MOOT COURT PROPOSITION

Sushil and Ritu married each other on 15th January, 2011 according to Hindu
rituals. Thereafter they resided in the matrimonial home at Karol Bagh, Delhi
along with the parents of Sushil. Sushil’s mother was a woman who believed in
mythology and was having very orthodox approach towards life. She always
wanted that her son Sushil must have a son for sacramental reasons.

Due to her persistent insistence the couple had to unwillingly conceive a child
which they always wanted to be done after sometime. Ritu went to her parent’s
place for the delivery of the child as per the instructions of her mother-in-law who
believed that the first child should be delivered at her parents place. Ritu delivered
a baby girl on 15th July 2012 due to which there arose a lot of differences between
Ritu and her mother-in-law. Sushil’s mother continuously passed insulting remarks
upon Ritu for the baby girl as she always wanted a grandson. She also threatened
her that if she will not bear a boy for their family, she will remarry her son to
another girl. Sushil also used to fight with his own mother that he is satisfied with
the birth of the girl. Ritu started persuading her husband to leave his parents and
start living separately, to which, Sushil never agreed. He was adamant to stay with
his parents. It led to a lot of arguments and disputes between the couple and Sushil
started drinking and abusing Ritu at times. Their relationship started taking an ugly
turn. Ritu started refusing for sexual intercourse with Sushil and also started
ignoring the household chores and his parents. On the other hand, Sushil started
coming late from office and their family life was shattered. Ritu was disappointed

Page 1
with the events taking place and one day she again requested Sushil to move to
another house in order to improve their relationship, to which Sushil bluntly
refused.

Ritu, frustrated with the constant nagging of her mother-in-law and inability
of her husband to change the residence, decided to leave the matrimonial house
along with her minor daughter and consequently returned to her parent’s house on
18th October 2013. On 10 January 2014 Sushil visited her parent’s house but he
never found her there. Sushil kept on visiting his in-laws house but because of the
mental pressure by her parents, Ritu was never allowed to meet Sushil. He tried to
communicate through phone also but all in vain. Then finally on 24 July 2014, he
filed a petition under Section 9, of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 for the
Restitution of Conjugal Rights to save his marriage. Finally on 23rd January 2015,
Court passed the decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9,
according to which Ritu was supposed to resume her matrimonial home, but she
did not turn up even after decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights. Sushil then
filed an execution of above said decree. Summonses were issued to Ritu at the
given address but the same were returned and marked as “refused to accept”.

That having left with no other alternative remedy Sushil then on 15 th March,
2016 filed a petition for Divorce under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It
was considered as a constructive notice by the Family Court and the Family Court
proceeded with the matter. The petition was heard ex-parte and on the basis of the
evidence produced by Sushil, the Family Court granted divorce to the husband on
26th September 2016. The Copy of the order was sent to Ritu by Sushil on the
address provided. On 25th March, 2017, Sushil remarried Kirti, a Hindu Woman.
Kirti conceived Sushil’s child and the due date for delivery was 18th May, 2018.

Page 2
 Meanwhile, Ritu filed an application on 5th October, 2018, before the Delhi
High Court for condonation of delay for filing appeal against the decree of the
Family Court granting ex-parte decree to Sushil, stating that, she was unaware of
the proceedings, as the summons were served on the address where she was not
residing. She also stated that her parents moved to a new house and accordingly
she also went along with them in the house and claimed that Sushil was very well
aware of her new address and he intentionally did not serve her on her new
address. She came to know about all the above said development through some
common friend. She also stated that she never had the intention to desert Sushil,
but, she only wanted to teach a lesson to her mother-in-law and for the said
purpose, she had taken Sushil into confidence. She argued that she was deeply hurt
by the constant taunts /remarks by Sushil’s mother and consequent arguments with
Sushil also but never desired to severe the matrimonial bond.

After due consideration of the reasons for delay in filing the appeal, the
court condoned the delay and accepted the application for appeal. The case is now
before the appellate court.

Page 3