Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 88 views

    Hindu Law Moot Paper

    Uploaded by

    luffyxsenku1512

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Hindu Law Moot Paper

    Uploaded by

    luffyxsenku1512
    88 views12 pages

    Original Title

    hindu law moot paper

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    88 views12 pages

    Hindu Law Moot Paper

    Uploaded by

    luffyxsenku1512

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 12

    1

    Table of contents

    SL. NO
    CONTENTS PAGE NO.

    1 1
    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    3 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3

    4
    4 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

    5
    5 STATEMENT OF FACTS

    6
    6 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

    7
    7 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

    8
    8 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

    9 PRAYER 13
    2

    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

    books

    1) Parasdiwan …………. Modern Hindu Law

    2) G.C.V. Subba Rao ………. Family law in India

    CASES REFERRED :

    1) Deivoin Achi Vs. C. Chettiar (AIR 1954 Madras 657)

    2) Kamani Devi Vs. Kameswar Singh (AIR 1946 Patna 316)

    3) Authikesavalu Vs. Harmandar Sing (AIR 1932 Madras 512)

    4) Harvindar Kavr Vs. Harmandar Singh (AIR 1984 Delhi 66)

    5) Saroj Rani Vs. Sudarshan Kumar (AIR 1984 SC 1562)


    3

    STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
    4

    Fact of the case

    Sheela filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights


    under Hindu Marriage Act,1955 and married Manoj in temple near
    udaigiri on 24 March, 2002 by exchange of garlands.

    She further stated that her mother-in-law was ill treating her for reason
    that their marriage was not an arranged marriage and the marriage
    performed was not a marriage at all..

    she stated that she and her husband went to lingaraj temple and they had
    undergone all marriage ceremonies on 3rd October, 2002.. thus the
    marriage was solemnized.

    The husband who is under the thumb of his mother deserted her in March
    2003 and she has been living separately ever since.

    The contention of Manoj is that he came into contact with Sheela as she
    was introduced to him in a function by friend where accidentally a
    photograph of both of them was taken.

    He did not marry by exchange of garlands as alleged by her on 24-3-2002


    and he married his maternal uncle’s daughter on 6-6-2002.

    He further allege’s that taking advantage of his state of drunkenness


    Sheela took him to lingaraj temple and he did not knew what was going
    on 3rd October 2002.

    He says that Sheela is a Christian and he had produced an affidavit (in


    which her husband’s name was also mentioned) signed by her and
    attested by a notary to the effect that she is a Christian and the affidavit
    was needed for securing employment.

    Manoj had also got hold of a birth certificate where it is stated that Sheela
    gave birth to a male child 3 years prior 14-3-2002 and the husband’s
    name is mentioned as Joseph C. Pratop.

    Manoj therefore contents that his marriage with Sheela is not a valid
    marriage and she is not entitled for Restitution of Conjugal rights.
    5

    Issue raised

    Issue-1
    Whether the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was
    solemnized under hindu marriage Act, 1955 Or not?

    Issue-2
    Whether the petitioner is entitled for restitution of conjugal
    rights or not?
    6

    Summery of arguments

    1. The marriage of petitioner and Respondent was


    solemnized under Hindu Marriage Act.

    Firstly the marriage of Petitioner and Respondent was solemnized in the


    form of Gandharva which is recognized by Hindu law. According to
    Gandharva Viveham the bridegroom and bride will exchange garlands
    then the marriage is said to be solemnized. Petitioner married respondent
    in a temple near daiquiri on 24th March 2002 exchange of garlands and
    staying with respondent and her mother-in-law.

    2. Petitioner has entitled for Restitution of conjugal rights.

    The petitioner is entitled for Restitution of conjugal rights. Sec.9 of


    Hindu marriage Act deals with Restitution of conjugal rights 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 courts. On being satisfied of truth of the statement 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.
    7

    Arguments in advanced

    1.The marriage of petitioner and Respondent was


    solemnized under Hindu Marriage Act or not?

    Firstly the marriage of Petitioner and Respondent was solemnized in the


    form of Gandharva which is recognized by Hindu law. According to
    Gandharva Viveham the bridegroom and bride will exchange garlands
    then the marriage is said to be solemnized. Petitioner married respondent
    in a temple near daiquiri on 24th March 2002 exchange of garlands and
    staying with respondent and her mother-in-law.

    Case- Deivain Achi Vs. Chidambaram Chettiar (AIR 1954 Madras


    657)

    In this case, the division bench of Madras High Court held that “to
    constitute valid marriage under Hindu law”, according to sastras, mutual
    consent or agreement between the bride and the bridegroom in the
    Gandharva form is essential.

    Kamani Devi Vs. Kameswar Sing (AIR 1946 patna 316)

    In this case, it was held that no prescribed ceremony is necessary to


    constitute marriage.
    In the instant case after performing the marriage on 24-3-2002 by
    exchange of garlands again after few months the petitioner and
    respondent went to udaigiri and undergone all marriage ceremonies on
    8

    3rd October 92 in Lingraj temple. Thus the marriage was solemnized. As


    Sheela living with her husband and mother-in-law was ill-treating,
    because petitioner’s marriage with respondent was not arranged one and
    the marriage performed was not a marriage at all. That’s why petitioner
    and her respondent went to Lingraj temple and had undergone all
    marriage ceremonies on 3rd October, 2002.
    It is also observed that during the time of marriage he was in normal stage
    and performed all marriage ceremonies himself. Ex. : Soptapadi, Mangala
    Sutradanam etc.
    In the case of Smriti Singh & Ors v. State U.P & Ors. (2023), the
    Allahabad High Court highlighted the significance of Saptapadi, where
    the bride and groom jointly take seven steps around the sacred fire,
    completing and binding the marriage when the seventh step is taken.

    So we can say that he was not in a drunken state. Though petitioner is


    Christian, she converted to Hinduism and the marriage is solemnized in
    accordance with Hindu marriage. U/s.125 Cr.P.C. the marriage between
    Christian and Hindu performed as per the Hindu rites with the full
    consent of both parties is valid. Therefore petitioner has every right to
    claim for Restitution of conjugal rights.

    Another contention of respondent is that he married his maternal uncle’s


    daughter on 6-6-2002. But the marriage of respondent and petitioner is
    performed in March, 92 in a temple near Udaigiri and again in Lingraj
    temple 3rd Oct. 2002.
    According to Sec. 5(i) of Hindu marriage Act 1955 that neither party
    should a living spouse at the time of marriage.
    9

    Sec. 11 makes a bigamous marriage the second wife has


    no status of wife. So the second marriage of the respondent with his
    maternal uncle’s daughter is invalid and his second wife has no status of
    wife.
    As petitioner having the status of wife has every right to Restitution of
    Conjugal rights.
    Respondents contention in that the petitioner is a Christian and having
    husband named Joseph C. Pratop and a male child. The affidavit
    produced by he respondent is false one. she was unmarried, when she
    married the respondent and she has no children at all.

    2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to Restitution of conjugal rights


    or not ?
    The petitioner is entitled for Restitution of conjugal rights.
    Sec.9 of Hindu marriage Act deals with Restitution of conjugal rights
    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 courts.
    On being satisfied of truth of the statement 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.

    For restitution the following three conditions must be satisfied.


    The respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without
    any
    reasonable cause.
    ii) The court is satisfied about the truth of the statement made in such a
    petition and
    iii) there is no legal ground why the relief should not be granted.
    10

    After the performance of marriage between respondent and petitioner


    they lived together with respondent’s mother. Respondent who is under
    the thumb of his mother deserted the petitioner in March 2003 and she
    has been living separately ever since.
    So there is no reasonable excuse and the first condition is satisfied.
    In the other conditions the statements made by the petitioner are true and
    the respondent is her legally wedded husband.
    In the case of restitution the petitioner must prove the validity of the
    marriage between the parties.
    In the present case the petitioner proved that the marriage between the
    petitioner and respondent is valid and there is a legal wed-lock exists
    between the parties.
    If all the conditions for granting the decree for restitution of conjugal
    rights are satisfied then the court grant Restitution of conjugal rights to
    the petitioner.
    For this I rely upon
    Harvinder Kaur Vs. Harmander Sing (AIR 1984 Delhi 66)
    In this case also the husband was the petitioner for restoration of conjugal
    rights, His wife apposed the petition. The constitutionality of Sec.9 was
    upheld by the Delhi High court.

    This decision was supported by Supreme Court in the case of.


    Saraj Rani Vs. Sudarshan Kumar (AIR 1984 SC 1562)
    It was held that the conditions for restitution of conjugal rights were
    proved and the decree of restitution of conjugal rights was granted in the
    favour of wife.
    11

    In the present case all the conditions for granting restitution of conjugal
    rights are satisfied and so the petitioner is very much entitled for the
    decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

    Conclusion : Hence from above all my arguments we can come to the


    conclusion that the marriage performed between the petitioner and
    respondent is duly solemnized and is valed under Hindu marriage Act
    1955.
    The grounds for granting the decree of Restitution
    of conjugal rights are satisfied and so my client i.e., petitioner in the
    present case is entitled for the decree of Restitution of conjugal rights.
    12

    Prayer

    My Humble prayer is in the Hon’ble court you may know that


    position of a woman deserted by her husband in this society.

    Therefore it is prayed to this Hon’ble court to grant Restitution


    of conjugal rights to my client.

    You might also like