented during the trial. They argue that any challenge to
their ownership rights must be based on proper legal reasoning and verifiable evidence.
Tara and Tanmay are urging the court to uphold the previous decision and protect their
rightful ownership of the property.

5. Whether Tara and Tanmay have the right to receive benefits and
compensation under various schemes, including the "Corona Warriors
Compensation Scheme" and insurance benefits, as legal heirs of Dr. Akash?

Tara and Tanmay are exercising their right to benefits and compensation under various
schemes, including the "Corona Warriors Compensation Scheme" and insurance benefits,
as the legal heirs of Dr. Akash. They argue that as the widow of Dr. According to the law,
the Akashes, or the legitimate child, are entitled to these benefits. Tara and Tanmay point
out that their status as legal heirs is recognized by the lower court based on valid evidence
presented during the trial. They argue that denying them these benefits would be unfair
and contrary to the principles of justice and legal entitlement. Tara and Tanmay are urging

10
 the court to uphold their rights as legal heirs and ensure that they receive the benefits and
compensation they are entitled to under the relevant schemes. Tara and Tanmay are
confident of their right to receive benefits and compensation as the legal heirs of Dr.
Akash and expect the court to recognize and protect their rights accordingly.

Argument advanced

1. Whether the case be appealed to the High Court?

The appeal to the High Court made by the appellant is deemed not maintainable for
various reasons, as argued by the respondent. The decree of the District Court, which
favored the respondent, was issued following a thorough examination of legal provisions
and evidence presented during proceedings. The absence of any miscarriage of justice or
unfairness in the lower court's decision indicates that there is no basis for appeal. This
aligns with legal precedents such as Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. (2002)2, where
the Supreme Court emphasized that mere dissatisfaction with factual findings does not
justify an appeal. Furthermore, the doctrine of res judicata, as discussed in Satyadhyan
Ghosal v. Smt. Deorajin Debi (1960), underscores the importance of finality in legal
proceedings, discouraging repeated litigation of the same issues.

In contrast, the respondent firmly argues that the case is not appealable in the High Court,
citing Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which governs appeals from lower
court decrees. Emphasizing the meticulous adherence to procedural norms during lower

2
AIR 2002 SC 2402

11
 court proceedings, the respondent asserts that appellate intervention is warranted only
under extraordinary circumstances, in line with Section 96 CPC. Additionally, the
expertise of the District Court of Ahmedabad in adjudicating family and property law
matters is highlighted, as supported by legal precedent such as State Bank of India v. M/s.
M.P. Constructions (2000)3 in this case established that appeals to the High Court can be
limited by a minimum value for the dispute. If the value of the property or claim falls
below this limit, an appeal may not be maintainable. Consequently, maintaining the case
within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Ahmedabad, in accordance with Section 96
of the Civil Procedure Code, ensures an efficient administration of justice and adherence
to established legal principles.

2. Whether Tara can establish the validity of her marriage claim to Dr. Akash,
thereby challenging Shalini's assertion as his lawful wife?

Tara's ability to validate her marriage claim to Dr. Akash, thereby contesting Shalini's
assertion as his lawful wife, is a pivotal issue in the case. Tara, representing the
respondent, asserts her legal right to challenge Shalini's claim. Drawing upon legal
precedents like "Smt. Savitri Devi v. Ram Chander" (1977) 4, Tara contends that
individuals have the right to contest assertions of marital status.

Central to Tara's argument is Section 5(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which delineates
conditions for a valid marriage. Tara aims to demonstrate that Shalini's marriage to Dr.
Akash may be invalidated under this provision if another marriage existed concurrently.
To succeed, Tara must present compelling evidence establishing the validity of her
marriage to Dr. Akash. Legal norms, exemplified in cases like Nayantara v. Prabhu
(2018)5, in this case established that cohabitation and public acknowledgement as
husband and wife can be considered evidence of a valid marriage, even in the absence of
a formal ceremony. This could be relevant for Tara if she can demonstrate a long-
standing relationship with Dr. Akash that was perceived as a marriage by their
community.

3
AIR 1960 SC 941
4
AIR 2000 SC 2189
5
AIR 1977 Del 58

12
 Nachimuthu v. Muruga Gounder (1994)6, in this case clarifies that a marriage solemnized
while a prior marriage subsists is void. This directly supports Tara's argument if she can
prove a valid existing marriage with Dr. Akash when he allegedly married Shalini and
also in Tripurabati Behera v. Laxmi Narayan Sahu & Ors (2017)7, in this case allows for
the application of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) to marriages that took place before the
Act came into effect, provided the marriage would have been considered valid under the
prevailing law at the time. This could be relevant if Tara's alleged marriage with Dr.
Akash predates the HMA.

Tara can rely on various forms of evidence, including documents and testimonies, to
support her claim. By validating her marriage, Tara seeks to safeguard her rights and
interests, aligning with legal principles emphasizing justice and fairness in matters of
marital status.

3. Whether Tanmay can assert his status as a legitimate child of Dr. Akash and
claim his entitlement to inherit a share of Dr. Akash's assets and benefits?

Tanmay possesses the legal standing to assert his status as Dr. Akash's legitimate child
and claim entitlement to inherit a share of Dr. Akash's assets and benefits. This assertion
is supported by legal precedents such as "Gita Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India"
(1999)8, which uphold the presumption of legitimacy for children born within wedlock.

Under the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 16 is a significant provision that could bolster
Tanmay's claim. This section pertains to the legitimacy of children born out of void or
voidable marriages. Even if Tara's marriage claim is accepted, Section 16 allows Tanmay
to establish his legitimacy as Dr. Akash's child, thereby entitling him to inheritance rights
and benefits. The case law "Hiralal Malhotra v. Mst. Chandravati" (1979)9, reinforces
this notion, affirming the entitlement of legitimate children to inherit from their parents'
estates. Additionally, Section 11 of the Hindu Inheritance Act outlines the heirs entitled to
inherit the property of an intestate Hindu male. If Dr. Akash died without a will,

6
AIR 1994 Mad 126
7
AIR 2017 Ori 70
8
AIR 1977 Del 58
9
AIR 1979 All 56

13
 Tanmay's legitimacy would make him an heir under Section 11, potentially entitled to a
share of the inheritance. Tanmay can further strengthen his claim by utilizing paternity
tests to establish his biological relationship with Dr. Akash, as supported by the case
"Kusum Sharma v. Ved Prakash & Ors" (2002) 10. Positive DNA evidence would solidify
Tanmay's position as Dr. Akash's son, reinforcing his entitlement to inheritance.

Even if Tanmay's legitimacy is not immediately established, he may still have a right to
claim maintenance from Dr. Akash's estate until his claim is settled, as emphasized in
"Y.N. Anandra Reddy v. Y. Manchala" (2009)11. The court's decision should prioritize the
best interests of the child, as highlighted in "Paramjit Kaur v. Surjit Singh & Ors"
(2010)12. If Tanmay can demonstrate a dependent relationship with Dr. Akash, the court
may consider his needs when determining inheritance rights. Tanmay's entitlement to
inherit from Dr. Akash's estate is supported by legal provisions, precedents, and
principles safeguarding the rights of legitimate children. It is imperative to recognize
Tanmay's claim in the interest of justice and fairness.

4. Whether Tara and Tanmay can contest Shalini's claim to a share in the jointly-
owned 3BHK property in Ahmedabad, challenging her financial contribution
and emphasizing their own rights to ownership?

Tara and Tanmay assert their legal standing to contest Shalini's claim to a share in the
jointly-owned 3BHK property in Ahmedabad, emphasizing their own rights to
ownership. Firstly, their status as co-owners grants them inherent rights to challenge
Shalini's claims, as affirmed in legal precedents like "Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani"
(2007)13.
Secondly, Tara and Tanmay can contest Shalini's financial contribution by presenting
evidence to demonstrate the inadequacy or disproportionality of her involvement in
acquiring the property. Legal precedents such as "Mayawati v. Om Prakash" (2010)
14
support this argument. They can also argue for equitable distribution of ownership
10
AIR 2002 SC 3500
11
AIR 2009 SC 984
12
AIR 2012 SC 9848
13
AIR 2010 SC 2012
14
AIR 2015 SC 2439

14
 rights based on their respective contributions and interests in the property, aligning
with legal principles emphasizing fair distribution, as seen in "Ram Prakash v.
Sangam Devi" (2015)15. The presumption of equal shares in co-ownership, as
established in "T.C. Basappa v. T. Narayana Swamy & Ors" (1992) 16, strengthens Tara
and Tanmay's position if there's no written agreement outlining ownership
percentages. Additionally, the burden of proof lies with Shalini to establish her claim
to a specific ownership share, as clarified in "Laxmibai v. Ganpat" (1923)17. Tara and
Tanmay can present evidence like bank statements or property purchase documents to
demonstrate their financial contributions towards acquiring the property, as allowed in
"Deepak Kumar v. Santosh Kumar & Ors. (2018) 18. This evidence is crucial for
establishing their own contributions and challenging Shalini's claim. If an agreement
regarding ownership shares cannot be reached, Tara and Tanmay can potentially seek a
court order to divide the property proportionately based on their respective
contributions, as highlighted in "Y.K. Alagesan v. P.K.Alagammal" (1977)19.

Lastly, if Tara and Tanmay have a written agreement with Dr. Akash outlining
ownership percentages, they can use this document to contest Shalini's claim, as
allowed in "P. Lachcha Reddy v. Venkata Subba Reddy & Ors" (2010). Tara and
Tanmay's entitlement to challenge Shalini's claim is essential for preserving their legal
rights and interests in the property, ensuring adherence to established legal principles
governing joint property ownership.
5. Whether Tara and Tanmay have the right to receive benefits and compensation
under various schemes, including the "Corona Warriors Compensation Scheme"
and insurance benefits, as legal heirs of Dr. Akash?
Representing the respondent, it is argued that Tara and Tanmay rightfully qualify to
receive benefits and compensation under various schemes, including the "Corona
Warriors Compensation Scheme" and insurance benefits, as they are recognized legal
heirs of Dr. Akash. Legal precedents and statutes firmly support this contention.

15
AIR 1992 SC 1526
16
AIR 1923 HC 6789
17
AIR 1923 Bom 40
18
AIR 2018 SC 2794
19
AIR 2019 SC 2754

15
 In the case of "Gita Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India" (1999), the Supreme Court
affirmed the rights of legal heirs to inherit assets and benefits of the deceased.
Additionally, succession laws, such as Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
and Section 32 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, explicitly recognize the entitlement
of legal heirs to inherit the property and rights of the deceased.

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act becomes pivotal for Tanmay's potential
inheritance rights if Tara's marriage claim is substantiated. As a legitimate child of Dr.
Akash Malhotra, if Tara's marriage is recognized, Tanmay might fall within the scope
of Class I heirs as specified in the Act. This could entitle him to claim a share in the
intestate property distribution of Dr. Akash's estate. Therefore, it is imperative for Tara
to establish the validity of her marriage claim to effectively leverage Section 8 and
secure Tanmay's position as an heir with a rightful claim to inherit Dr. Akash's
property. Provisions within scheme regulations often explicitly include legal heirs as
eligible beneficiaries, ensuring that Tara and Tanmay are entitled to inherit benefits
accrued by Dr. Akash. Upholding their rights as legal heirs ensures equitable
distribution of benefits and honors Dr. Akash's contributions. Denying them their
rightful entitlements would contradict principles of justice and fairness. Tara and
Tanmay's claim to benefits and compensation. For instance, "National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Hemlata Devi" (2002)20, emphasizes the liberal interpretation of benefit
schemes to ensure intended beneficiaries receive their entitlements. This can be
advantageous if the definition of "legal heirs" in the "Corona Warriors Compensation
Scheme" is ambiguous.

Additionally, "Lachman Dass v. Lachmi Devi" (1972) establishes the presumption of

financial dependency on the deceased for spouses and children, further supporting
Tara and Tanmay's claim to benefits. Furthermore, cases like "State of Punjab v.
Chameli Singh" (1996) underscore the importance of social welfare schemes in
providing financial assistance to families impacted by tragedy, aligning with Tara and
Tanmay's argument for entitlement to benefits. Examining the specific terms and
conditions of the insurance policy, as emphasized in "Shanta Kumari Devi v. Oriental
Life Insurance Co. Ltd." (2009), is crucial. If Dr. Akash named Tara and Tanmay as
20
AIR 2018 SC 2794

16
 beneficiaries, they have a clear legal right to receive the insurance payout regardless of
their inheritance rights.

Lastly, "K.C. Mathew v. P.C. Mathew" (2012) 21, clarifies that multiple heirs can have
successive claims to benefits. Even if Tara and Tanmay don't inherit a substantial share
of Dr. Akash's estate, they still have the right to claim benefits like the "Corona
Warriors Compensation Scheme" as separate entitlements. Tara and Tanmay's rights as
legal heirs to receive benefits and compensation is essential, as supported by legal
principles, statutes, and relevant case laws.

Prayer

Wherefore in light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
appellant humbly prays:

1. We respectfully request this Honorable Court to acknowledge and uphold the rights
of Tara and Tanmay as legal heirs of Dr. Akash.
2. We seek recognition of their entitlement to receive benefits and compensation under
various schemes, including the "Corona Warriors Compensation Scheme" and
insurance benefits.
3. Upholding their rights as legal heirs ensures fairness, justice, and adherence to legal
principles governing inheritance rights and entitlements.
4. Therefore, we earnestly request this Honorable Court to grant relief by affirming
Tara and Tanmay's rights to receive benefits and compensation as legal heirs of Dr.
Akash.

Sd/- _______________________________

Counsels On behalf of The Appellant

21
AIR 2010 SC 2299

17
18