1

Name : Roshini

Reg. No : 518A0087

Class : V Year [Link].B

Section : C

BEFORE THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT OF MADRAS

UNDER HINDHU MARRIAGE ACT 1955

KISHOREKUMAR………………………………………………………PETITIONER

V.

SANGEETHA………………………………………………RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[Link] TABLE OF CONTENTS [Link]

I LIST OF ABBREVIATION

II INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. CASES REFERRED

2. ONLINE SOURCES

3. BOOKS REFERRED

III STATEMENT OF JURISDICATION

IV STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

V STATEMENT OF ISSUES

VI SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

VII ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

VIII PRAYER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& AND
HON’BLE HONOURABLE
LTD LIMITED
SC SUPREME COURT
V. VERSUS
ANR. ANOTHER
AIR. ALL INDIA REPORTER
ART. ARTICLE
S. SECTION
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
SCR SUPREME COURT REPORT
ORS. OTHERS
CPC CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
HMA HINDHU MARRIAGE AT
S SEC
CO COMPANY

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED:
 Bhagwan Dutt vs Kamla Devi And Anr on 17 October, 1974
 Gobinda Rani Dasi vs Radha Ballabh Das on 5th July, 1910
 Anupama Misra vs Bhagaban Misra on 1 November, 1971
 Ms Jordan Diengdeh vs S.S Chopra on 10 May, 1985
 Ayyalasomayajula Satyanandam vs Ayyalasomayajula Ushadevi, 1987 (1) ALT 335
(DB)
 U.N. Satyanarayana vs [Link] And Anr. on 27 December, 2002
 Madhusudan vs Smt Chandrika on 22 March, 1975

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 5

BOOKS REFERRED:
 LAW OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE, PARAS DIWAN AND PEEYUSHI
DIWAN (7TH EDITION)
 M.P. JAIN – INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LEXIS NEXIS (8 TH EDITION)

LEGISLATIONS CITED:

 THE HINDHU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

 THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1909

WEBSITES:
 [Link]
 [Link]
 [Link]
 [Link]
 [Link]

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 6

THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has the honor to move this Court by way of filing a Divorce case on the

grounds of adultery, fraud, under section 13 (1) (i) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The present

memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Kishorekumar, S/O Anbu aged 30 years residing at No.5 Annai Sivagami Nagar,
Burma Nagar, Chennai- 57.
2. Sangeetha D/O Suresh aged 25 years, residing in No.7 Amman Koil Street, Ennore,
Chennai.
3. The marriage between the Kishorekumar and Sangeetha solemnized on 22.04.2019
under Hindu customs and rights at Arul Migu Sri Vaduvudai Thiruvadi Kodaivudai
Amman temple, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai, Tamilnadu – 19.
4. The marriage was registered in the registrar of marriage at Thiruvallur at serial no.333
of 2019 of Registrar of marriage under the Indian Hindu Marriage Act 1995.
5. After the marriage Kishorekumar and Sangeetha has been living together from the
day of the marriage in the rented house at Annai Sivagami Nagar, Burma Nagar,
Ennore, Chennai along with Kishore’s parent.
6. Kishorekumar lived happily with Sangeetha till June 2019.
7. Kishorekumar states that during the month of April 2018.
8. Sangeetha used to talk over phone with unknown person regularly.
9. When the same was questioned by the Kishorekumar but his wife did not answer
properly to him.
10. The Kishorekumar never enjoyed the marital bliss and comfort of home.
11. Hence in the month of June 2019, Kishorekumar dropped Sangeetha in her parents’
house.
12. Thereafter on advice of the elders, Sangeetha assured that she won’t continue the
illegal relationship and will live with Kishore peacefully.
13. Thereafter, she came to her husband’s house but she used to talk over phone with
Arjun while the Husband went on duty.
14. After few months again Kishore knows about Sangeetha illegal relationship with
Arjun and still she is continuing the illegal relationship.
15. Then Kishore files divorce petition in Family Court.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 8

THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Issue 1:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get divorce filed by petitioner ought to be

dismissed?

Issue 2:

2. Whether the grounds stated in the petition by the petitioner are sufficient enough to
entitle her to obtain a decree of divorce by the court?

Issue 3:

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 9

THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get decree of judicial separation on the

ground of cruelty.

No, as the section 12 of Hindu marriage act states that if in any marriage the person is
treated with cruelty he/had right to get judicial separation but in this case the husband
is not treated with any cruelty by his wife. Instead the wife went to the petitioner
house for the resolvement of the situation

2. Whether the grounds stated in the petition by the petitioner are sufficient
enough to entitle her to obtain a decree of divorce by the court?

It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the grounds stated by the
petitioner are not sufficient enough to entitle her to obtain a decree of divorce by the
court.

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance?

Yes, the petitioner is duty bound for his wife and daughters maintenance. The
petitioner has to pay maintenance to his wife and their daughters because he is able to
pay maintenances and according to Hindu adoption and maintenance act a Hindu wife
whether married before or after the commencement of the Act, shall be entitled to be
maintained by her husband during her life time and for her daughters till she gets
married.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 10

ADVANCE ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE PETITIONER ENTITLED TO GET THE DECREE OF

JUDICIAL SEPERARTION ON THE GROUND OF CRUELTY?

Judicial separation states that either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or

after the commencement of Hindu marriage act, may present a petition praying for a

decree for judicial separation on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of

Section 13 i.e. divorce, and in the case of a wife also on any of the grounds might

have been presented.

(2) Where a decree for judicial separation has been passed, it shall no longer be

obligatory for the petitioner to cohabit with the respondent, but the court may, on the

application by petition of either party and on being satisfied of the truth of the

statement made in such petition, rescind the decree if it considers it just and

reasonable to do so.

Sub-section 1 of (13) divorce states that after the solemnization of the marriage,

treated the petitioner with cruelty.

Both the section states that only when the petitioner is treated with cruelty, Judicial

separation is granted and in this case no cruelty was seen by the wife i.e. respondent

on husband i.e. petitioner.

According to the case of Ms. Jordan Diengdeh vs S.S. Chopra on 10 May, 19856
Civil Code- Necessity of-Emphasized. Indian Divorce, Act, 1869-Ss. 18, 19 and 22-
Petition by wife-Allegation of impotence of husband-Nullity
of marriage or judicial separation sought-High Court rejecting prayer for nullity, but
granting judicial separation on account of cruelty-Validity of order-Supreme Court
holding irretrievable break-down of marriage. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ss. 10 and

_______________________
6. Ms. Jordan Diengdeh vs S.S. Chopra on 10 May, 1985

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 11

13B-Special Marriage Act, 1954-Ss. 23 to 28-Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936-
Ss. 31 to 34-Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939-S. 2-Grounds for dissolution
of marriage not uniform- Necessity for uniform Civil Code-Stressed. HEADNOTE:
The petitioner belonged to the 'Khasi Tribe' of Maghalaya and was born and brought
up as a Presbytarian Christian. She is now a member of the Indian Foreign Service.
The respondent-husband is a Sikh. They were married under the Indian
Christian Marriage Act 1872. The petitioner filed a petition in 1980, for declaration of
nullity of marriage or judicial separation under ss. 18, 19 and 22 of the Indian
Divorce Act, 1869, on the ground of the impotence of her husband. A Single Judge of
the High Court rejected the prayer for declaration of nullity of marriage. HELD: (1) A
comparison of the relevant provisions of the Christian Marriage Act 1872, Hindu
Marriage Act 1955, Special Marriage Act 1954, Parsi Marriage and
Divorce Act 1936, Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, show that the law
relating to judicial separation, divorce and nullity of marriage is far, far from uniform.
[717 B] (2) Under the Hindu Marriage Act, a decree for the judicial separation may
be followed by a decree for the dissolution of marriage on the lapse of 705 separation.

And according to the case of Anupama Misra vs Bhagaban Misra on 1 November,

19717

It is clear from the narration of the facts given above that if the Misc. Case No. 1/63
succeeds and the decree for judicial separation is set aside, then the decree for divorce
cannot be granted on the ground that there has been no resumption of cohabitation as
between the parties for a period of two years or upwards after passing of the decree
for judicial separation in a proceeding to which they were parties. The proceedings
for judicial separation must be restored to its pre-trial stage and the appellant must be
given an opportunity to contest the same. I will, therefore, deal with

______________________
7 Anupama Misra vs Bhagaban Misra on 1 November, 1971

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 12

2. Whether the grounds stated in the petition by the petitioner are sufficient enough to
entitle her to obtain a decree of divorce by the court?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the grounds stated by the petitioner are
not sufficient enough to entitle her to obtain a decree of divorce by the court.

1.1 The Hindu marriage act 1955

The Hindu Marriage Act 1955 is an act to amend and codify the law relating to marriage
among Hindus. The provision for divorce was introduced in the Hindu Marriage Act, 955.
The Hindu Marriage Act defines divorce as dissolution of the marriage. For the interest of
society. Divorce is permitted only for a grave reason otherwise given other alternatives.

1.2 Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Ac, 1955

This section deals with the concept of divorce between two parties in a lawful marriage.

Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 states that;

(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may,
on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce
on the ground that the other party—

(i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any
person other than his or her spouse; or

(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or

(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years
immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or

(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; or

(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or
intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner
cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.

1.2.1 Grounds stated in the petition by the petitioner to obtain a decree of divorce by
court

1.2.1(a) Cruelty

The petitioner had mentioned that “the Respondent husband would return home late
at nights in a drunken state and would physically, mentally and emotionally abuse her”.
These were allegations that were thrown at the respondent with no proof and this caused
further mental stress to the respondent.

1.2.1(b) Adultery

Adultery means the consensual and voluntary intercourse between a married person
with another person, married or unmarried, of the opposite sex.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 13

The following are essentials of adultery:

1. One of the spouses involved in the intercourse with another person, married or unmarried,
of the opposite sex.

2. Intercourse should be voluntary and consensual.

3. At the time of the act, the marriage was subsisting.

4. There must be sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove the liability of another spouse.

In this case, the petitioner has no evidence to prove that the respondent had voluntary and
consensual intercourse with another person, married or unmarried, of the opposite sex during
the period of their marriage.

2.1 Jurisdiction of Family court under Family Courts Act, 1984

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that whenever a suit or proceeding between
the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null
and void or, as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or
judicial separation or dissolution of marriage2 arises, the jurisdiction conferred under section
7 of the family court act, 1984 can be invoked.

Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is as follows;

(1) Subject to the other provisions of ths Act, a Family Court shall---

(a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate
civil court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the
nature referred to in the explanation, and;

(b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a district
court or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil court for the area to which the jurisdiction
of the Family Court extends.

2.2 Petitioner has no cause of action and locus stand to maintain the present petition

It is humble submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the grounds stated by the petitioner are
clearly not sufficient enough to entitle her to obtain a decree a divorce by the court.

The petitioner raised false allegations of cruelty and adultery. The petitioner (Aarohi) had
over exaggerated the facts of the case and was mwntally cruel to the respondent.

_____________________________
2
Smt. Nirmala Manohar Jagesha vsMonohar Shivram Jagesha AIR 1991 Born 259

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 14

3.1.1 (c) The Petitioners allegations were excessive and caused mental strain for the
respondent.

In Gurbux Singh vs Harminder Kaur3 the court held that simple minor aggravations,
squabbles, normal wear and tear of married life which occurs in everyday life in all families
would not be satisfactory for an award of separation on the ground of cruelty.

BalramPrajapati vs Susheela Bai4, in this case, Balram proved that his wife’s behaviou with
him and his parents was aggressive and uncontrollable and that she filed the false complaint
against her husband numerous times. The court held the wife guilty of her actions and
granted divorce to Balram.

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the petitioner had over exaggerated the
facts of the case and was mentally cruel to the respondent.

3.1.2 Adultery

Adultery means the consensual and voluntary intercourse between a married person with
another person, married or unmarried of opposite sex.

The concept of Adultery was added into the Hindu marriage act by the marriage laws
amendment act, 1976.

There are certain essentials required of an act to be the considered as an act of adultery. They
are as follows;

1. One of the spouses involved in the intercourse with another person, married or unmarried,
of opposite sex.

2. Intercourse should be voluntary and consensual.

3. At the time of the act, the marriage was subsisting.

4. There must be sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove the liability of another spouse.

In this case, the petitioner has no evidence to prove that the respondent had voluntary and
consensual intercourse with another person, married or unmarried, of opposite sex during the
period of their marriage.

_________________________________
3
Gurbux Singh vs Harminder Kaur (2010) 14 SCC 301
4
Balram Prajapati vs Susheel Bai 22 April 11 (2003) DMC 708

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 15

3. Whether the respondent is entitled to get maintenance?

The Hindu adoption and maintenance states that (1) A Hindu wife whether married before or
after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband duing
her life time.

(2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her
claim to maintenance-

(a) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to say, of abandoning her without reasonable cause and
without her consent or against her wish, or willfully neglecting her;

(b) if he has treated her with such cruelty as to reasonable apprehension in her mind that it
will be harmful or injurious to live with her husband;

(c) if he is suffering from a virulent form of leprosy;

(d) if he has any other wife living;

(e) if he keeps a concubine in the same house in which his wife is living or habitually resides
with a concubine elsewhere;

(f) if he has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion;

(g) If there is any other cause justifying her living separately;

(3) Hindu wife shall not be entitled to separate residence and maintenance from her husband
if she is unchaste or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion.

Here, the petitioner is able to pay maintenance to his wife and his daughters till the daughters
attain maturity and become able to fulfill their needs themselves but he had to pay
maintenance to his wife for life time.

According to the case of Gibinda Rani Dasi vs Radha Ballabh Das on 5 july, 19108
plaintiff consequently asks for a declaration that he and his wife and children are entitled to
be maintained out of the estate of Radhika Mohan now in the hands of the defendantand
seeks for a decree for arrears of maintenance from the 16th January 1906 up to the 18th June
1997. The claim was resisted substantially on the ground that therewas no express contract
under which the plaintiff could claim maintenance; that under the Hindu Law such a claim
was not sustainable; that in any event, he was not entitled to separate maintenance; and that
as he was of bad character and irregular habit and had grossly insulted his mother-in-law, he
had lost all rights of maintenance, if he ever had any.

_____________________

8 Gibinda Rani Dasi vs Radha Ballabh Das on 5 july, 1910

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 16

The learned subordinate judge has found upon the evidence that the express contract for
maintenance alleged by the plaintiff has not been established, but he has held that there
allowed to turn him out without any provision for their maintenance. It may be conceded as
laid down by this court in the case of Tekait Monmohini vs Basanta Kamar 28 C 751 9 that an
ante-nuptial agreement on the part of the husband that he will never be at liberty to remove
his wife from her paternal abode will not enforced by a court of justice on the ground that it
is contrary to the rules of Hindu law which impose a duty upon a Hindu wife to reside with
her husband wherever he may close to reside. It need not also be disputed that such an ante-
nuptial Agreement on the part of the husband is opposed to public policy and consequently
the father-in-law will not be assisted by any court in his endeavour to enforce it. It does not
follow however that if the son-in-law is willing to abide by the arrangement the father-in-law
or his representative is at liberty to resile from the position deliberately adopted and to fefuse
to maintain him, his wife and children. In our opinion, there is nothing in Hindu law or in
public policy very special reasons, the court are entitled to make a decree for separate
maintenance. In the case before us it is abundantly clear upon the evidence that the plaintiff
has fallen out with his mother-in-law. Their temper is obviously incompatible though it may
be difficult to apportion the blame for the present strained relations between them. One thing,
however, is fairly clear upon the evidence. The mother in law has been anxious to alienate
part of the property inherited by her from her husband; whether such alienation would be
justifiable in law, need not be discussed now, but she clearly sought to obtain the consent of
her daughters who are the next reversionary heirs to the intented Her eldest daughter
apparently with the consent of her husband has been prepared to accommodate her in this
matter, bat her second daughter the wife of the plaintiff under the advice of the husband Has
declined to join her in that attempted alienation. The plaintiff cannot be blamed for the
caution with which he has ached, obviously in the interest of his wife and children who are
the ultimate reversionary heirs, but although such passive obstruction on the part.

______________________________
9 Tekait Monmohini vs Basanta Kamar 28 C 751

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 17

And in the case of Bhagwan Dutt vs Kamla Devi and Anr on 17 October, 197410, section
488 does not confer an absolute right on a neglected wife to get an order of maintenance
against the husband nor does it impose an absolute liability on the husband to support her in
all circumstances. The use of the word “may” in section 488(1) indicates that the power
covered in the magistrate is discretionary. A neglected wife, therefore, cannot under this
section claim as of right an order of maintenance against the husband.

“It is obvious from the language of the section that in order to enable a child to claim
maintenance it has to be proved that the Child is unable to maintain itself. No such condition
has been imposed in the case of a wife. Cases in which maintenance was refused to the wife
merely on the grounds that she was in a position to maintain herself have in my view omitted
to consider the implications of this distinction while construing the scope and effect of S.
488. In my opinion the ability of the wife to maintain herself was not intended by the
legislature to deprive her of the right of maintenance conferred by this section, if she is
otherwise found entitled to it”

Fixing the amount of maintenance, the magistrate is debarred from taking into consideration
the wife’s own separate income it means of support. There is a clear distinction between a
wife’s locus standi, to file a petition under S. 499 and her being entitled on merits to a
particular amount of maintenance there under. This distinction appears to have been
overlooked in Major Joginder Sing’s case (supra). Proof of the Preliminary condition
attached to a neglected child who establish only his competence to file the petition but his
entitlement to maintenance, particularly the fiction of its amount, will still depend upon the
discretion of the Magistrate. As the Magistrate is required to exercise that discretion in a just
manner, the income of the wife, also, must be put in the scales of justice ad against the means
of the husband. The object of those provisions being to prevent vagrancy and destitution, the
Magistrate has to find out as to what is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living
which is neither luxurious nor prenurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the
family. There needs and requirements is the wife for such moderate living (supra) was
explained and distinguished. That case in [Link] v. Kalyankutty (Supra)11 thererin,
the husband was getting a net salary os Rs.240/- while the monthly salary of his wife was
(after deduction) Rs.240/-.

______________________
10 Bhagwan Dutt vs Kamla Devi and Anr on 17 October, 1974
11 [Link] v. Kalyankutty (Supra)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 18

The question was whether the wife in such a financial position has a right to claim
maintenance under S.488 criminal procedure code after referring to the observations of Dua J
in Major Joginder Singh’s case (supra) and surveying the case law on the subject, the learned
single judge of the Kerala High Court correctly summed up the position thus; “To take the
view that in granting maintenance under section 488 to a wife her personal income also can
be considered may prima-facie appear to be against the language of the section because the
condition” unable to maintain itself “ appearing therein attached itself only to child and not to
wife. But that condition has application only in considering the maintainability of the petition
filed under S.488. A wife can file a petition under that section irrespective of the question
whether she is able or unable to maintain herself. But on her application at the time of the
granting of monthly.

According to the case of Ms. Jordan Diengdeh vs [Link] on 10 May, 198512 Civil
code necessity of emphasised. Indian divorce act, 1869 SS 18,19,and 22 petition by wife
allegation of impotence of husband nullify of marriage ITR judicial separation sought high
court rejecting prayer for nullity, but granting judicial separation on account of cruelty
validity of Supreme Court holding irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Hindu Marriage act
1955 SS. 10 and 13B special marriage act, 1954 SS. 23 to 28 Parsi Marriage and Divorce act,
1936 SS. 31 to 34 Dissolution if Muslim Marriage act, 1939 S 2 Ground for dissolution of
marriage not uniform. Necessity for uniform civil code stressed. HEADNOTE: the petitioner
belonged to the ‘Khasi Tribe’ of Maghalaya and was born and brought up as a Presbytarian
Christian. She is not a member of the Indian foreign service. The respondent husband is a
Sikh. There were married under the Indian Christian Marriage act, 1872. A single judge of
the high court rejected the prayer for declaration of nullity of marriage. HELD: (1) A
comparison of the relevant provisions of the Christian marriage act, 1872, Hindu marriage
act, 1955, special marriage act, 1954, Parsi Marriafe and divorce AC v1936, dissolution of
Muslim marriage act 1939 site that the law relating to judicial separation divorce Adha
nullity of marriage is far from uniform [717 B] (2) Under the Hindu marriage act sec 10
provides for judicial separation. It enables either party to a marriage to seek judicial
separation on any of the grounds specified in sec 13(1) and in the case of a wife also on the
grounds specified in sub-sec. 2 of sec 13. Section 11 and according to the case of Anupama
Misra vs Bhagavathi Misra on 1 November, 1971

______________
12 Ms. Jordan Diengdeh vs [Link] on 10 May, 1985

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 19

It is clear from the narration of the facts given above that of the Misc. Case No.1/63 succeeds
and the decree for judicial separation is set aside, then the decree for divorce cannot be
granted on the grounds that there has been I resumption of cohabitation as between the
parties for a period of two years or upwards after ousting is the decree for judicial separation
in a proceeding to which they were parties. The proceedings for judicial separation must be
restored to its pre trial state and the appellant v must be given an opportunity to contest the
same. I will therefore v deal with,

The appellant’s letter to her lawyer Sri P.C Misra requesting the letter not to proceed further
in the case if dated 07-09-61 and has been proved as Ext. 1. It recited that her husband, the
respondent, approached her on 29-08-61 and again on 02-09-61 and broached the subject of
compromising the proceeding regarding judicial separation. It was settled between then that
the judicial separation proceedings should be decree and thereafter he will live with her as
her husband in amity as before, and that she believed in this assurance of her husband and
having complete faith in such assurance she did not contest the proceedings for judicial
separation any further. This letter Ext. 1 was filed by the appellant

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 20

Prayer

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and

authorities cited, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

 Declare that the respondent has not committed fraud any with the petitioner and

marriage is not voidable.

 Declare that the petition filed by the petitioner is not liable and he can’t get divorce

from his wife.

 Declare that the petitioner is not entitled to get judicial separation on the ground of

cruelty.

Pass any other order,direction on relief that it deems fit in the interest of justice,

Equity and good conscious.

Pray

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT