Respondent Memo UOI

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA
WRIT PETITION
IN THE MATTER OF
KALKA DEVI...........................................................APPELLANT
Versus
UNION OF INDIA........................................................RESPONDENT
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENT
TABLE OF CONTENT..................................................................................................................2
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................................................3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...........................................................................................................4
 CASES CITED
 BOOKS REFERRED
 STATUTES
 ARTICLES AND LEGAL JOURNALS
 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
 LEGAL DATABASE
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...............................................................................................9
STATEMENT OF FACTS...........................................................................................................10
STATEMENT OF ISSUES..........................................................................................................12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..................................................................................................13
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED......................................................................................................15
PRAYER.......................................................................................................................................35
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 CASES CITED
 BOOKS REFERRED
1. Batuk Lal, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Law Agency, 2017).
2. Dr. J.N. Pandey, Dr. Surendra Sahai Srivastava (ed.), Constitutional Law of India (Central Law
Agency, 54th Edition, 2016).
3. Dr. Narendra Kumar, Constitutional Law of India (Allahabad Law Agency, 9th Edition, Re.
2016).
4. K.D. Gaur, Textbook on I.P.C. (Universal Law Publications, 6th Edition, 2016).
5. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (Lexis Nexis, 8th Edition, 2018).
6. Mulla, the Code of Civil Procedure (Lexis Nexis, 19th Edition, 2017).
7. P.S.A. Pillai, Dr. K. I. Vibhute, Criminal Law (Lexis Nexis, 12th Edition, Re. 2016).
8. Paras Diwan & P. Diwan, Modern Hindu law, (Allahabad law agency, 23rd edition, Re. 2018).
9. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, I.P.C. ( L e x i s N e x i s , Nagpur, 30 th Ed., 2008).
10. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, the Code of Criminal Procedure (Lexis Nexis, 22nd Edition, 2017).
11. S.N. Mishra, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Law Publications, 20 th
Edition, 2016).
12. Surya Narayan Mishra, Shriniwas Gupta (ed.), I.P.C. (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 20th Edi,
2016).
 STATUTES AND RULES

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The Constitution of India, 1950.
3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
4. The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5. The Supreme Court Rules, Order XLVIII, Rule 6 (1966).
 ARTICLE AND LEGAL JOURNALS

1. “Decriminalization of Adultery and Defenses”, available at: http://Endvawnow.Org.
2. Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, Vol. 1.
3. Crowford on Statutory Construction, 2018-19.
4. Dhruv Tiwari & Anand Vardhan Narayan, “Recolouring the colored walls of
constitution: a futile judicial exercise of creating the curative petition”, IJLPP 2.2E.
5. Government of India, Report: Committee on reforms of criminal justice system,
(Ministry of Home Affairs, 2003).
6. Law commission of India, 42nd Report on ‘The I.P.C.’, (Government of India, 1972).
7. Macaulay, Mac’leod, Anderson and Millett, A Penal Code Prepared by the Indian
Law Commissioners, Pelham Richardson, 1838.
8. Ratna Kapur and Brenda Cossman, Subversive Sites: Feminist Engagements with
Law in India, Sage Publications.
9. Statement by the United Nations Working Group on “Discrimination against
Women in Law and in Practice.”
10. Sutherland on Statutory Construction, “Interpretation of Statutes”, II.
11. UN Women, Preventing Conflict, Transforming Justice, Securing the Peace: “A
Global Study on the Implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution”.
12. Constitutional Court Of Guatemala, Expediente 936-95, (07.03.1996)
13. Constitutional Court Of South Korea, 2009 Hun-Ba 17, (26.02.2015)
 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

1. European Convention of Human Rights, 1950.
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Act, 1966.
3. The International Covenant on Civil Rights, 1966.
4. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
 LEGAL DATABASE
 Manupatra.
 SCC Online.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Kalka Devi got married to Suresh Prasad on 10-01-2019 as per Hindu rites and
rituals under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995. The husband and his family members
started torturing Kalka Devi both, physically and mentally. On account of this,
Kalka Devi was forced to leave her matrimonial home within a year of her
marriage.
2. Kalka Devi filed a Petition u/s. 125 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973
seeking maintenance before the Family Court, New Delhi. A complaint case was
also filed against the husband and his family members under section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961.
3. Thereafter, Suresh Prasad filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights

under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Court,
New Delhi.
4. The Family Court, on 20-07-2021, issued summon to Kalka Devi seeking her
presence in the proceedings before the Court.
5. During the pendency of the suit before the Family Court, New Delhi for restitution
of conjugal rights Kalka Devi filed a Writ Petition against the Union of India under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
inter alia challenging the constitutional validity of following provisions: A. Section
9 and Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; and B. Order XXI
Rule 32 and Order XXI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (to the
extent applicable to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights); and C. Exception 2
of Section 375 of Indian Penal Code,1860 on the ground that it infringes the
fundamental rights under Article 14, 19 (1) (a), 19 (1)(d), 21 of the Constitution of
India.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether instant matter is maintainable before the Hon’ble Court?

2. Whether Section 9, 13 (1-A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Order
XXI Rule 32 and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is ex facie arbitrary
and violates the fundamental rights under Article 14, 19 (1) (d) and 21 of
the Constitution of India?
3. Whether a decree of restitution of conjugal rights violates the right of privacy,
right of mental and physical health and right of dignity of a woman under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
4. Whether an act of the State can compel or induce a woman to surrender her
fundamental right of sexual and decisional autonomy which is intrinsic in the
right to privacy and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India?
5. Whether a decree for restitution of conjugal rights forbids a person to exercise
her right to decide whether to have sexual intercourse with his/her
partner/spouse thus violating her right to bodily integrity and spatial and
behavioural privacy?
6. Whether exception 2 of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code legalizes marital
rape and violates the fundamental rights of married women under Article 14,
Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
SUMMARY OF ARUGUMENTS
1. Whether instant matter is maintainable before the Hon’ble Court?

2. Whether Section 9, 13 (1-A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Order
XXI Rule 32 and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is ex facie arbitrary
and violates the fundamental rights under Article 14, 19 (1) (d) and 21 of
the Constitution of India?
3. Whether a decree of restitution of conjugal rights violates the right of privacy,
right of mental and physical health and right of dignity of a woman under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
4. Whether an act of the State can compel or induce a woman to surrender her
fundamental right of sexual and decisional autonomy which is intrinsic in the
right to privacy and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India?
5. Whether a decree for restitution of conjugal rights forbids a person to exercise
her right to decide whether to have sexual intercourse with his/her
partner/spouse thus violating her right to bodily integrity and spatial and
behavioural privacy?
6. Whether exception 2 of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code legalizes marital
rape and violates the fundamental rights of married women under Article 14,
Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Respondent Memo UOI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Respondent Memo UOI

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Respondent Memo UOI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 STATUTES AND RULES

 ARTICLE AND LEGAL JOURNALS

 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

3. Thereafter, Suresh Prasad filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights

1. Whether instant matter is maintainable before the Hon’ble Court?

1. Whether instant matter is maintainable before the Hon’ble Court?

You might also like