IN THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT

OF JALANDHAR

PAYAL…………………………………………………..PETITIONER

v.

RAM……………………………………………………RESPONDENT

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE CHIEF JUDGE OF JALANDHAR

AND HIS COMPANION JUDGE OF

THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT OF JALANDHAR

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………..4-
5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
………………………………………………………6

STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………….7-
8

ARGUMENTS
PRESENTED………………………………………………………………9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………….10-
11

ARGUMENT ADVANCED…………………………………………………….………12-
19

PRAYER…………………..…………………………………………………….………….2
0

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Report

Art. Article
HMA Hindu Marriage Act
IPC Indian Penal Code
SEC Section
PIL Public Interest Litigation
Govt. Government
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Ed. Edition
Ors. Others
V Versus
AP Aggrieved Party
C.C No Civil Case Number
C.C NO. Criminal Case Number
DMC Divorce And Matrimonial Cases
DMC(SC) Divorce and Matrimonial Cases(SC)
HC High Court
IDA Indian Divorce Act

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF CASES

1. Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh AIR 2017 Supreme Court 1316

2. Dennis v. Dennis [2002] 2 FLR 231
3. Samraj v. Abraham, AIR 1970 Mad 434
4. Jyotish Chandra v Meera Guha, AIR 1970 Cal 266
5. Sushil Kumari Dang v. Prem Kumar AIR 1976 Delhi 321, 13(1977)
6. Yusuf v. Sowramina AIR 1971 Ker 2617. V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337
7. Sachindranath Chatterjee v. Sm. Nilima Chatterjee AIR 1970 Cal 38, 74 CWN 168
8. SMT Kanta v. Devidas, II(1998) DMC 368.
9. Narendra v. K.Meena, Civil Appeal No.3253 of 2008
10. Suman Kapur vs. Sudhir Kapur
11. irojabanu Anvarhussain Shaikh vs. State of Gujarat13. Bimla Devi vs. Singh Raj
12. Paras Respondent vs. Kamlesh
13. Devyani vs. Kantilal
14. Kusum Lata vs. Kanta Prasad
15. . Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs. State of Bombay
16. Tekait Mon Mohini vs. Basant Kumar Singh

BOOKS REFERRED

1. Arora Vibha., Marriage and Divorce Laws, First Edition, Universal Law Publishing.

2. Rashid MA & Thomas KT., The Indian Penal Code, 35th Edition, Lexi Nexis.

3. Hindu Law (Bare act), Universal Law Publishing

4
 4. Krishnamurthi Aiyar S., Law of Marriage, Maintenance, Separation and Divorce,
Fifth Edition, Universal Law Publishing.

LEGAL DATABASE AND WEBSITES

1. Manupatra [www.manupatra.com]
2. Indian Kanoon [www.indiankanoon.com]
3. LexisNexis [www.lexisnexis.com]
4. Law Octopus [www.lawoctopus.com]
5. West Law [www.westlaw.com]

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble District Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant matter under Section 19
of the Hindu Marriage Act

Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 reads as follows:

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 solemnised, 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

a. 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.]

6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Skylark Pvt. Ltd is a multinational bank with its head office at Bangalore. The annual turnover
of the company is quite impressive. The market was hit by a slump phase due to global
recession. The company laid off number of employees in view of the volatile market
conditions.

Ram has been a regular employee of the company and earned his high position owing to his
exceptional managerial skills. Because of his indispensable deportment in the company, he
somehow managed to continue in the company even in the wake of global recession. Ria is
also beginning her career with the Multinational Bank. She happens to be an ambitious girl and
she dreams of owning her own bungalow in a posh locality of Bangalore someday. At work,
she made overtures to Ram and took him into confidence for climbing up the corporate ladder.

Meanwhile Ram’s parents were keen on getting him married. Through a matrimonial
advertisement, a suitable match was found for Ram. The arranged marriage between Ram and
Payal, a government school teacher was arranged and solemnized on 12/09/2010 as per Hindu
rites and customs.

Payal turned out to be conservative in her outlook towards life in general, whereas Ram liked
to lead a lifestyle full of fun and frolic. After few months of marriage, differences arose between
the two of them on minor issues. Ram started to chat quite late on the phone with Ria. When
Payal objected to this behavior, he advised her to stay out of his professional life. Payal went
into depression as even the family members of Ram used to mistreat her. Though not
categorically, but at times she was insulted for bringing less and substandard jewelry and not
taking proper care of the guests at the wedding.

In return, Payal adopted an indifferent and insulting attitude towards her in-laws in front of the
guests. She even withdrew herself from her matrimonial responsibilities towards Ram and his
family by not preparing food for them etc. Things continued in a similar manner for almost a
year.

One year later, realizing the worthlessness of strained marital ties, Payal decided to visit Ram
at his office one day to reconcile the domestic matters. Instead, on her way to office, she
discovered Ram hugging Ria at a café during working hours. When she confronted Ram
regarding the same, he denied having an extra-marital affair with Ria.

Realizing the futility of this relationship, Payal has filed a divorce petition on grounds on
cruelty and Adultery. She further seeks maintenance amounting to Rs 60,000 per month. On

7
the other hand Ram denies all the allegations through his legal representative and takes the plea
that Payal is an independent woman who is capable of supporting herself from her earnings.
He is also willing to reconcile the matter provided Payal resumes her matrimonial obligations.

Payal is ready to reconcile only if Ram promises her separate accommodation from his parents
and also to look for a new place to work, to which Ram has refused.

8
 QUESTIONS OF LAW
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED

i. WHETHER DIVORCE PETITION FILED BY PETIONER {PAYAL} IS

MAINTAINABLE UNDER DISTRICT COURT OF JALANDHAR?

ii. WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT AMOUNT TO

ADULTERY UNDER SECTION 497 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE?

iii. WHETHER THE ACT OF FAMILY MEMBERS AND HUSBAND RESULTS TO

CRUELTY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

iv. WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS?

v. WHETHER PETITONER CAN SEEK MAINTENANCE FOM RESPONDENT

EVEN BEING AN INDEPENDENT EARNING WOMAN AND ALSO ASK
RESPONDENT FOR SEPARATE ACCOMODATION?

9
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: WHETHER DIVORCE PETITION FILED BY PAYAL IS MAINTAINABLE

UNDER DISTRICT COURT OF JALANHAR?
It is humbly submitted before the District Court of Jalandhar that Divorce petition filed by
Payal is not maintainable. It will be violation of section 19 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as
nowhere in the facts of the case mentioned that any of the party to the marriage is residing at
Jalandhar at the time of filing of the petition of Divorce nor she can file on the grounds of
cruelty and adultery as she don’t have the circumstantial evidences to prove them.

ISSUE II: THE ACTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO

ADULTERY UNDER SECTION 497 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

The counsel on behalf of the respondent most humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court that
the mere actions of hugging and chatting late night on phone on the part of respondent does
not amount to adultery under section 497 of the Indian Penal Code and that it does not mean
that the respondent is having any kind of illicit relationship with Ria.

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the appellant is being misled by
her own doubtful mind and drawing her own conclusions that the respondent is having an
adulterous relationship with his office colleague Ria when the truth is a complete opposite to
it.

ISSUE III: WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL

RIGHTS?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that under section 9 of the Hindu marriage act
1955 as the marriage was solemnized 12/9/2010 as per the Hindu rites and customs. Petitioner
has withdrawn herself from her matrimonial responsibilities towards Respondent and his
family by not preparing food for them etc.

ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE ACT OF FAMILY MEMBERS AND HUSBAND

RESULTS TO CRUELTY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the act done by the family doesn’t tend
to cruelty because the petitioner did the act of miss behavior with the family of respondent in

10
front of the guest and mistreat the whole family and it is the duty of the bride to take care of
the in laws and respect them.

ISSUE V: WHETHER PETITIONER CAN SEEK MAINTENANCE FROM

RESPONDENT EVEN BEING AN INDEPENDENT EARNIN WOMAN AND ALSO ASK
RESPONDENT FOR SEPARATE ACCOMODATION?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble District Court that Petitioner is not entitled to seek
maintenance from Respondent on the grounds of cruelty and adultery when she, herself, is at
fault by withdrawing all the matrimonial duties and consequently causing mental trauma to her
husband and her in-laws by putting false allegations of being ill-treated by them. When she’s
hiding the true facts and figures, that all, she was asked for a grandchild by her in-laws but
cause of her conservative behaviour, she took it as a mental cruelty for her and manipulated
the situation and misleading the court by concealing the matremonial facts and henceforth
interpreting it in the wrong direction.1Moreover Petitioner did not have any direct and
circumstantial evidence to prove it.

1
Suman Kapur vs. Sudhir Kapur : MANU/SC/4705/2008

11
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: WHETHER DIVORCE PETITION FILED BY PETIONER IS MAINTAINABLE

UNDER DISTRICT COURT OF JALANHAR?

It is humbly submitted before the District Court of Jalandhar that Divorce petition filed by
Payal is not maintainable. It will be violation of section 19 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as
85nowhere in the facts of the case mentioned that any of the party to the marriage is residing
at Jalandhar at the time of filing of the petition of Divorce nor she can file on the grounds of
cruelty and adultery as she don’t have the circumstantial evidences to prove them.

[I.A] NECESSARY ELEMENTS TO BE SATISFIED UNDER SECTION 19 OF HINDU

MARRIAGE ACT, 1955
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 solemnised, 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.]2

2
Hindu Marriage Act 1955, India, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/371013/ (Last Modified January
28,2019)

12
Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, makes it very clear that neither of the party to
marriage was residing at the time of filing of the divorce petition nor it can be maintainable
under the cruelty and adultery as the wife(petitioner) doesn’t have any direct and circumstantial
evidences on the basis of which she has filed the case.

II. THE ACTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ADULTERY

UNDER SECTION 497 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

The counsel on behalf of the respondent most humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court that
the mere actions of hugging and chatting late night on phone on the part of respondent does
not amount to adultery under section 497 of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:

“Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to
believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such
sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery,
and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an
abettor”.

Ingredients- The Section requires the following essentials:

1. Sexual intercourse by a man with a woman who is and whom he knows or has reason
to believe to be the wife of another man.
2. Such sexual intercourse must be without the consent or connivance of the husband.
3. Such sexual intercourse must not amount to rape.

The counsel on behalf of the respondent would like to state that as per the definition and the
ingredients of Adultery given under Section 4973 of IPC the action of the respondent of
chatting late night on phone and hugging with his office colleague Ria does not in any sense
amount to adultery. The appellant does not have any direct and circumstantial evidence on
the basis of which she filed divorce.

The allegations of adultery put forward by the appellant on the respondent is not justifiable
because it does not fulfill the ingredients and the requirements laid under the section 497 of
IPC to amount to Adultery.

The allegation of adultery put forward by the appellant does not fulfill the first ingredient of
Adultery, that is there is no prove of any kind of physical relationship between the Ria and
the respondent except for the part that the appellant saw the respondent hugging with Ria.

3
Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, Adultery.

13
In the case Dennis v Dennis4 the Hon’ble Supreme Court asserted that “Adultery strictly
speaking consists of sexual intercourse by one party to the marriage with some person other
than the opposite party. Strictly speaking there has to be some sexual penetration though not
necessarily a complete sexual act. Mere indecent behaviour is not enough though intensity
thereof would be a pointer or indicator as to whether the adultery took place at some other point
of time”.
Samraj v Abraham5 the court in this case asserted that Proof of adultery and adultery is an act
of sexual intercourse between a married woman with another married or unmarried person.
The counsel on behalf of the respondent would like to humbly submit before the Hon’ble Court
that the allegations of Adultery put forward by the appellant on the respondent is not justifiable
as per the grounds laid down by the court in the above mentioned case of Dennis v. Dennis and
Samraj v. Abraham as there is no concrete prove from the appellants side of any sexual
relationship between the respondent and Ria.
In Jyotish Chandra v. Meera Guha6 it was held by the Supreme Court that “adultery should be
proved beyond reasonable doubt. A mere production of letters exchanged would not be enough
in the absence of inreciprocacity”
It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the appellant should prove that the
allegation she levied on the respondent for adultery should be proved beyond reasonable
doubt and that she cannot just blame the respondent for adultery for his mere action of
hugging and chatting late night with Ria.

III. WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL

RIGHTS?
Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 accommodates the Restitution of Conjugal Rights
wherein it gives help to the gathering in the event that one companion pulls back from the
general public of other for no sensible reason in any case, the essential state of such
alleviation is a legitimate. we are worried about a situation where an announcement for
compensation of matrimonial rights has been acquired by the respondent-spouse under
Section 9 of the Act on the ground that the wife has without sensible reason pulled back
from his general public. In perspective of the way that the spouse was found to have left
the organization of the husband without sensible reason, announce for compensation of
marital rights was allowed to the husband. It would in this manner be seen that on the off
chance that she neglected to follow the declaration for compensation of marital rights, it
can't be said that she submitted any wrong after the death of the announcement against her.
Truth be told this wrong which she was found to have submitted in the procedures under

4
Dennis v. Dennis [2002] 2 FLR 231
5
Samraj v. Abraham, AIR 1970 Mad 434
6
Jyotish Chandra v Meera Guha, AIR 1970 Cal 266

14
 Section 9 of the Act can't be said to be a wrong dedicated by her after the death of the
pronouncement in order to disentitle her from getting the alleviation under Section 13(1A)
in view of the arrangements of Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. The upside of her own wrong
or inability referenced in Section 23(1)(a) ought to be favourable position of her own wrong
or incapacity, establishment of which was laid after the pronouncement for compensation
of marital rights was passed.
The realities of the case the marriage was legitimate as they have been organized and
solemnized on 12/9/2010 according to the Hindu rituals and customs. Petitioner has pulled
back herself from her marital obligations towards Respondent and his family by not
planning nourishment for them and so on. Things proceeded likewise for very nearly a year.
According to the Section 9 7of Hindu marriage act Restitution of conjugal rights. 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.

Smt. Bimla Devi D/O Bakhtawar ... vs Singh Raj S/O Dasondhi Respondent 8
It may well be that the spouse who obtained the decree for restitution of conjugal rights
may change his or her mind and may not be willing to live with the other spouse after the
passing of the decree. It would further be seen that a spouse who has suffered a decree of
restitution of conjugal rights, has already been adjudged to have left the company of the
other spouse without reasonable excuse. The said wrong was committed much before the
passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights and it cannot be said that the said
wrong has been committed after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights.
In 1964, there was a radical departure. By an Amending Act, Clauses (viii) and (ix) were
omitted and instead, Sub-section (IA) was introduced into Section 13. Instead of the non-
defaulting party-decree-holder alone being entitled to sue for divorce, Section 13(1A)
provides that either party may seek divorce on the ground that there has been no resumption
of cohabitation or no restitution of conjugal rights for a period of two years or more after
the passing of a decree for judicial separation or a decree for restitution for conjugal rights.

7
Section 9, Hindu marriage act , 1955
8
Smt. Bimla Devi D/O Bakhtawar ... vs Singh Raj S/O Dasondhi Respondent on 17 December, 1976

15
 The question is no longer who obtained the decree for restitution of conjugal rights or for
judicial separation, or, who was at fault previously? Or, who is at fault now? The question
is not one of fault at all. The question is not one of apportioning blame. The question is,
have the parties been able to come together after the decree was passed whether it was for
judicial separation or restitution of conjugal rights. If they have not been able to come
together, either party may seek divorce, irrespective of whose fault it was that they did not
come together. The grounds for divorce in Section 13 unlike the grounds for divorce in
Section 13(1) are not based on any present matrimonial wrong or disability. The advantage
of her own wrong or disability mentioned in Section 23(1) (a) should be an advantage of
her own wrong or disability, foundation of which was laid after the decree for restitution
of conjugal rights was passed9.
the facts of the case the marriage was valid as they have been arranged and solemnized on
12/9/2010 as per the Hindu rites and customs. Petitioner has withdrawn herself from her
matrimonial responsibilities towards Respondent and his family by not preparing food for
them etc. Things continued in a similar manner for almost a year.

IV. WHETHER THE ACT OF FAMILY MEMBERS AND HUSBAND RESULTS

TO CRUELTY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?
The counsel on the behalf of respondent most humbly submits that the instant cases are not
main Domestic violence or mental cruelty before this Hon’ble court. The respondent most
humbly submits the following to reaffirm the non-maintainability of the case before the court.
Some instances illustrative of what defines mental cruelty as described by the Supreme Court
of India (SC) are :

 Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of

language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that
it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.

 conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes
unhappiness and dissatisfaction. Emotional upset may not be a valid ground for
granting a divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty;

The literal meaning of the word domestic violence basically means any violent or
aggressive behaviour of any person within the home as the word here is ‘domestic’ or

9
Section 9, Hindu marriage act ,1955

16
 in other words a violent quarrel between a couple which may force a female spouse to
file for mental harassment basically under domestic violence act and other provisions
of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

THE CONCEPT OF CRUELTY IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO HUMAN

PROBLEM,PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH,AND CONDUCT OF THE SPOUSE
WHICH HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE APPReCIATING THE CONCEPT OF
CRUELTY BY THE COURTS.

Your lordship,the respondent is already earning well and he along with his family enjoys a
very good reputation in the society.

Because of PETIONER, the respondent has lost time with his WORK AND PARENTS, HE
IS DEALING WITH OVERWHELMING EMOTIONS .THE COUNCIL can understand his
inability to comprehend the potential loss to him due to her FALSE allegations. The false
allegations by the side of petioner is letting his emotions drive and his relationship with his
family and his financial future in jeopardy.

recently, the verdict given by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Shri Mangesh
Balkrushna Bhoir v. Sau. Leena Mangesh Bhoir decided on 23rd December, 2015,. The
Court held that whenever a wife institutes a false complaint against her husband and his
family nd later if were held to have no foundation, In these circumstances, it was observed
that they did constitute cruelty. Besides, it was observed that making false allegation in open
Court about the character of the husband and the family members so as to injure the
reputation of the husband amounts to cruelty.

Even in the case of Kamlesh vs. Paras Respondent (30.07.1984 - PHHC )….he or she has
further to prove that it was 'cruelty' satisfying the tests of the Hindu Marriage Act. In that Act
cruelty as a ground for divorce must mean cruelty of such a character as to cause danger to life,
limb or health or to give rise to reasonable apprehension of such danger. After the 1976
amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act, cruelty as a ground for divorce has been brought at par
with one existing in the Special Marriage Act. And under the Special Marriage Act the ground
of cruelty has always been understood to mean cruelty as it is understood under the English
Law. The effect of Dastane v. Dastane MANU/SC/0330/1975 : AIR 1975 SC 1534 was
nullified by causing the 1976 amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act. In Raj Kumar Manocha
v. Smt. Anskuka Manocha 1983 Cri L. J. 134 S. P. Goyal, J. relying on Madan Lal Sharma v.

17
Smt. Santosh Sharma 1980 H L. R. 441 (Bom) summed up the position of law on the point
with erudite clarity with which I am in respectful agreement.10

In Vimla Ladkani's case the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court had marriage on record which
went to show that the case of cruelty had been established for the grant of divorce to the
husband. Apart from the marriage, it was also observed that wife in her written statement made
false allegation and all the accusation appeared to be incorrect and were held to have no
foundation. In these circumstances, it was observed that they did constitute cruelty. Besides, it
was observed that making false allegation in open Court about the character of the husband and
the family members so as to injure the reputation of the husband amounts to cruelty.11

ISSUE V: WHETHER PETITIONER CAN SEEK MAINTENANCE FOM RESPONDENT

EVEN BEING AN INDEPENDENT EARNING WOMAN AND ASK FOR SEPARATE
ACCOMODATION?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble District Court that Petitioner is not entitled to seek
maintenance from Respondent on the grounds of cruelty and adultery when she, herself, is at
fault by withdrawing all the matrimonial duties and consequently causing mental trauma to
her husband and her in-laws by putting false allegations of being ill-treated by them. In the
matter of Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, "Everyone has to earn for the purpose of
maintenance of himself or herself, [or] at least has to make sincere efforts in that direction
It is when women are capable of earning and they don't do so because they have been ill
advised by lawyers to just sit at home and claim interim maintenance that the law gets
misused.

1. In case of Meena Dinesh Parman v/s Shri Dinesh Parman decided on 4 feb.2005,

While fixing the quantum of maintenance, the Court has to take into account not
only the needs of person who claims maintenance but also the capacity, status,
commitments and the obligations of person who has to pay it. If the husband has to maintain
other persons like his parents, etc. Reasonable allowance for their maintenance shall
have to be made. It would be unjust to grant maintenance in an arbitrary manner. The party
who has to pay
maintenance is also not to be virtually rendered a destitute. A fair balancing of all the relevat
factors is to be done by the Courts without making an emotional approach to the pr

10
Kamlesh vs. Paras Respondent (30.07.1984 - PHHC )
11
Smt. Vimla Ladkani vs Dr. Chandra Prakash Ladkani, AIR 1996 MP

18
oblem. The Court shall have to keep in mind that what is to be provided is the maintenance
and it cannot have saving element in it nor is it the purpose of the legislature to put the
claimant in a luxurious position. The definition of maintenance given by the Act make
s this position amply clear. In the case of Narendra vs K. Meena..Respondent wanted the
Appellant to leave his parents and other family members and to get separated from them so that
the Respondent can live independently; and in that event it would become more torturous for
the Appellant to stay only with the Respondent wife with her such nature and behaviour. The
main ground was cruelty, as serious allegations were levelled about the moral character of the
Appellant to the effect that he was having an extra- marital affair with a maid, named Kamla.
Later on it was held that on the grounds of false allegation of cruelty and adultery the husband
will not be made liable to pay the maintenance.12 The act done by the husband does not tend to
adultery or cruelty due the behaviour of Petitioner towards her in laws the husband didn’t do
anything.

12
Narendra vs K.Meena, India, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/130314186/ (Last Modified 28 January,
2019)

19
PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts explained, issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given
and authorities cited, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1. HOLD the divorce petition as it not up to the willingness of the husband;

2. DECLARE all the false allegation as null and void;
3. DECLARE the reconciliation of the husband and wife;.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice, Equity,
and Good Conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Respondent shall as in duty bound, forever humbly pray.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

20
21