Moot Court Competition

RPS Law College, Patliputra University

Before
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF INDIA
PATNA
Filed under Article…………….of the Constitution of
India, 1955
State Of
BIHAR………………………………………….Appelant
(Rajesh)
Vs
Megha
Respondent

Humbly submitted by the counsels appearing on the

behalf of the Respondent
 INDEX OF ABBREVIATION
IPC- Indian Panel Code
F.C.- Family Court
A.I.R.-All India Reporter
SC- Supreme Court
U.S.- United States
S.CR- Supreme Court Report
HCR- High Court Report
HMA-Hindu Marriage Act

Memorial on behalf of respondent

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1 Smt. Kailashwati Vs Ayodhya Prakash (1977)
2 Saroj Rani Vs Sudarshan Kumar (1984)

Books
1. Family law
2. The Hindu Marriage Act<1955>
3. Hindu law

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The counsel humbly submits to the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court under
article ……………. of the Constitution
of India. This article mentions the
Appellant jurisdiction of the High Court
in regard to family matters by the way of
special leave from the family court under
its jurisdiction that have reversed the
judgment of a trial court in a matter. This
case presents a change before the Court
to hear a woman out who might be
having a slight chance to get justice.

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

 STATEMENT OF FACTS
 Megha is a lady, married to the Rajesh on 1 st
January 2023 at Patna. The Rajesh and Megha
belong to the Hindu Religion. Rajesh and Megha
live together in the matrimonial home of the
Rajesh’s parents along with his parents. They
lived happily.
 Rajesh is an employee in a cotton factory,
manufacturing cloths. After, a few months of his
marriage, Megha was selected as a Government
Teacher for which exam was held by the Bihar
Public Service Commission (BPSC).
 Megha took the opportunity and joined the
school in May 2023. The Government Middle
school, Gogi is the working place which is
located nearby her parent’s home at Jahanabad.
 Megha continued to reside with her father’s
home during the course/tenure of her
employment and obliging the personal as well as
social duties with full faith in matrimony.
Memorial on behalf of respondent
 Initially, Rajesh did not object to the Megha but
when months went by then Rajesh
objected/forced Megha to live with him in his
house at Patna along with his parents.
 Megha is left with no option but to refuse the
request as the acceptance of this offer compels
her to travel daily at about 60 to 62 KMs from
the Matrimonial place to the workplace. The
distance is enormous and She is not in a
position/able to exert such physical activities on
daily basis seeing her week/fragile health
conditions and safety concerns.
 The principal judge of Family Court held that
the Rajesh cannot force Megha to live with him
as She has right to livelihood and that Rajesh
should live with Megha instead of as She is
earning handsomely and can better take care of
family affairs.

Memorial on behalf of the respondent

 Case Brief
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rajesh and Megha is a couple living matrimonial
home of Rajesh parents home together with his
parents .Megha selected in teacher job in Bpsc but
she lived in her side paternal home continuously
for doing job . After some time RAJESH object
Megha about her job .

Memorial on behalf of respondent

 Statement of Issues
1. Whether the Respondent has
withdrawn from the society of the
Appellant without reasonable excuse?
2. Whether section 9 of HMA 1955 is
constitutionally valid?

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE-1
This issue focuses on the whether this
appeal could be maintained in the court
of law or not stating that no special
circumstances have appeared in this
case itself and substantial justice has
already been done in the court of
Principal judge. Further the argument
focuses on the variation of natural
justice. Lastly the issues focuses on that
even if there is question of law, the
question of law is not a substantial one
as well as there is a question of facts
and not of law.
Memorial on behalf of respondent
ISSUE-2
------------------------------------------------
This issue completely focuses on the
conviction of a person solely on the
basis of circumstantial evidence. It
deals that the section 9 of the HMA
1955, constitutionally valid. If it is
valid that without any strong reason and
evidence, the general rule is that when
either the husband or the wife has
without reasonable excuse, withdraw
from the society of other. Arguments
also focus upon how the person without
reasonable excuse withdraws from the
society.
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE-1
Whether the respondent has withdraw from the
society of the appellant without reasonable
excuse?
-------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, it was asserted by the appellant that the
respondent already was aware of the employment
of the respondent and with open eyes accepted her
as her wife; therefore she is under no commitment
to withdraw or breach with him and further. She
stated that she is prone to allow access to her
husband as she could keep in mind her
employment. As per the article 14,15 & 16
guaranteed the woman employment that any
woman should be independent. If she wanted to
self depending it does not mean that she should
want to withdraw with her husband. It is settled
case that the matrimonial place is not the place
Memorial on behalf of respondent
where the husband resides with his parents but it is
the place of the choice where the husband/wife
wants to reside.

ISSUE-2
Whether section 9 of the HMA 1955 is
constitutionally valid?
1.According to the section 9 of HMA 1955, the
matrimonial home is a key element in the
marriage and all rights and duties of spouses
are best comprehended when they live together.
Megha has quite often visited the matrimonial
house of Rajesh after being employed and
fulfill conjugal as well as social obligations of
the marriage. She has also taken best efforts for
well being of Rajesh’s parents although she is
not directly responsible for their maintenance.

Memorial on behalf of respondent

2.After examine various authorities, it was
observe that a husband forced the wife to live
together
3.while family Court ordered to Rajesh (the
4. Husband) to live with his wife where she is
posted at present it is her parents house. Megha
should try to post her application to the
concerned authorities to place her posting in a
school at her matrimonial place. It will instantly
restore the conjugal rights of the Rajesh.
5.After analysis, the valid provision that the
marital duties of a man include maintaining
each and everything his wife and children and a
wife must submit herself obediently to her
husband. These provisions could only be tested
on grounds of financial backup and present
earnings of the couples. In the instant case,
Megha is earning handsomely than Rajesh and
she is in a position to take care of Rajesh with
dignity and honor.
Memorial on behalf of respondent
6.In the case of the the Saroj Rani Vs Sudarshan
Kumar (1984), the Honb’le Supreme Court of
India had considered the question of the
constitutionality of Section 9 of the HMA that
gives a party the right to file a suit for
restitution of conjugal rights vis-à-vis the right
to privacy. In the course of determining this
question, the Court analysed T. Sareetha’s case,
which had held that Section 9 of the HMA
violated the right to privacy and human dignity
under Article 21 of the Constitution and was
thus void. It considered courts’ interference in
mandating compulsory cohabitation a gross
violation of personal choice and autonomy and
observed that a decree for restitution of
conjugal rights denied the woman sexual
autonomy and the free choice of procreation,
thereby denying her privacy over her most
intimate decisions.
Memorial on behalf of respondent
 Though the right under Section 9 of the HMA
was equally available to both husband and wife,
the High Court in T. Sareetha observed that it
was mostly used by men and thus differentially
and adversely impacted women.
The Court noted that the judgment of the Delhi
High Court in Harvinder Kaur disagreed with
the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in T. Sareetha. The Delhi High Court
held that Section 9 of the HMA did not violate
Articles 21 or 14. It noted that the purpose of
restitution of conjugal rights was to restore
matrimonial harmony and not to enforce sexual
cohabitation, and that sexual intercourse was
not the only element of conjugal rights under
Section 9 of the HMA.
7.The Supreme Court considered both the views
and held that Section 9 of the HMA did not
violate Article 21.

Memorial on behalf of respondent

 It considered the technical definition of
conjugal “of or pertaining to marriage or to
husband and wife in their relations to each
other”, and thus sided with Harvinder Kaur in
observing that matrimonial consortium did not
necessitate sexual cohabitation. Although the
Court did not explicitly discuss the right to
privacy, in overruling T. Sareetha, it suggested
that enforcing Section 9 of the HMA did not
constitute a breach of privacy. Further, it held
that the social purpose of preserving the
sanctity of marriage was enough to balance any
possible
8.constitutional assailment. The Court noted that
the remedy for failure to obey a decree for
restitution of conjugal rights was attachment of
property, but not specific performance.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Memorial on behalf of respondent
9.Thus from the above it is clear that going by the
decision of the Principal Judge, Family court
decision to restore the conjugal rights of the
Rajesh and to shift himself to the Megha’s
place is right and in order. Rajesh is capable
enough to perform the right of livelihood by
touring himself to and from from Megha’s
place to matrimonial place until the application
for transfer may accept by the designated
authorities.

Memorial on behalf of respondent

 DECISION

The court furnished that employment is

no reasonable ground for withdrawal and
such unreasonable withdrawal cannot be
an excuse to live individually, so
withdrawal is not allotted by court in this
case so that the appellant should choose
his job and wife. Further stating such, the
bench dismissed the appeal.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Memorial on behalf of the respondent
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised,

arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
counsel humbly pleads before your lordship the
dismiss this appeal which the court may deem fit in
the light of justice in good conscience to which the
counsel shall forever be duty bound to

Hd/-
Humbly submitted by
the counsel on behalf
of the Respondent

-------------------------------------------------------------
Memorial on behalf of respondent
 TABLE OF CONTENT
Cover page—
Table of abbreviation—
Index of authorities—
Statement of jurisdiction—
Statement of facts—
Issues raised—
Summary of arguments—
Arguments advanced—
Prayer--

Memorial on behalf of respondent