TEAM CODE: TC-07

RAYAT BAHRA INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT OF MOHALI

M.J. PETITION NO.- __ OF 2023

AAROHI………………………………………………………………PETITIONER

VERSUS

AMIT KUMAR…………….………………………………………….RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT OF MOHALI

MEMORIAL BY RESPONDENT
 RAYAT BAHRA INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. no. Particulars Page no.

1. Index of authorities 2

2. Cases Referred 3

3. Statement of Abbreviations 4

4. Statement of Jurisdiction 5

5. Statement of Facts 6

6. Issues Raised 7

7. Summary of Arguments 8

8. Arguments Advanced

8.1 That the petition is not maintainable

9-13
That the petitioner has no cause of action in the
8.2
instant petition

That there are no grounds sufficient enough to

8.3
entitle the petitioner to a decree of divorce

9. Prayer 14

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1|Page
 RAYAT BAHRA INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

COMMENTARIES REFERRED

24th edition, Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla, Hindu Law, 2023 reprint

11th edition, Dr. Paras Diwan, Family Law, 2021 reprint

STATUTES REFERRED

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Civil Procedure Code, 1908

LEGAL DATABASE

Manupatra

Casemine

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2|Page
 RAYAT BAHRA INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

CASES REFERRED

Sr. no. Name of the case Page no.

Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, (2002) 2

1 11
SCC 73

Jagraj Singh v. Birpal Kaur AIR 2007 SC 2083:

2 11
(2007)2 SCC 564

3 V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337 11

4 Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 12

Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy

5 12
AIR (2005) 7 SCC 353.

Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati*,

6 13
(1956) SCR 838

Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy

7 13
AIR (2005) 7 SCC 353

Savita Bhanot v. Lt. Col. V.D. Bhanot(2010) 12

8 13
SCC 187

9 Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 13

10 A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22 14

11 Rohit Seth v. Dr. Mrs. Jaya Seth, (2002) 3 SCC 56 14

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

3|Page
 RAYAT BAHRA INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Sr. no. Abbreviation Full Form

1. Ld. Learned

2. HMA Hindu Marriage Act

3. s. section

4. AIR All India Reporter

5. Vs. Versus

6. P&H Punjab and Haryana

7. All ER All England Law Reports

8. No. Number

9. Hon’ble Honorable

10 SC Supreme Court

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

4|Page
 RAYAT BAHRA INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel for the respondents humbly submits their acceptance of the jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble Court to try and decide the present case if there is any cause of action
arising in the same.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

5|Page
 RAYAT BAHRA INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

It is further showeth -

1. that Aarohi and Amit entered into a marital contract on 01.04.2017. The
petitioner resided in her matrimonial home for 5 days. The respondent used to
mistreat her and they never shared the marital bed together. The marriage had
not been consummated.
2. that the petitioner, due to such circumstances, returned to her parental home.
However, her parents convinced her that the situation would get better with time
and was sent back to her matrimonial home.
3. that in spite of spending five years with the respondent, her situation did not
improve. As per the petitioner, respondent would return home late at night in a
drunken state and would physically, mentally and emotionally abuse her. He
would beat her in a state of drunkenness. She extended efforts to persuade and
convince him to stop the same.
4. that all of Aarohi’s methods proved to be in vain. She also discovered that the
respondent was a man of weak character as he was an alcoholic and had several
extra-marital relationships. She then moved out of her matrimonial home in
May, 2022, and has since been staying at her parental home.
5. that the respondent, then for a year made efforts to return her to the matrimonial
home but Aarohi refused to return. In June 2023, the respondent filed a petition
for restitution of conjugal rights.
6. that the respondent had in the said petition contended that Aarohi had given him
a bona fide treatment during their stay together and that Aarohi was not
interested in residing in the village and kept convincing him to move to the city.
Further, he was an unemployed man and could not afford the city life, and so
Aarohi’s demand was unacceptable to him. He contended that Aarohi moved
out of the matrimonial home along with her personal belongings, including
stridhan, without citing any reasonable and valid justification. The said petition
was not contested by the Aarohi.
7. that all other material averments of the petition were denied, and it was prayed
that the petition be dismissed with costs. Aarohi did not return to the
matrimonial home.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

6|Page
 RAYAT BAHRA INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether present petition is maintainable?

2. Whether the petitioner has any cause of action, locus standi to file and maintain
the present petition?
3. Whether the grounds stated by the petitioner are sufficient enough to entitle her
to obtain a decree of divorce by the court?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

7|Page
 RAYAT BAHRA INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THAT THE PRESENT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

The present petition is not maintainable, as the grounds for section 13 of
HMA, 1955 are not fulfilled. There is also a possibility of reconciliation in
the instant petition.

2. THAT THE PETITIONER HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION TO FILE

THE PRESENT CASE.
That there exist no issues in the marriage except normal wear and tear of the
married life. In absence of the grounds of divorce under section 13 of HMA,
1955, there exists no cause of action. The petitioner has failed to comply
with the decree of conjugal rights following which this petition would
comprise the petitioner’s taking advantage of their own wrong. There has
been no proper effort towards reconciliation yet failing which this petition
is immature.

3. THAT THE GROUNDS STATED BY THE PETITIONER ARE NOT

ENOUGH TO ENTITLE HER TO OBTAIN A DECREE OF
DIVORCE BY THE LD. COURT.
The inability to establish the institution of marriage was due to the fault of
the petitioner solely. 1.1. The petitioner’s actions reflect bad faith. There is
a lack of substantive evidence for allegations of cruelty. Divorce should be
granted only as a last resort.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

8|Page
 RAYAT BAHRA INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THAT THE PRESENT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

1.1. That the petitioner received bona fide treatment at her matrimonial home.
1.1.1. The petitioner was treated with good faith at her matrimonial home by
Amit while the petitioner made no effort to accommodate him.
1.1.2. The same was proven as a fact when the petitioner failed to contest this
along with other statements made in an earlier petition filed by Amit
Kumar under s. 9 of HMA, 1955 in an effort to harmonize their
relationship.
1.1.3. That the petitioner moved out of her matrimonial home without any
reasonable justification for the same.

1.2. That there exist no grounds for divorce in the instant case.
1.2.1. The petitioner was maintained properly by the Amit and any allegation
to the contrary is without any merit.
1.2.2. That no ground for divorce under s. 13 of HMA, 1955 exist and the
allegations as to the grounds would be completely baseless.

1.3. That there exists possibility of reconciliation between the parties.

1.3.1. That Amit Kumar has been jumping through hoops to get his wife to
return to his matrimonial home.
1.3.2. That the petitioner has shown a lack of initiative to reconcile with Amit
Kumar and has been returning to her parental home rather than trying to
accommodate the ups and downs of marital life.
1.3.3. The respondent is of the view that living together for some more time
may warrant an improvement in their circumstances.

2. THAT THERE EXISTS NO CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE INSTANT CASE.

2.1. That there exist no issues in the marriage except normal wear and tear of the
married life.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

9|Page
 RAYAT BAHRA INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

2.1.1. The petitioner has shown repeated inability to work through the normal
challenges of marriage.
2.1.2. The petitioner has time now and again left the house of the respondent
while giving no proper reason for the same

2.2. That in absence of the grounds of divorce under section 13 of HMA, 1955,
there exists no cause of action.
2.2.1. A petition under section 13 of the HMA, 1955 would lie only in the case
of the grounds mentioned therein
2.2.2. The allegations made by the petitioner are vague and unsupported by
substantive evidence. It was held that mere unsubstantiated accusations
cannot form the basis for a cause of action1.

2.3. That the petitioner has failed to comply with the decree of conjugal rights
following which this petition would comprise the petitioner is taking advantage
of their own wrong.

2.4. There has been no proper effort towards reconciliation.

2.4.1. As per Section 23(2) HMA, it is mandatory for the court to make every
effort to reconcile the parties before granting a divorce. The court should
have initiated or encouraged these efforts, and the petitioner’s disregard
for reconciliation makes the divorce petition premature. The Supreme
Court emphasized the importance of exhausting reconciliation efforts
before proceeding with a divorce2.
2.4.2. The petitioner has failed to make any substantial effort toward
reconciliation or resolution of differences, thereby abusing the provisions
of divorce law for personal reasons. It was held that when one party files
a petition for divorce based on false or exaggerated claims, it constitutes
misuse of the legal provisions.3
2.4.3. The petitioner has not exhausted alternate remedies, such as mediation
or counselling, which could have resolved the disputes amicably. Section

1
Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, (2002) 2 SCC 73
2
Jagraj Singh v. Birpal Kaur AIR 2007 SC 2083: (2007)2 SCC 564
3
V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

10 | P a g e
 RAYAT BAHRA INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 mandates courts to encourage

reconciliation before granting divorce. Supreme Court emphasized the
need to explore all possible avenues for reconciliation before resorting to
divorce4.

3. THAT THE GROUNDS STATED BY THE PETITIONER ARE NOT

ENOUGH FOR A DECREE OF DIVORCE.

3.1. That the inability to establish the institution of marriage was due to the fault of
the petitioner solely.
3.1.1. The petitioner’s repeated return to her parental home without reasonable
justification also raises doubts about her intent to maintain the marriage.5

3.2. There is still chance of reconciliation.

3.2.1. The respondent has been running circles around the petitioner in order
to reconcile the matrimonial ties between them.

3.3. The petitioner’s actions reflect bad faith.

3.3.1. The petition has been filed in bad faith, as the petitioner has made no
effort to preserve the marriage. The Supreme Court held that bad faith on
the part of one party undermines the legal basis for divorce proceedings.
3.3.2. The petitioner’s allegations appear to be a strategy to obtain a quick
divorce without considering the welfare of the family unit, violating the
principles of equity and fairness.
3.3.3. The petitioner’s primary reason for leaving the matrimonial home
was her demand that the respondent relocate to the city, which he
could not afford due to financial constraints.
3.3.4. The petitioner left the matrimonial home without citing any reasonable
or justifiable cause, which does not constitute valid grounds for desertion
or cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.

4
In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303
5
Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy AIR (2005) 7 SCC 353.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

11 | P a g e
 RAYAT BAHRA INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

3.3.5. The Supreme Court held that a spouse's departure without valid cause,
coupled with the refusal to return despite sincere efforts, constitutes
desertion6. This applies here, as the petitioner chose to abandon the
marriage over an unreasonable demand, reflecting her intent to secure a
quick divorce rather than attempt reconciliation.
3.3.6. The petitioner’s repeated return to her parental home without reasonable
justification also raises doubts about her intent to maintain the marriage.7

3.4. Lack of Substantive Evidence for Allegations of Cruelty

3.4.1. The petitioner, Aarohi, has failed to provide substantial evidence to
support her claims of mental and physical cruelty. Mere allegations
without credible, corroborative evidence are insufficient to establish
cruelty as a valid ground for divorce.
3.4.2. The Supreme held that vague and generalized accusations do not meet
the threshold required for cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955.8
3.4.3. There exist a lack of any form of evidence, which would substantiate her
claims of physical or emotional abuse, which weakens the foundation of
her arguments.
3.4.4. The Supreme Court established that cruelty requires an "intense degree
of mental agony and suffering."9 The petitioner's vague and
unsubstantiated allegations fall short of meeting this standard.

3.5. That divorce should be granted only as a last resort.

3.5.1. The courts have consistently held that divorce should be granted only
when all efforts at reconciliation have failed. The marriage institution
should be preserved, and divorce is not to be used as a tool for escape from
minor conflicts.

6
Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati*, (1956) SCR 838
7
Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy AIR (2005) 7 SCC 353
8
Savita Bhanot v. Lt. Col. V.D. Bhanot(2010) 12 SCC 187
9
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

12 | P a g e
 RAYAT BAHRA INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

3.5.2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that divorce should be the last resort
when irretrievable breakdown is clearly established, which is not the case
here.10
3.5.3. Amit Kumar remains open to reconciliation, which shows that the
relationship is not beyond repair. The Apex court has stated that if there
remains any possibility of reconciliation, it should be explored, and
divorce should not be granted hastily.11

10
A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22
11
Rohit Seth v. Dr. Mrs. Jaya Seth, (2002) 3 SCC 56

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

13 | P a g e
 RAYAT BAHRA INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, the
counsel for the Respondent most humbly and respectfully prays before this Hon'ble
Court that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

1. That the present petition is not maintainable in this Hon'ble Court, as the
petitioner has failed to establish valid grounds for the relief sought.
2. That the petitioner lacks cause of action in the instant case, and the petition is
devoid of merit.
3. That the allegations of adultery made by the petitioner are entirely false,
unsubstantiated, and without any evidence, and that the petitioner has failed to
prove any instance of cruelty as alleged.
4. That the petitioner is not entitled to a decree of divorce, as there has been no
irretrievable breakdown of the marriage attributable to the respondent, and the
respondent has acted in good faith throughout the marriage.

AND/OR

This Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to pass any such order as it deems fit in terms
of equity, justice, and good conscience.

And for this act of kindness, your Lordships, the Respondent shall as duty bound
ever humbly pray.

Counsel for the Respondents

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

14 | P a g e