Scribd
Upload
103 views

Moot Memorial

1. The document outlines the key details of a legal case including authorities cited, statements of jurisdiction and issues, and arguments presented by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims cruelty against the respondent based on allegations and dowry demands, which prior case law suggests can constitute mental cruelty. 3. The petitioner further argues she is entitled to expenses incurred during the court proceedings according to Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act since she lacks independent income.

Uploaded by

Prachi Sharma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
103 views

Moot Memorial

1. The document outlines the key details of a legal case including authorities cited, statements of jurisdiction and issues, and arguments presented by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims cruelty against the respondent based on allegations and dowry demands, which prior case law suggests can constitute mental cruelty. 3. The petitioner further argues she is entitled to expenses incurred during the court proceedings according to Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act since she lacks independent income.

Uploaded by

Prachi Sharma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 8

~INDEX~

S. No. Description Page No.

1. Acknowledgement 1
2. List Of Authorities 2
3. Abbreviation 2
4. Statement of jurisdiction 3
5. Statement of issue 3
6. Arguments in favour of 4-7
Petitioner
7. Bibliography 8
List Of Authorities

Cases:
1. Joydeep Majumdar vs Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar

2. Amarjit Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh (2003),

3. Narinder Kaur v. Prilam Singh


4. Priti Parihar v. Kailash Singh Parihar

Abbreviation

1. HMA- Hindu Marriage Act


2. Sec- Section
3. AIR- All India Reporter
Statement Of Jurisdiction

1. The petitioner has approached the hon 'ble DB civil


miscellaneous under section 19 of family court to
which petition shall be presented.

2. The petitioner has approached the hon'able DB civil


miscellaneous under sec 24 of Maintenance pendente
lite and expenses of proceedings.

Statement Of Issue

1. Whether the allegations levelled against husband before


the Court, are presumed to have been proved, adequately
constituted cruelty?

2. Whether the Petitioner, Mrs. X can claim for the expenses


that incurred durings the court proceeding?
Arguments in favour of petitioner
1. Whether the allegations levelled against husband before the
Court, are presumed to have been proved, adequately
constituted cruelty?

If the allegations levelled by petitioner are presumed to have


been proved then acoording to Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, the petitioner is presumed to be treated
with cruelty.

• in the case of Joydeep Majumdar vs Bharti


Jaiswal Majumdar AIR (2021), the Supreme Court heard
a case in which the husband accused his wife of mental
cruelty for making allegations of adultery and
defamatory complaints to his superiors in the army
and other authorities resulting in a court of inquiry
and thereby affecting his career. It was an act of mental
cruelty, the court held, irrespective of whether the
allegations were proved in a court of law or not.
• While judging whether the conduct is cruel or not,
what has to be seen is whether that conduct, which is
sustained over a period of time, renders the life of the
spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to
make one live with the other. The conduct may take
the form of abusive or humiliating treatment, causing
mental pain and anguish, torturing the spouse, etc.
The conduct complained of must be “grave” and
“weighty” and trivial irritations and normal wear and
tear of marriage would not constitute mental cruelty as
a ground for divorce.
• The counsel of the petitioner contended that the
husband and his relatives began requesting money or
kind from wife, that comes under dowry. The petitioner
in its evidence stated that the respondent and his
relatives always used to make demand for money from
her parents and that she was afraid to go back again to
respondent's house because she feared that she would
be harassed again for dowry.

• Keeping the above situations and the statement of


Hon'ble Supreme Court in consideration, it can be
concluded that the conduct of respondent and his family
members treated the petitioner with cruelty, and that a
decree shall be drawn up considering this.

3. Whether the Petitioner, Mrs. X can claim for the expenses


that incurred durings the court proceeding?
It is humbly contained that the petitioner has the right to file
an appeal for all the necessary expenses incurred by her
during the court proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.
⦁ Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (herein after
'HMA,1955') states that in any proceeding under the
HMA, 1955, if the court believes that either the husband
or the wife has no source of independent income to
provide for his or her support and the required expenses
of the proceedings then the court may, on the
application of such dependent spouse, order the other
spouse to pay -
1. The expenses of the proceedings;
2. The monthly sum during such proceedings as the court
finds reasonable with regard to income of both the
spouses.
⦁ According to section 24 of the Act, the petitioner Mrs. X
has the right to ask for all the expenses that she
incurred while proceedings because she does not have
any sufficient/no income of her own and the
respondent is having a settled business.

⦁ This provision ensures that the spouse is provided with


sufficient funds to meet the expenses of the proceedings. The
scope of ‘expenses of the proceedings’ is wide; it includes
court fees, lawyer’s fees, expenditure incurred in getting
services of the witnesses, xerox and typing charges, process ,
fees, etc.

• Narinder Kaur v. Prilam Singh (1985), an employed


husband who denied obeying the order to pay
maintenance pendente lite was punished for contempt
and given a sentence of four months.
• In the case of Amarjit Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh (2003),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the main
condition for the grant of maintenance pendente lite is
by ascertaining whether the spouse claiming such
interim maintenance has independent income that is
sufficient for their support. If it is shown that such
spouse does not have sufficient income then the court is
bound to grant interim maintenance and the only
discretion left with the court shall be the quantum of
such interim maintenance.
• In the case of Priti Parihar v. Kailash Singh Parihar
(1975), the Court held that if the need arose
subsequently, the court has the jurisdiction to grant
additional expenses in excess of what was originally
sanctioned by it.
• The learned counsel for the appellant then contended
that a decree shall be drawn up considering the
expenses incurred by the appellant.
• And it can be stated from the above cases that on the
instant case the wife has to be granted the
maintainance.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

For the completion of this project, I have taken help from


the following Sources:
Books-

1. Modern Hindu Law by Paras Diwan


2. Hindu Law by U.P.D. Kesari

Sites-

⦁ YouTube.com

⦁ www.livwlaw.in

⦁ iblogpleaders.com

⦁ indiankanoon.com

⦁ casemine.com

people-

⦁ Our Family Law teacher

⦁ My helpful friends

Thank You

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy