Moot court -2

1. MOOT PROPOSITION (FAMILY LAW)

Sushil and Ritu married each other on 15th January, 2011 according to Hindu
rituals. Thereafter they resided in the matrimonial home at Karol Bagh, Delhi
along with the parents of Sushil. Sushil’s mother was a woman who believed in
mythology and was having very orthodox approach towards life. She always
wanted that her son Sushil must have a son for sacramental reasons. Due to her
persistent insistence the couple had to unwillingly conceive a child which they
always wanted to be done after sometime. Ritu went to her parent’s place for
the delivery of the child as per the instructions of her mother-in-law who
believed that the first child should be delivered at her parents place. Ritu
delivered a baby girl on 15th July 2012 due to which there arose a lot of
differences between Ritu and her mother-in-law. Sushil’s mother continuously
passed insulting remarks upon Ritu for the baby girl as she always wanted a
grandson. She also threatened her that if she will not bear a boy for their family,
she will remarry her son to another girl. Sushil also used to fight with his own
mother that he is satisfied with the birth of the girl. Ritu started persuading her
husband to leave his parents and start living separately, to which, Sushil never
agreed. He was adamant to stay with his parents. It led to a lot of arguments and
disputes between the couple and Sushil started drinking and abusing Ritu at
times. Their relationship started taking an ugly turn. Ritu started refusing for
sexual intercourse with Sushil and also started ignoring the household chores
and his parents. On the other hand, Sushil started coming late from office and
their family life was shattered. Ritu was disappointed with the events taking
place and one day she again requested Sushil to move to another house in order
to improve their relationship, to which Sushil bluntly refused. Ritu, frustrated
with the constant nagging of her mother-in-law and inability of her husband to
change the residence, decided to leave the matrimonial house along with her
minor daughter and consequently returned to her parent’s house on 18th
October 2013. On 10 January 2014 Sushil visited her parent’s house but he
never found her there. Sushil kept on visiting his in-laws house but because of
the mental pressure by her parents, Ritu was never allowed to meet Sushil. He
tried to communicate through phone also but all in vain. Then finally on 24 July
2014, he filed a petition under Section 9, of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for
the Restitution of Conjugal Rights to save his marriage. Finally, on 23rd
January 2015, Court passed the decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights under
Section 9, according to which Ritu was supposed to resume her matrimonial
home, but she did not turn up even after decree of Restitution of Conjugal
Rights. Sushil then filed an execution of above said decree. Summonses were
issued to Ritu at the given address but the same were returned and marked as
“refused to accept”. That having left with no other alternative remedy Sushil
then on 15th March, 2016 filed a petition for Divorce under section 13 of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. It was considered as a constructive notice by the Family
Court and the Family Court proceeded with the matter. The petition was heard
ex-parte and on the basis of the evidence produced by Sushil, the Family Court
granted divorce to the husband on 26th September 2016. The Copy of the order
was sent to Ritu by Sushil on the address provided. On 25th March, 2017,
Sushil remarried Kirti, a Hindu Woman. Kirti conceived Sushil’s child and the
due date for delivery was 18th May, 2018. Meanwhile, Ritu filed an application
on 5th October, 2018, before the Delhi High Court for condonation of delay for
filing appeal against the decree of the Family Court granting ex-parte decree to
Sushil, stating that, she was unaware of the proceedings, as the summons were
served on the address where she was not residing. She also stated that her
parents moved to a new house and accordingly she also went along with them in
the house and claimed that Sushil was very well aware of her new address and
he intentionally did not serve her on her new address. She came to know about
all the above said development through some common friend. She also stated
that she never had the intention to desert Sushil, but, she only wanted to teach a
lesson to her mother-in-law and for the said purpose, she had taken Sushil into
confidence. She argued that she was deeply hurt by the constant taunts /remarks
by Sushil’s mother and consequent arguments with Sushil also but never desired
to severe the matrimonial bond. After due consideration of the reasons for delay
in filing the appeal, the court condoned the delay and accepted the application
for appeal. The case is now before the appellate court.

Moot court -3
 2. MOOT PROPOSITION (FAMILY LAW)

Mr. Virat and Ms. Anushka both were belonging to IPS batch 2006. They were
good friends. They decided to convert that friendship into marital relationship.
Accordingly, with the consent of the parents they got married under Special
Marriage Act, 1954 in the year 2006. Virat was an orthodox person and had
high belief in mythology and in Hindu God. He had firmed belief that to attain
Moksha man need a son, therefore, he insisted for having a son from the
marriage. During the matrimonial life of 5 years Anushka was employed as IPS
officer. She took matrimonial leave and delivered two babies, one Pinki in 2007
and second Priya in 2011. Due to absence of male child there were quarrels and
altercations between Husband and Wife. This resulted into divorce between
them by mutual consent in 2012.

During this difficult period, Anushka was transferred to Jaipur. She met Mr.
Rahul a Smart, Handsome, and efficient IPS officer who expressed his love and
desire to marry with her. As he was already married they waited for divorce.
Immediately after divorce they got married in year 2015. Soon after the
marriage Anushka was busy with her postings and heavy administrative work.
Therefore, she ultimately took decision not to have children within 5 years of
marriage. She was not taking proper care and giving love and affection to her
husband. Mr. Rahul tried his level best to persuade the matter. But, he could not
succeed. Anushka told Priya and Pinki that Mr. Rahul is not their father. She
always avoided having pleasure of Priya & Pinki’s company as their father.

On 23 December 2016 Anushka was transferred from Jaipur to Delhi. She

shifted with her daughters to Delhi and Mr. Rahul continued in Jaipur. The
behaviour of Anushka did not change. She was also dominant and abusive on
phone and in person whenever she was meeting Mr. Rahul. As Mr. Rahul was
alone in Jaipur and no one to take care of him, he hired a domestic servant, Rani
aged 17 years for daily persuades. As maid servant was asked to stay in the
house, she was taking care of Mr. Rahul. This leads to development of live in
relationship between them.

On 1st November 2017 when Anushka visited Jaipur she came to know about
the relationship as Rani was pregnant. Being aggrieved with misconduct and
extramarital affair Anushka served notice of divorce.

Wife filed divorce petition in Family Court, Jaipur on the ground of

irretrievable breakdown of marriage along with adultery. Family Court
dismissed the said petition. Against decision of Family Court wife filed appeal
in Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur on the same ground, High Court dismissed the
appeal as there is no specific provision under existing laws. Then wife filed
Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court stating that divorce should be granted
on irretrievable breakdown of marriage along with adultery.

Meanwhile, Rani who was in living relationship with Mr. Rahul, filed separate
suit for maintenance under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against Mr. Rahul.
Her petition was rejected by Family Court, Jaipur on the ground that she was in
live in relationship with the married person. Being aggrieved with the decision
of Family Court, Rani filed appeal in the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur claiming
the maintenance under The Domestic Violence Act, 2005. High Court dismissed
the appeal. Against order of High Court Rani filed Special Leave Petition in
Supreme Court.

Hence both Petitions are before Supreme Court. Supreme Court in its discretion
clubbed both matters and called for final hearing.

ISSUES RAISED IN THE MOOT PROBLEM

1. Whether the divorce petition filed by Anushka before Hon’ble Supreme
Court is justified or not?

2. Whether Rani’s appeal of maintenance before Hon’ble Supreme Court is

maintainable or not?

Kindly argue the matter before Supreme Court as per relevant provisions in the
light of case laws.