HVPS COLLEGE OF LAW -TYLLB SEM -V

GROUP 5

ROLL NOS. : 33039

NAME: Priyanka Jain
)

BEFORE THE HON MUMBAI HIGH COURT,

FAMILY COURT OF BOMBAY

APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED FAMILY

JUDGE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

Ananya
(APPELLANT)
V

Aarav

(RESPONDENTS)

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO THE HO;BLE JUSTICE

OF THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT OF BOMBAY

MEMORENDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1
 NALANDA LAW COLLAGE
LLB-Semester-V

THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Index of Authorities............................................................................................................4

Statutes:.................................................................................................................................... 4

List of Cases...............................................................................................................................4

Legal Database:......................................................................................................................... 4

Websites Referred:................................................................................................................... 4

The Statement of Jurisdiction................................................................................................... 5

The Statement of Facts....................................................................................................... …...6

The Statement of Issues..............................................................................................................9

The Summary of Arguments..................................................................................................... 10

Arguments Advanced................................................................................................................12

Prayers...................................................................................................................................... 19

2
 NALANDA LAW COLLAGE
LLB-Semester-V

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
AIR All India Reporter
Art. Articles
Anr Another
FIR First Information Report
HC High Court
i.e., That is
IEA Indian Evidence Act
IPC Indian Penal Code
PMR Post Mortem Report
PS Police Station
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Record
SLP Special Leave Petition
UOI Union of India
v. Versus

3
 NALANDA LAW COLLAGE
LLB-Semester-V

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes -

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,

The Indian Evidence Act,1872.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

List of Cases -

All] Ajay Lavania V. Smt. Shobhna Dubey 755

Ruchi Majoo vs. Sanjeev Majoo Case No: Civil Appeal No. 4435 of 2003 with Criminal Appeal No.
1184 of 2011, Date of Decision: 16 May 2011.

Abbayolla M. Subba Reddy versus Padmamm

K. Narasinga Rao versus K. Neeraja @ Rajini

Vikaas Ahluwalia versus Simran Ahluwalia..

Narinder Pal Kaur Chawla versus Manjeet Singh Chawla.

Shabana versus Shahid Beg

Mr Chandrashekar R Shet Versus Mrs Chandrakala C Shet @ Kaveri.

Divya Ramesh versus N.S.Kiran/Sheshadri K Nittur..

Dr. Gladstone Versus Geetha Gladstone .

K.Sunil Babu versus Mariya V. Joy....

Legal Database

• www.manupatrafast.in
• www.scconline.com
• www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in
• www.westlawindia.com
• https://indiankanoon.org/
• https://www.legalcrystal.com/
4
 NALANDA LAW COLLAGE
LLB-Semester-V

• https://www.lawctopus.com/
• https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
• https://sites.google.com/site/ronbarkercrimlaw/murder-conviction-without-a-body
• https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/how-do-you-prove-murder-without-a-body
• http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1547/Confession-under-Indian- Evidence- Act.html
• https://m.rediff.com/news/report/supreme-court-sets-guidelines-for-
• www.Casemine.com
• www.BlogIpleaders.com
• www.LatestLaws.com
• www.LegalservicesIndia.com

5
 NALANDA LAW COLLAGE
LLB-Semester-V

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This appeal is brought before this Honorable Court in accordance with the statutory provisions of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and it falls under the jurisdiction of this Court for the following
reasons:

Subject Matter Jurisdiction: The subject matter of this appeal pertains to matrimonial disputes and
the dissolution of a marriage, which is expressly governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Therefore, this Court, being a competent civil court with jurisdiction over matrimonial matters, has
the authority to adjudicate upon this appeal.

Residence Jurisdiction: The petitioner, Ananya, and the respondent, Aarav, have previously resided
together within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The matrimonial home was situated within
this jurisdiction, and this Court is the appropriate forum for adjudicating matters concerning their
marriage.

Continued Jurisdiction: The petitioner, Ananya, currently resides within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, and she initiated the appeal within the same jurisdiction.

Place of Marriage: The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized within
the territorial limits of this jurisdiction.

Based on the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that this Honorable Court has both the
subject matter jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the present
appeal under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

6
 NALANDA LAW COLLAGE
LLB-Semester-V

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Present appeal relates to a petition filed under Sec. 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the
petitioner praying that the marriage between the parties be dissolved by a decree of the
court.

2. The parties to the dispute entered into a marital agreement on1st April 2015 as per the
contention laid down by the wife (Petitioner). The petitioner recited at her matrimonial place
for 5 days, post the solemnization of marriage but the same was not consummated.

3. The Respondent mistreated her and they never shared the bed together. She returned to her
parents' home after 5 days following the culture and practice of Indian Society. Her parents
sent her back to her matrimonial place, claiming that with time pass by explaining that
situation will get better and the husband approach towards the marital tie would improve.

4. In spite of spending 5 years with the Respondent the situation remains same with no sign of
improvement. As per her submission the Respondent would returned home late at night in
drunken stage and would physically, mentally and emotionally abused her. He would beat her
in the state of drunkenness. She extended effort to pursuit and convinced him.

5. However, all her attempts went in a vain. She also discovered that the Respondent,husband
was a man of weak character. He was involved in extra marital affairs withmultiple women,
was an alcoholic and used to consume intoxication. She moves outof her matrimonial home in
May 2020 and since then she has been staying with her parents at her paternal home.

6. The Respondent husband replaced to the contention in a contradictory manner and stated
that the Petitioner wife was given a bonafide treatment during their stay together. He further
stated that the Petitioner wife was not interested in residing with the parents of the
Respondent and kept convening him to move out of the house perhaps he was an
unemployed men and could not a fall to live separate and so the demand was totally absurd
and unacceptable to him.

7. Thereafter the Petitioner wife moved out from the matrimonial home without citing any
reasonable and valid justification along with her personal belonging including Stridhan. He
consistently made efforts to get her back to their matrimonial home but she refuse to return.
Thereafter he filed a petition under Sec. 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for

8. Thereafter filed a petition under section 9 of hma 1955 praying for restitution of conjugal
rights the court was pleaded to grant his prayer. The said petition was neither contested by

7
 NALANDA LAW COLLAGE
LLB-Semester-V

the wife nor did she returned to her matrimonial home with all other marital ornament.
Petitioner were denied and prayed that the petition be dismissed with cost.

8
 NALANDA LAW COLLAGE
LLB-Semester-V

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Issue No.1

Whether the ground stated in the petition by the Petitioner are sufficient enough to entitle her to
obtain a decree of divorce?

Issue No.2

Whether the petition is maintainable.?

Issue No.3

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

9
 NALANDA LAW COLLAGE
LLB-Semester-V

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the ground stated in the petition by the Petitioner are sufficient enough to entitle her to
obtain a decree of divorce?

It is humbly submitted that the grounds stated in the Petitioner's petition are indeed sufficient to
entitle her to obtain a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The facts
of the case demonstrate a clear case for divorce on multiple valid

2. Whether the petition is maintainable.?

It is humbly submitted that the petition is entirely maintainable and falls within the purview of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Respondent's claim that the petition is not maintainable is
unfounded, and the following arguments, supported by relevant sections and case laws,
demonstrate the petition's maintainability:

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

It is humbly submitted that the grounds stated in the Petitioner's petition are indeed sufficient to
entitle her to obtain a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The facts
of the case demonstrate a clear case for divorce on multiple valid grounds:

In light of these arguments and relevant case laws, it is requested that the court recognizes the
sufficiency of the grounds raised by the Petitioner in her petition and grants her a decree of divorce
in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

10
 NALANDA LAW COLLAGE
LLB-Semester-V

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the ground stated in the petition by the Petitioner are sufficient enough to entitle
her to obtain a decree of divorce?

It is humbly submitted that the grounds stated in the Petitioner's petition are indeed
sufficient to entitle her to obtain a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955. The facts of the case demonstrate a clear case for divorce on multiple valid
grounds:

i. Non-consummation of Marriage: It is a well-established principle of law that the non-

consummation of a marriage can be a valid ground for divorce. Section 12(1)(a) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides that a marriage can be annulled if it has not been
consummated due to the impotence of the respondent. In this case, the marriage
between the parties was never consummated, as acknowledged by the Respondent.
This fact alone justifies granting a divorce.
ii. *Relevant Case Law*: In the case of "Smt. Seema v. Ashwani Kumar" (2004), the
Supreme Court held that non-consummation of marriage is a valid ground for divorce
under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

iii. Cruelty and Abuse: The Petitioner has provided substantial evidence that she endured
physical, mental, and emotional abuse at the hands of the Respondent. Such cruelty
is a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

iv. *Relevant Case Law*: In "V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat" (1994), the Supreme Court held that
cruelty as a ground for divorce includes both physical and mental cruelty. The facts of
this case clearly establish that the Petitioner has suffered cruelty.

v. Extra-Marital Affairs: The Respondent's involvement in multiple extra-marital affairs is

a grave breach of trust and a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i) of the
Hindu Marriage Act.

vi. *Relevant Case Law*: In "Suman Kapoor v. Sudhir Kapoor" (2010), the Delhi High
Court held that engaging in extra-marital affairs amounts to cruelty and is a valid
ground for divorce.

vii. In light of these arguments and relevant case laws, it is requested that the court
recognizes the sufficiency of the grounds raised by the Petitioner in her petition and
grants her a decree of divorce in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.Whether the judicial confession of Rambo Scott (Accused No. and

11
 NALANDA LAW COLLAGE
LLB-Semester-V

Austin Baker (Juvenile Accused) can be relied upon for convicting Simon Baker
(Accused No. 2).

2. Whether the petition is maintainable.?

i. It is humbly submitted that the petition is entirely maintainable and falls within the
purview of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Respondent's claim that the petition is
not maintainable is unfounded, and the following arguments, supported by relevant
sections and case laws, demonstrate the petition's maintainability:

ii. 1. *Jurisdiction of the Court*: The Family Court of Bombay, where the petition was
filed, has jurisdiction to hear and decide matters related to matrimonial disputes,
including divorce cases. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, clearly confers
jurisdiction upon the Family Court to adjudicate upon matters arising under the
Hindu Marriage Act.

iii. *Relevant Sections*: Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

iv. *Provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act*: The Petitioner's petition is brought under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This section outlines the grounds on
which a party may seek a divorce. The Petitioner's claims fall within the scope of this
Act and the grounds specified therein, making the petition maintainable.

v. *Relevant Sections*: Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

vi. *Precedents*: Several judgments from Indian courts support the maintainability of
divorce petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act. Courts have consistently upheld the
jurisdiction of Family Courts in matters of this nature.

vii. *Relevant Case Law*: In the case of "Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela
Vijaykumar Bhate" (2003), the Supreme Court emphasized the significance of Family
Courts in addressing matrimonial disputes under the Hindu Marriage Act and upheld
the maintainability of such petitions.

viii. In light of these arguments and the provisions of relevant sections and case laws, it is
evident that the petition is maintainable, and the court has jurisdiction to hear and
decide the matter. Therefore, it is requested that the court dismiss the Respondent's
claim that the petition is not maintainable and proceed with the divorce proceedings
as per the Hindu Marriage Act.

12
 NALANDA LAW COLLAGE
LLB-Semester-V

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

It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner indeed has a valid cause of action and locus
standi to file and maintain the present petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955. The Respondent's contention that the Petitioner lacks cause of action and
locus standi is without merit, and the following arguments, supported by relevant
sections and case laws, establish the Petitioner's right to maintain this petition:

i. Cause of Action*: The Petitioner's cause of action arises from the mistreatment
and cruelty she suffered during her marriage with the Respondent. The
mistreatment, abuse, and the inability to lead a normal married life, as
evidenced in the facts presented, create a compelling cause of action for
seekINg divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

ii. Relevant Sections*: Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

iii. *Locus Standi*: The Petitioner, as a party to the marriage, clearly possesses
locus standi to file the divorce petition. She is the aggrieved party seeking relief
from a marriage that has caused her significant mental and emotional distress.
The law recognizes the rights of parties to the marriage who seek relief due to
the breakdown of their marital relationship.

iv. *Relevant Case Law*: In "Smt. Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash" (1991), the
Supreme Court held that a wife has the locus standi to seek a divorce under the
Hindu Marriage Act, and her status as a wife gives her the right to seek
remedies.

v. *Right to Seek Relief*: The principles of justice and equity support the
Petitioner's right to seek relief from a marriage marked by cruelty, abuse, and
extramarital affairs. The law acknowledges the importance of safeguarding the
rights of spouses who are subjected to such circumstances.

vi. *Relevant Case Law*: In "K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa" (2013), the Supreme
Court reiterated that the law is sensitive to the rights and grievances of spouses
facing matrimonial issues, and they have the right to seek relief.

13
 NALANDA LAW COLLAGE
LLB-Semester-V

vii. In light of these arguments and the provisions of relevant sections and case
laws, it is clear that the Petitioner has both a valid cause of action and locus
standi to file and maintain the present petition for divorce. The court should
recognize her rights and proceed with the case in accordance with the
principles of justice and the HindU MARRIAGE ACT.

14
 NALANDA LAW COLLAGE
LLB-Semester-V

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may his
Hon’ble Court be pleased to

1. This Hon. Court may look upon this case from the eye of wisdom & take this case to
logical legal conclusion.

2. That this Honourable Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, be pleased to allow the petition for divorce filed by the petitioner,
Ananya, and grant a decree of divorce, thereby dissolving the marriage between the
petitioner, Ananya, and the respondent, Aarav.

3. That all costs related to this appeal and any other costs, charges, or expenses incurred
during the legal proceedings may be determined and awarded as per the Court's
discretion.

4. This Hon. Court may give any other relief as deemed fit or pleases in the interest of
justice.

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Place: Mumbai

Date: 01st September 2023

S/d

Appellant Advocate

15
 NALANDA LAW COLLAGE
LLB-Semester-V

BEFORE THE HON. HIGH COURT of MUMBAI , Division Bench

Cr. Appeal No 123 of 2023

State of Maharashtra

Ananya
(APPELANT)

V/s

Arav

(RESPONDENT)

Application.

Dated on this 08th day of September 2023.

Adv. Mr. XYZ

Advocate, High Court.
Advocate for Appellant
Mumbai.
[email protected]

16