NMCC-21

SVVV NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

1. Petition No. of 2024

(Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 Special Leave to Appeal against the order passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of State of India)

Maria
(APPELLANT)
VERSUS

Mr. Shambhu Singh and Mrs. Roopa Devi

(RESPONDENT)

2. Petition No. of 2024

(Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 Special Leave to Appeal against the order passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of State of India)

Maria
(APPELLANT)
VERSUS

Union of India
(RESPONDENT)
1
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations.................................................................................................................

Table of Authorities...................................................................................................................
Statement of Jurisdiction..........................................................................................................
Statement of Facts...................................................................................................................

Statement of Issues.................................................................................................................
Summary of Arguments...........................................................................................................
Arguments Advanced..............................................................................................................

ISSUE 1: Whether widow Maria (So-Called Wife of Sanat Kumar on the grounds of a live-in
relationship) is entitled to maintenance with her father-in-law
ISSUE 2 Whether the special leave petition under Article 136 of the constitution, brought before this
court is maintainable
ISSUE 3 Whether the live-in relationship in modern Indian society is valid
ISSUE 4 Whether the child is legitimate and entitled to the property of his father
ISSUE 5 Whether Maria is entitled to the property of her partner Mr. Sanat Kumar (Deceased)

Prayer......................................................................................................................................

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

2
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

AIR All India Report

HC High Court

Ass Association

Sec Section

Mad Madras

I.P.C Indian Penal Code

PC Privy Council

Prop. Property

Co. Company

& And

Hon’ble Honourable

Ltd. Limited

Ibid The same place

Vs Versus

U/s Under Section

S.C.J Supreme Court Journal

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LAWS:
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
3
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

1. Ajay Bhardwaj vs Jyotsana and Ors AIR 2021 (NOC) 210 (DEL)
2. Arunachalam vs P.S.R Sadhanantham and Anr (1979) (2) SCC 297, P.S.R Sadhanantham vs Arunachalam and Anr
(1980) 3 SCC 141, Union Carbide Corporation and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 584
3. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs P.N. Sharma (1965) 2 SCR 366
4. Badri Prasad vs Deputy Director, Consolidation and other. (AIR 1978 SC 1557)
5. Bhagwan Dutt vs Kamla Devi 1975 AIR 83
6. Bharata Matha & Ors. v. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors.
7. Bharata Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan
8. C.C.E vs Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1298;
9. Chanmuniya vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Ors 2010 AIR SCW 6497, 2011
10. Chaturbhuj vs Sita BaiAIR 2008 SC 530
11. D.Velusamy vs D.Patchaiammal AIR 2011 SC 479
12. Dhannulal v. Ganeshram 2015 AIR SCW 2839
13. Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors AIR 1954 SC 520
14. Durga Shankar Mehta vs Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 520
15. Haryana State Industrial Corporation vs Cork Mfg. Co. (2007) 8 SCC 359
16. in Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi
17. Indra Sarma vs V.K.V Sarma 2013 AIR SCW 6783
18. Janshed Hormusji Wadia vs Board Of Trustees, Port Of Mumbai (2004) 3 SCC 14
19. Jose Da Costa and Anr vs Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim and Ors (1976) 2 SCC 917
20. Khushboo vs Kanaimmal and another in 2010 (5 SCC 600 2010).
21. Lata Singh vs State of U.P. & Another (AIR 2006 SC 2522).
22. Marvin vs Marvin 557 P.2d 106 (1976)
23. Mr. Abhijeet Bhikaseth Auti vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr AIR 2009 (NOC) 808 (BOM)s
24. N Suriyakala vs A Mohan Doss and Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 196;
25. Nandakumar v. Geetha and Bhaskar Lal Sharma v. Monica
26. Narpat Singh vs Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036
27. Nihal Singh and Ors vs State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26
28. Parveen Tandon vs. Tanika Tandon AIRONLINE 2021 DEL 791
29. Pritam Singh vs State, AIR 1950 SC 169
30. Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel
31. Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun
32. S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan 1994 AIR 133, 1994 SCC (1) 460
33. Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs State of Gujarat AIR 2005 SC 1809
34. Shantha vs V.C Shreedharan 2011
35. Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons. Ltd vs Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 314
36. State Of Karnataka vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. CA No. 2453 of 2007 decided on 09/12/2016
37. Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha (2014)
38. Tulsa v. Durghatiya (2008) 4 SCC 520

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

4
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

39. Watts v. Watts, 137 Wis.2d 506 (1987)

SITES REFERRED:
1 http://www.manupatrafast.com/

2 http://www.indiankanoon.com/

3 https://www.scconline.com/

4 https://www.casemine.com/

5 https://www.legitquest.com/

STATUTES REFERRED:
1. Constitution Of India, 1950
2. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
3. Indian Succession Act, 1925
4. Waggoner's Proposed Amendment, Entitled "Intestate Share of Committed Partner,"
5. Roberts. Summers & Robert A. Hillman, Contract And Related Obligation 112 (4th ed. 2001).
6. R. Brent Drake, Status Or Contract? A Comparative Analysis Of Inheritance Rights Under Equitable Adoption And
Domestic Partnership Doctrines, 39 GA. L. REV. 675, 728 (2005).
7. Lawrence W. Waggoner et al., Family Property Law: Cases and Materials on Wills, Trusts, and Future Interests 107
(2d ed. 1997).
8. Waggoner's proposed amendment, entitled "Intestate Share of Committed Partner,"

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction in the instant matter under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India, 1950
Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950
Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause
or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

5
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed
or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

6
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

STATEMENTS OF FACTS

Sanat Kumar and Maria’s Relationship;

Mr. Sanat Kumar was a managing director in a company and fell in love with Maria, a Christian lady
who was also working in the same company. Both of them had gotten married without converting
their religion.

Their marriage ceremony;

First, they married in a church according to Christianity. Later, they married according to the Hindu
rituals by performing sapthapadi, but the marriage was not registered.. After the marriage, they
practised their religion, and Maria did not change her name either.

Offspring out of Marriage;

After three years of marriage, they gave birth to a male child. Mr Sanat Kumar had purchased a
Bungalow from his earnings before the marriage, which was occupied by the parents (Mr Shambhu
Singh and Mrs Roopa Devi) Mr Sanat Kumar.

Marias sacrificed for the sake of marriage;

After the marriage, Maria quit the job and became a housewife. The parents of Mr. Sanat Kumar did
not like all these things, and they lived separately.

Sanats Death;
After a few months, Mr. Sanat Kumar died because of illness and without making any will or power
of attorney. Maria claimed succession to his property and maintenance to herself and on behalf of the
minor child.

Marias Judicial Moves;

However, the parents of the deceased refused to give a share as they disputed the validity of the
marriage with Mr Sanat Kumar and the child as illegitimate. As a last resort, Maria filed a case
before the trial court, in which she pleaded that she was in a “ live-in relationship” with her deceased
partner, Mr. Sanat Kumar. She also pleaded that they lived like husband and wife. The trial court
dismissed the suit.

Marias Final Plea In the Hon’ble Supreme Court;

Afterwards, Maria filed an appeal under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code before the High
Court. The High Court rejected her succession plea. Against the dismissal of the High Court, she
filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

7
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

ISSUE 1:

Whether widow Maria (So-Called Wife of Sanat Kumar on the grounds of a live-in
relationship) is entitled to maintenance with her father-in-law.

ISSUE 2:

Whether the special leave petition under Article 136 of the constitution, brought
before this court is maintainable

ISSUE 3:

Whether the live-in relationship in modern Indian society is valid

ISSUE 4

Whether the child is legitimate and entitled to the property of his father

ISSUE 5

Whether Maria is entitled to the property of her partner Mr. Sanat Kumar (Deceased)

=
Summary Of Arguments
ISSUE 1; Whether widow Maria (So-Called Wife of Sanat Kumar on the grounds of a
live-in relationship) is entitled to maintenance with her father-in-law.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

8
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

The Supreme Court of India has recognized the right of women in live-in relationships to claim maintenance under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The live-in partners have been given the right to maintenance
under this section. The conditions required to get maintenance out of the live-in relationship include representing
themselves to society as each other's spouses, the legal age to marry, being qualified to enter into a legal marriage, and
cohabiting voluntarily for a significant period. Various judicial precedents have upheld the entitlement of women in live-
in relationships to claim maintenance from the self-acquired property of their deceased partners, even if it involves
seeking maintenance from the father-in-law.

ISSUE 2; Whether the special leave petition under Article 136 of the constitution,
brought before this court, is maintainable.
In this case, the petitioner argues that their locus standi is valid for them to approach the Supreme Court of India under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The provision empowers the Supreme Court to grant a Special Leave Petition
against any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order passed by any court or tribunal in India. The petitioner
argues that they are directly affected by the judgment in question and have a right to seek redressal from the highest court
in the land. The case involves a substantial question of law and a matter of general public importance, which requires the
Supreme Court's intervention. The matter concerns the law on live-in relationships and its impact on the public at large,
making it a matter of national importance.

ISSUE 3; Whether the live-in relationship in modern Indian society valid

The concept of live-in relationships is not illegal in India, and the law recognizes the rights of individuals in such
relationships. Couples living together for a long time and presenting themselves as husband and wife will be recognized
as legally married. Children born out of such relationships are considered legitimate and are entitled to a share in their
parents' self-acquired property. While there is no express statutory protection for live-in relationships in India, several
Indian laws have implicitly protected the rights of parties involved in such relationships, including the Indian Evidence
Act, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the Hindu Marriage Act, and the Code of Criminal
Procedure.

ISSUE 4; Whether the child is legitimate and entitled to the property of his father
The Indian legal system recognizes the legitimacy of children born out of a live-in relationship.
These children's primary right is legitimacy, which guarantees them all other rights available to
children in the country. Cohabitation and living under one roof for a considerable amount of time are
requirements for this legitimacy. Such children are entitled to inheritance rights and can inherit from
their parents' property. Upholding the child's best interests is paramount in inheritance and
succession, and denying the child their rightful inheritance would be unjust and contrary to the
principles of equity and fairness.

ISSUE 5; Whether Maria is entitled to the property of her partner Mr. Sanat Kumar
(Deceased)
The text discusses the entitlement of benefits that arise out of legal marriage for women in live-in relationships. The Supreme Court
has provided guidelines in cases where women in live-in relationships are entitled to claims and reliefs available to legally wedded
wives. These guidelines include duration of the relationship, shared household, pooling of resources and financial arrangements,
domestic arrangements, sexual relationship, children, socialization in public, and intention and conduct of the parties. All these
conditions must be fulfilled to entitle the parties to the separate property of a deceased husband.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1 WHETHER WIDOW MARIA (SO-CALLED WIFE OF SANAT KUMAR ON
THE GROUNDS OF LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP) IS ENTITLED TO
MAINTENANCE WITH HER FATHER-IN-LAW.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

9
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Maria, even being in a Live-in relationship,
is entitled to maintenance. As per [1.1], a tenured Live-In relationship is considered married.
[1.2] The Terms of Considering Live-In Legal.
1.1 A tenured Live-In relationship is considered a marriage.
1.1.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court Bench of former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice UU
Lalit, and Justice KM Joseph held that a partner in a live-in relationship could seek
maintenance under the provisions of the Prevention of Women against Domestic Violence
Act.1
1.1.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that it is not necessary for a woman to establish the
marriage to claim maintenance strictly. Under Section 125 CrPc, a woman living in a live-
in relationship may also claim maintenance under this section.2
1.1.3 The live-in partners have been given the right to maintenance. In the year 2003, Section
125 of CrPc was fused in to adjust the word “wife” and include in it the women in a live-in
relationship.The suggestions of Justice Malimath Committee in the year 2003 was one of
the first instances wherein the committee suggested that the definition of Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be amended accordingly to including a
woman who was living with a man as his wife for a significant period during the
subsistence of the first marriage. 3
1.1.4 The Supreme Court, while bestowing the difference between live-in relationships and
relationships like marriage, laid down the conditions under which a woman in a live-in
relationship can claim maintenance under Section 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. The conditions required to get maintenance out of the live-in relationship are:
1.1.4.1 The couple must represent themselves to the society similar to being each other’s
spouses. 4
1.1.4.2 Both the parties to the relationship must be of legal age to marry.
1.1.4.3 Both the parties to the relationship must have qualified to enter into a legal
marriage, including being unmarried.
1.1.4.4 Both the parties to the relationship must be cohabited voluntarily and must hold
themselves similar to being each other’s spouse for a significant period. 5

1
D.Velusamy vs D.Patchaiammal AIR 2011 SC 479
2
Mr. Abhijeet Bhikaseth Auti vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr AIR 2009 (NOC) 808 (BOM)s
3
Amnesty International, India: Report of the Malimath Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System
4
Supra, 1
5
Supra, 1

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

10
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

1.1.5 Similarly, the court upheld the rights of women in live-in relationships to claim
maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC if they can demonstrate the nature of their
domestic arrangement. These cases have set significant precedents for recognizing the
rights of individuals in live-in relationships to seek maintenance under the CrPC. 6 The
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the jurisdictions of Section 125 of CrPC were
formed to prevent any unsettled residence and poverty of wife, minor children, or old age
parents, and the jurisdictions of same has also been lengthened by judicial interpretation to
the partners in a live-in relationship, however, the nature of such relationship must be
considered while deciding the maintenance.7
1.1.6 The primary question which arose, in this case, was whether a woman is entitled to
maintenance under Section 125 CrPC on account of a live-in relationship, not being a
wife, and the same question was answered in a case where the Apex Court ruled that in
circumstances where partners live together as husband and wife, there lies a presumption
in favour of wedlock, and consequently the High Court in the Ajay
Bhardwaj case ruled that women in live-in relationships are entitled to maintenance akin to
legally-wedded wives. 8
1.1.7 Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), wives, children, and
parents who are unable to maintain themselves have the right to claim maintenance from
their relatives, including the father-in-law. This provision extends to women in live-in
relationships if they can establish their status as dependents of the deceased partner.
Various judicial precedents have upheld the entitlement of women in live-in relationships
to claim maintenance from the self-acquired property of their deceased partners, even if it
involves seeking maintenance from the father-in-law.
1.1.8 In many landmark cases9, the courts recognized the rights of women in live-in
relationships to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC if they can prove their
status as dependents of the deceased partner. These decisions establish the principle that
maintenance rights under Section 125 extend to women in live-in relationships,
irrespective of their formal marital status. 10

6
in Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi
7
Ajay Bhardwaj vs Jyotsana and Ors AIR 2021 (NOC) 210 (DEL)
8
Chanmuniya vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Ors 2010 AIR SCW 6497, 2011
9
Supra, 1
10
Bhagwan Dutt vs Kamla Devi 1975 AIR 83

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

11
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

1.1.9 Cases like Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai11 and Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha12
further solidify the position that women in live-in relationships have a legitimate claim to
maintenance from the self-acquired property of their deceased partners, including seeking
maintenance from the father-in-law if necessary. The Delhi High Court recognized the
right of a woman in a live-in relationship to claim maintenance from the estate of her
deceased partner, emphasizing the need for financial support to ensure her well-being and
that of her children.13 The Gujarat High Court held that a woman in a live-in relationship is
entitled to maintenance from the estate of her deceased partner, irrespective of whether the
property is self-acquired or ancestral.14
1.2 Terms of Considering Live-In Legal
1.2.1 The court held that the validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceeding
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on
record by the parties. The standard of proof of marriage in such a proceeding is not as
strict as is required in a trial of an offence under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
1.2.2 If the claimant in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code succeeds in showing that she
and the respondent have lived together as husband and wife, the Court can presume that
they are legally wedded spouses, and in such a situation, the party who denies the marital
status can rebut the presumption. If the Magistrate is prima facie satisfied with regard to
the performance of marriage in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., strict proof of
performance of essential rites is not required.
1.2.3 The Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the order passed
by the Addl. Sessions Judge directing the Petitioner-man to pay ad-interim maintenance to
his live-in partner under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act. The Court concluded that the parties were adults and had cohabited for a long time
voluntarily.15
1.2.4 In the landmark judgement of the case Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma: The Supreme Court
illustrated five categories where the concept of live-in relationships could be considered
and proved in a court of law.16
1.2.4.1 Domestic relationship between an adult male and an adult female, both unmarried.

11
AIR 2008 SC 530
12
Supra, 8
13
Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha (2014)
14
Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs State of Gujarat AIR 2005 SC 1809
15
Parveen Tandon vs. Tanika Tandon AIRONLINE 2021 DEL 791
16
Indra Sarma vs V.K.V Sarma 2013 AIR SCW 6783

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

12
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

1.2.4.2 Domestic relationship between a married man and an adult unmarried woman,
entered knowingly.
1.2.4.3 Domestic relationship between an adult unmarried man and a married woman,
entered knowingly. Such relationship can lead to a conviction under Indian Penal
Code for the crime of adultery.
1.2.4.4 Domestic relationship between an unmarried adult female and a married male,
entered unknowingly
1.2.4.5 Domestic relationship between same sex partners (gay or lesbian)
1.2.5 Parliament has used the expression 'relationship in the nature of marriage' and not 'live-in
relationship'. The court, in the garb of interpretation, cannot change the language of the
statute," the bench observed.
1.2.6 But the Domestic Violence Act expanded the scope of maintenance by using the
expression 'domestic relationship' which includes not only the relationship of marriage but
also a relationship 'in the nature of marriage'. 17
1.2.7 The apex court discussed at length the various US courts' rulings on the grant of
maintenance under the doctrine of 'Palimony'(pals), under which divergent rulings were
passed vis-a-vis maintenance to a woman in a live-in relationship. The bench recalled the
California superior court's ruling in the Marvin versus Marvin (1976) case wherein
maintenance was awarded to the woman in a live-in relationship. 18
1.2.8 Live-in relationship cannot be referred to as a “walk-in and walk-out” relationship if it
lasts over a sufficient period. It further decided that the parties to such a live-in
relationship must imply they intend to get married. By taking this stance, the court appears
to support establishing a long-term relationship as a marriage instead of introducing or
creating a new notion like a live-in relationship. A woman in a live-in partnership is
qualified to request maintenance under the standards established by the Supreme Court if
she has been with a man for a significant period and is economically dependent on him.
1.2.9 Thus, the judicial system has provided sufficient protection for female live-in partners and
the children of such couples. The law’s passage also puts an end to abusive relationships
that were prevalent in the past due to the family courts’ incapacity to identify such
relationships.

17
Supra, 1
18
Marvin vs Marvin 557 P.2d 106 (1976)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

13
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

2 WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION, BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT IS MAINTAINABLE.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Maria, even being in a Live-in relationship, is
entitled to maintenance. As per [2.1], the Petitioner has Locus Standi. [2.2], The Supreme Court's
jurisdiction under Article 136 can always be invoked when a question of law of general public
importance arises.

2.1 The petitioner has Locus Standi.

2.1.1 The petitioner in the present case humbly submits that the Special Leave Petition against the
judgment of the Hon’ble HC is maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
It is important to note that Article 136 empowers the Supreme Court to grant, at its
discretion, Special leave to Appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
This provision is couched in the widest phraseology, and its jurisdiction is limited only by
the court's discretion.19
2.1.2 Furthermore,20 it is pertinent to note that the powers vested in the Supreme Court under
Article 136 can be exercised against any judgment or order which is causing injustice to any
party. 21In this context, the petitioner's locus standi to approach the honourable SC is of
utmost importance, as it establishes their direct interest and relevance to the case. 22 The
petitioner is directly affected by the judgment in question and thus has the right to seek
redressal from the highest court in the land.23
2.1.3 It is also important to note that the present matter involves a question of general public
importance that requires the Supreme Court's intervention. The case involves a substantial
question of law, and the petitioner's role in this appeal is significant. Therefore, the
petitioner's locus standi to approach the Supreme Court is crucial in ensuring that justice is
done in this matter.
2.1.4 It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble SC that the appellant has locus standi to
approach the Hon’ble SC in the present case. 24 The scope of Article 133 providing appeals

19
Article 136, Constitution Of India, 1950
20
Arunachalam vs P.S.R Sadhanantham and Anr (1979) (2) SCC 297, P.S.R Sadhanantham vs Arunachalam and Anr
(1980) 3 SCC 141, Union Carbide Corporation and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 584
21
Jose Da Costa and Anr vs Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim and Ors (1976) 2 SCC 917
22
Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs P.N. Sharma (1965) 2 SCR 366
23
Durga Shankar Mehta vs Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 520
24
Nihal Singh and Ors vs State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

14
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

to the SC in civil matters is limited, 25 whereas Article 136 is very broad-based and confers
discretion on the court to hear “in any cause or matter”26.
2.1.5 The Constitution Bench authoritatively stated the plenitude of power under Article 136 of
the Constitution in Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors 27. The exercise
of the said power by the Court cannot be curtailed by the original constitutional provision or
by any statutory provision28. Therefore, civil appeals may be brought to the SC under
Article 136.
2.2 The Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 can always be invoked when a question
of law of general public importance arises.
2.2.1 Jurisdiction conferred under Art. 136 on the SC are corrective ones and not restrictive
ones.29 It is the solemn duty of the Supreme Court to ensure that justice is served and that
illegality does not persist in its judgments. Failure to correct any such illegalities would be a
grave injustice to the public. In fact, it is a well-established principle that the Court's
jurisdiction can be invoked when a matter of general public importance arises. The present
case undoubtedly involves a significant question of law that affects the public at large. The
Supreme Court has the power to set things right and ensure that justice is upheld for all.
2.2.2 The Matter Involves the Question Of Law Of General Public Importance And Hence,
Entitled To Be Maintainable
2.2.2.1.1 This Hon’ble Court has established that its jurisdiction can be invoked when a
question of law of general public importance arises or a decision shocks the
court's conscience. Article 136 of the Constitution of India gives the Supreme
Court the residuary power to do justice where the court is satisfied that there is
injustice.30 The principle is that the court would never do injustice or allow
injustice to be perpetrated to uphold technicalities.31
2.2.2.1.2 In the case at hand, the rights of thousands of unmarried couples who live
together under the same roof in a long-term relationship known as a live-in
relationship are in question. Also, the implementation of the law on live-in
relationships will impact the public at large. Live-in relationships are no longer
a novelty to Indian society; they have come to stay. The number of live-in-
25
Ibid
26
Pritam Singh vs State, AIR 1950 SC 169
27
AIR 1954 SC 520
28
State Of Karnataka vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. CA No. 2453 of 2007 decided on 09/12/2016
29
Haryana State Industrial Corporation vs Cork Mfg. Co. (2007) 8 SCC 359
30
C.C.E vs Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1298; N Suriyakala vs A Mohan Doss and Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 196;
Narpat Singh vs Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036
31
Janshed Hormusji Wadia vs Board Of Trustees, Port Of Mumbai (2004) 3 SCC 14

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

15
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

relationship couples is increasing, while marriage institutions remain

unaffected.
2.2.2.1.3 In the past, the institution of marriage was essential to Indian society, but now,
the emergence of live-in relationships seems to pose a challenge to the solid
rock on which the institution of marriage has been built up and nurtured. The
break-up of the joint family system has given rise to satellite families. The
spread of education for women has led to the formation of an army of Indian
women who are earning and ably assisting their husbands, resulting in the
emergence of double-income families. As an impact of globalization, families
are broken up, and life partners are bound to stay alone in different countries of
the world, away from their life partners. Perhaps this societal change has given
rise to the growth of live-in relationships.
2.2.2.1.4 The phenomenon of live-in relationships is digging deep into the social fabric
of India, as if it is posing a bold challenge to the institution of marriage. The
law in every country has to keep pace with the changing times. Hence, the
matter concerned is a matter of public interest and national importance.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this court that the matter involves a
question of law of general public importance, and the appeal is maintainable
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

2.2.3 The Matter Involves Substantial Question Of Law And Hence Entitled To Be
Maintainable
2.2.3.1 The term "substantial question of law" has not been explicitly defined by any
legislation, but has been defined through judicial pronouncements. A Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court has stated that a question of law is substantial if it is
of public importance, affects the rights of the parties involved, is unresolved and
requires discussion of alternative views the Privy Council, or the Federal Court,
free from difficulty, or calls for discussion of alternative views. 32
2.2.3.2 The appeal’s legal question concerns live-in relationships in India, the
status of partners, and the property rights of children born out of such
relationships. The definition of live-in relationships is unclear, and there is

32
Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons. Ltd vs Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 314

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

16
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

no specific law in India on the subject, making it challenging to define the

parties’ rights and obligations and the status of children born to such
couples. Although some statutes related to marriage recognise the right of
protection in relationships that resemble marriage, there still seems to be a
lack of clarity in this area.
2.2.3.3 It is common to find people living together in big cities as husband and wife
without formal marriage. None of the statutes dealing with marriage, such as the
Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, the Special Marriage Act of 1954, Parsi Marriage
and Divorce Act of 1936, and the Christian Marriages and Divorce Act of 1872 33,
recognize "live-in" relationships directly. The Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Ac of 2005, is considered the first legislation that recognized
the right of protection of a person in a "relationship in the nature of marriage." 34.

3 WHETHER THE LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP IN MODERN INDIAN SOCIETY

IS VALID
3.1 Live in relation, i.e. cohabitation, is an arrangement whereby two people decide to live
together on a long-term or permanent basis in an emotionally and/or sexually intimate
relationship. The term is most frequently applied to couples who are not married. Although
there is no legal definition of living together, it generally means living together as a couple
without marriage. This for living together is not recognized by the Hindu Marriage Act, 2955
or any other statutory law35
3.2 According to Indian law, cohabitation between consenting adults is not prohibited. In the
case of “Lata Singh v. State of U.P,” it was held that a live-in relationship between two
consenting adults of opposite sex, though perceived as immoral, does not amount to any
offence under the law.36 In another important case, “Khushboo vs Kanaimmal and another,”
the Supreme Court observed, “Though the concept of live-in relationship is considered
immoral by the society, but is definitely not illegal in the eyes of the law. Living together is a

33
Sec 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 4 of Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936; Sections 4-9 of Christian
Marriages and Divorce Act, 1872

34
Sections 2(a),12 read with Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 2(f) Domestic Violence Act,2005; “domestic relationship”
means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household,
when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are
family members living together as a joint family

35
Live in Relationship: Indian and International Perspective.
36
Lata Singh vs State of U.P. & Another (AIR 2006 SC 2522).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

17
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

right to life under Article 21, and therefore, it cannot be held illegal.” 37 . In Ramdev Food
Products (P) Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel 38, the Court observed that two people who are
in a live-in relationship without a formal marriage are not criminal offenders. Therefore,
live-in relationships are legal in India.
3.3 A couple living together for an extended length of time and presenting themselves to society
as husband and wife will be recognized as legally married. As early as 1978, in “Badri
Prasad Vs Deputy Director Consolidation,” an observation was made that “If man and
woman who live as husband and wife in society are compelled to prove, after half-a-century
of wedlock by eye-witness evidence that they were validly married fifty years earlier, few
will succeed. A strong presumption arises in favor of wed-lock where the partners have lived
together for a long spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a
heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of its legal origin. Law leans
in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy.’’39
3.3.1 In the case of "D. Velusamy and D. Patchaimal (5 SCC 600)," the Supreme Court
established specific prerequisites for being regarded as "in the nature of marriage,"40
3.3.1.1 The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
3.3.1.2 They must be of legal age to marry.
3.3.1.3 They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including
being unmarried.
3.3.1.4 They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world
as akin to spouses for a significant time.
3.4 The relationship is considered to be a relationship in the nature of marriage under the
Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 2005.
3.4.1 The female partner is entitled to claim alimony under its provisions.
3.4.2 Children born out of such relationships are considered legitimate.
3.4.3 Children are entitled to a share in their parents' self-acquired property, though they are not
entitled to a coparcenary share in the Hindu Undivided Family property.
3.5 Legal Protection of Live-In Relationships in India
3.5.1 While live-in relationships have legal recognition through the Indian judiciary, there is
currently no express statutory protection for them in India. However, several Indian laws

37
Khushboo vs Kanaimmal and another in 2010 (5 SCC 600 2010).
38
Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel
39
Badri Prasad vs Deputy Director, Consolidation and other. (AIR 1978 SC 1557)
40
D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal (10 SCC 469).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

18
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

have impliedly protected the rights of the parties involved in a live-in relationship. These
laws are covered in the sections that follow:
3.6 Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
3.6.1 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114 states that the court may infer the existence of
particular facts based on the evidence presented. This section's applicability allows the court
to quickly draw the 'Presumption of marriage' contention when parties live together as
husband and wife for an extended period of time. As soon as it is established, a live-in
relationship will become official, and the female partner will become a wife.
3.7 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
3.7.1 Section 2(f)of the Act defines ‘domestic relationship 'which includes the term ‘relationship
in the nature of marriage 'within it. The phrase ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ used
herein is wide enough to include a ‘live-in relationship 'within its ambit. As per Section 2(f),
the Act has applied to the married couple and the ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’.
Section 2(a) of the Act defines ‘aggrieved person’ as ‘any woman who is, or has been, in a
domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act
of domestic violence by the respondent’.
3.8 Maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
3.8.1 According to the D. Velusamy case, four essential requirements must be fulfilled to get the
wife's legal status by a female partner of a live-in relationship and to get maintenance.
Therefore, if those pre-conditions are fulfilled, a female partner of a live-in relationship will
get maintenance under this Act.
3.9 Maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3.9.1 Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. deals with the maintenance of ‘wife’ under the Act and defines
the term ‘wife’ as: ‘wife includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a
divorce from her husband and has not remarried.’ Therefore, the section does not expressly
include a female partner as a wife within its scope and ambit. In 2003, the Malimath
Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, has recommended an amendment of the
word ‘wife’ in Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973to include ‘a woman who
is living with a man for a reasonable period’. Again, in June 2008, The National
Commission for Women recommended that the Ministry of Women and Child Development
include a live-in female partner for the right to maintenance under this section. Supreme
Court in the Chanmuniyav Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha case has interpreted this
section in the light of those recommendations and has awarded maintenance to the female

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

19
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

partner of the live-in relationship. But, no concrete amendments have been made so far on
the issue.
3.10 Rights of Children Born Out of Live-In Relationship
3.10.1 The status of children born out of live-in relationships is also debatable. Section 16 of the
Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 provides legitimacy to all children born out of annulled Hindu
marriages. Likewise, Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act of 1954 provides legitimacy to
all children born out of annulled inter-religious marriages. Similarly, Section 21 of the
Divorce Act, 1869 provides legitimacy to all children born out of annulled Christian
marriages. Therefore, there is no doubt that if the live-in relationship is not recognized as a
marriage, the children will also be legitimate and inherit their parents’ property. But they are
not entitled to ancestral property. If the relationship satisfies the requirements of a valid
marriage, the children will be entitled to all the rights of property and succession like any
other children of a valid marriage, considering the innocence of the children.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

20
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

4 WHETHER THE CHILD IS LEGITIMATE AND ENTITLED TO

THE PROPERTY OF HIS FATHER
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the child of Maria and Sanat Kumar is
legitimate and is entitled to his father's property since [4.1] a Child born out of a live-in relationship
is not illegitimate [4.2] Right to property.
4.1 Child born out of a live-in relationship is not illegitimate
4.1.1 The submission is respectfully made that the primary and most important right of a child
born into a live-in relationship is the right to legitimacy, as a newborn has no connection to
the relationship their parents have within society or family. This right will form the basis for
all other rights which are available to child in the country.
4.1.2 The first case which approves the legitimacy of children born out of a live-in relationship
was S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan41 in which the Supreme Court held that "if a
man and woman are living under the same roof and cohabiting for some years, there will be
a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that they live as husband and wife and
the children born to them will not be illegitimate."As Mr.sanat kumar and mrs maria have
lived like husband and wife and have cohabited for long span of time fulfilled all the
necessary requirements of live-in relationship.
4.1.3 Also in Tulsa v. Durghatiya42, the Supreme Court ruled that a child born into such a
connection would not be regarded as illegitimate. The important requirement for the same is
that the parents have cohabitated and lived under one roof for a considerable amount of
time, since this demonstrates their sincerity in the relationship . Furthermore, the Court
interpreted Article 39(f)43 of the Indian Constitution, which guides its policies in
guaranteeing that children receive the chance and resources to grow up in a wholesome
manner, with freedom and dignity, and that childhood and youth are shielded from
exploitation and material and moral abandonment.
41
1994 AIR 133, 1994 SCC (1) 460
42
(2008) 4 SCC 520
43
Indian constitution

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

21
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

4.1.4 Indian courts have consistently supported the interpretation of the law to ensure that no
child is "bastardized" for no fault of their own. In the case of Bharata Matha & Ors. v. R.
Vijaya Renganathan & Ors.44, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that children born into
cohabitation may be eligible to inherit from their parents' property, if any, and thus be
granted legal legitimacy.

4.1.5 In the current case, the relationship cannot be described as a "walk in and walk out" one
because the appellant's child was born following three years of cohabitation. It grants the
son a formal legal acknowledgement from the courts
4.2 Right To Property
4.2.1 Legitimacy has always been a prerequisite for inheritance rights. As a result, the courts have
ensured that any child born after a fair time of live-in partnership is not denied the right to
inherit, consistent with Article 39(f) of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court in
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun45 approved the inheritance to the four children born out of
the live-in relationship by considering them as 'legal heirs'. Therefore, the Court has
guaranteed that no child may be denied their inheritance who are born out of a live-in
relationship of a significant period of time.
4.2.2 However, the Supreme Court in Bharata Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan 46 held that
"children born out of the live-in relationship are legitimate and upheld their inheritance right
in the property". Even though the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not directly recognize the
live-in relationship, section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act indirectly provides legitimacy to
such children and grants them the right of inheritance. In Vidyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai it was
held by the Supreme Court that as per section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act children born
out of a live-in relationship should be given the status of “legal heirs” and are entitled to the
right to inherit the property of both the parents
4.2.3 Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013)47 The Supreme Court of India addressed the property
rights of children born out of live-in relationships within the context of Hindu ancestral
property.The court ruled that a child born out of a live-in relationship would be considered
legitimate for the purpose of inheritance in Hindu ancestral property. Chanmuniya v.
Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011)48 The Supreme Court, in this case, reiterated the

44
Bharata Matha & Ors. v. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors.
45
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun
46
Bharata Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan
47
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma
48
Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

22
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

property rights of children born out of live-in relationships.It held that children born out of
such relationships have the same rights as legitimate children to claim inheritance in their
parents' property, including the father's self-acquired and ancestral property.
4.2.4 Upholding the child's best interests is paramount in inheritance and succession. As
emphasized in Nandakumar v. Geetha and Bhaskar Lal Sharma v. Monica 49, denying the
child his rightful inheritance would be unjust and contrary to the principles of equity and
fairness.

49
Nandakumar v. Geetha and Bhaskar Lal Sharma v. Monica

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

23
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

5 WHETHER MARIA IS ENTITLED TO THE PROPERTY OF HER PARTNER

MR. SANAT KUMAR (DECEASED)

The counsel respectfully submits to the Hon'ble Court that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits
that arise out of a legal marriage. The Supreme Court has given guidelines to protect the interests of
women in live-in relationships and has held such relationships on par with marriage.

5.1 Courts should recognise

the property rights of a domestic partner based on either unjust
enrichment or an express contract. The principle of unjust enrichment is based on the
equitable principle that, "A person who is unjustly enriched at the expense of another is
liable in restitution to the other."50
5.2 In
Watts v. Watts, 51the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that a domestic partner could bring
a cause of action based on unjust enrichment in the absence of an express or implied

contract. Just like the principle of unjust enrichment is applicable to all, it should be applied
to live-in partners as well.52 However, it would be very hard to prove the consideration where
the contract was to provide certain household chores like cooking, cleaning the house, child-

61
rearing, etc.

5.3 Professor Waggoner suggested

a multi-factor approach for intestate succession by “de facto
partners” in his seminal article. In his later work, he stated that a “committed domestic
partner” should get automatic intestate inheritance with a smaller share than a spouse “in
recognition of the competing claims of the decedent's blood or adoptive relatives, and to
some extent to maintain the incentive to enter into formal marriage.” 53

50
Roberts. Summers & Robert A. Hillman, Contract And Related Obligation 112 (4th ed. 2001) (quoting DIG. 50.17.206).

51
137 Wis.2d 506 (1987)

52
R. Brent Drake, Status Or Contract? A Comparative Analysis Of Inheritance Rights Under Equitable Adoption And
Domestic Partnership Doctrines, 39 GA. L. REV. 675, 728 (2005).

53
See Lawrence W. Waggoner et al., Family Property Law: Cases and Materials on Wills, Trusts, and Future Interests
107 (2d ed. 1997).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

24
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

5.4 Waggoner introduced a test consisting of five parameters for determining who is a

“committed domestic partner”.54

First, the partners must be adult. Second, the partners
otherwise cannot marry as it is prohibited due to related by blood. Third, neither partner is
married at the time of decedent's death. Fourthly, the partners must have "shared the same
place to live, whether or not [they] had other places to live." Fifthly, the two individuals
must have had a "marriage-like" relationship.
In the case of Indra
5.5 Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma55, the Supreme Court provided the following
guidelines.
Duration of Period of Relationship
5.5.1 : The Domestic Violence (DV) Act's Section 2(f) uses
the expression "at any point of time," which means a reasonable period to maintain and
continue a relationship. This period may vary from case to case, depending upon the fact
situation.
Shared Househol
5.5.2 d: The expression "shared household" has been defined under Section 2(s)
of the DV Act and hence requires no further elaboration.
Pooling of Resources and Financial Arrangements
5.5.3 : Supporting each other financially,
sharing bank accounts, acquiring immovable properties in joint names or in the name of the
woman, long-term investments in business, and shares in separate and joint names to have a
long-standing relationship may be a guiding factor.
Domestic Arrangements
5.5.4 : Entrusting the responsibility, especially on the woman, to run the
home, do the household activities like cleaning, cooking, maintaining or upkeeping the
house, etc., is an indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage.
Sexual Relationshi
5.5.5 p: A marriage-like relationship refers to a sexual relationship, not just for
pleasure but for emotional and intimate relationships, procreation of children, emotional
support, companionship, material affection, caring, etc.
Children
5.5.6 : Having children is a strong indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage.
Parties, therefore, intend to have a long-standing relationship. Sharing the responsibility for
bringing up and supporting them is also a strong indication.

54
Waggoner's proposed amendment, entitled "Intestate Share of Committed Partner,"

55
Supra, 17

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

25
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

Socialisation in Public
5.5.7 : Holding out to the public and socializing with friends, relations, and
others, as if they are husband and wife is a strong circumstance to hold the relationship is in
the nature of marriage.
Intention and Conduct of the Parties
5.5.8 : The parties' common intention regarding what their
relationship is to be and involve and regarding their respective roles and responsibilities
primarily determines the nature of that relationship. In the case at hand, all the above
conditions are fulfilled, which entitles both the appellant and her son to the separate
property of the deceased husband.
In
5.5.8.1 Dhannulal v. Ganeshram56, the Bench stated that the woman in the
relationship would be eligible to inherit the property after the death of her
partner.
In
5.5.8.2 Chanmuniya v. Chanmuniya Kumar Singh Kushwaha57, where the High
Court declared that the appellant’s wife is not entitled to maintenance on
the ground that only a legally married woman can claim maintenance
under Section 125 CrPC, the Supreme Court turned down the judgment.
5.5.8.3 The Supreme Court held that provisions of Section 125 CrPC must be
considered in light of Section 26 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act 2005. The Supreme Court held that women in live-
in relationships are equally entitled to all the claims and reliefs which are
available to a legally wedded wife.

56
2015 AIR SCW 2839
57
Supra, 50

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

26
SVVV National Moot Court Competition, 2024

PRAYER

Wherefore in light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly requested that this Hon’ble Court pass a sentence
a. To Declare, that Maria is Entitled to Maintenance with her father-in-law
b. To Hold, Article 136 Maintainable.
c. To Declare Maria and Sanat Kumars’ Son a Legitimate Child.
d. To Declare, Living in a relationship in India is valid.
e. To Hold, Maria entitled to Sanats’ Property

AND/OR
Pass any other order or relief that this Hon’ble court believes is in the best interest of
Justice, Fairness, Equity, and Good Conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT