LB-501: Moot Court, Mock Trial and Internship

LL.B. V Term, Faculty of Law

University of Delhi
CASE ANALYSIS & PLANNING CHART (10 Marks)
Name of the Centre – CLC
Section: I
Student’s Name: Akshayveer Singh Sehrawat
Class Roll No: 191909
Exam Roll No: 19309806137

I. Case Analysis in my Opinion

Client Goals, Objectives and Concerns:

In the case of Raj Malhotra v. Shivani Malhotra, the Petitioner seeks, through an interlocutory
application, to obtain a restrain order forbidding the removal of two minor children from the
Petitioner’s custody by the Respondent-Mother.
Immediate concern of the client is the welfare of the children and owing to the same the petitioner
does not want the children to be living with their mother in the house of her live-in partner, Mr. Ajay
Khanna in London. Petitioner does not want his children to bear the brunt of the Respondent’s
temperamental and volatile nature.
Long Term concern of the Petitioner is to get legal custody of his children as he wants to keep them
with him in New Delhi as it will best serve the interest and welfare of the minor children.

The Core Objective of the Petitioner is:

1. To Prove that it is in the best interest of the children to reside in New Delhi with the Petitioner
and his parents. That the children are happy, have settled in school well and made good
friends in New Delhi. Mr. Raj and the Grandparents dedicate enough time towards the
children to hone their hobbies and the homely bond.
2. To Prove that the mother is not fit to be the guardian due to her temperamental and volatile
nature and the consequences that it has borne on the children.

Brief Facts
My client is a citizen of India and currently resides in New Delhi. His ex-wife is a London resident
and a British citizen. Their marriage has resulted in the birth of two children. Their marriage was
ended by a decree of divorce due to some disputes and incompatibility. My client learned that his ex-
wife had begun a live-in relationship with a divorcee, Ajay Khanna, and had brought the children to
live with her in Ajay Khanna's house since the previous week. The parties had agreed that the minor
children would stay in the Respondent's care during the week, with the Petitioner receiving temporary
custody of the children on weekends from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. My client moved the children to New
Delhi without seeking permission from the London Court due to a pressing need to be with his dying
father in New Delhi. This action was made out of need rather than intentionally breach the court
order's sanctity. The children have been enrolled in a reputable school by the petitioner. They've even
made friends and fondly speak of all the time spent with their grandparents. The respondent was
served with an ad-interim restraint order by the petitioner. The application was approved. Due to the
respondent's lack of stability, the petitioner seeks sole custody of his children.

Most Persuasive Case Theory:

Mr. Raj Malhotra and his wife divorced, and their children were already suffering from mental stress
as a result of their parents' separation. As a result, witnessing their mother's live-in relationship with
another man was not in their best interests. Concerned about his children’s welfare, Mr. Raj Malhotra
made the decision to transport them to Delhi without seeking authorization from the London Court.
His father was also severely ill at the time, and the situation was critical. He was unable to obtain
permission prior to taking the children out of the United Kingdom in this case because he did not want
to leave his children in the United Kingdom.
It is the most persuasive case theory as it is corroborated by the facts of the case and the surrounding
circumstances.

Good Facts:
1. Respondent’s live-in relationship with another man and her decision to take her children
along to live with a person who isn’t an assigned guardian to the children.
2. Respondent once struck her son, Master Rohan.
3. Urgency of plan to rush to India due to father’s ailment.
4. Children have comfortably settled in the new school and made friends.
5. Children’s hobbies are honed and given importance by the Petitioner and his parents.
6. Petitioner is a natural guardian under Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship
Act.
Bad Facts:
1. The Petitioner did not take permission from the London Court before taking the children
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the country.
2. The Petitioner did not inform the Respondent thereby violating the consent decree. Petitioner
has an arrest warrant pending against him because of the same.
3. Petitioner is currently unemployed,
Justifications to Bad Facts:
1. The Petitioner was not in a position to ask permission because of his father's bad illness at the
time. He expresses remorse for having to violate the London Court's consent decree, but
maintains that in such instances, the subject must be handled only on the basis of what would
best serve the interests and welfare of the young children, not on the legal rights of the parties.
[In Kotholla komuraiah & Another versus Kotholla LNIND 2013 AP 708, it was observed
that “ In selecting a guardian, the Court is exercising parens patriae jurisdiction and is
expected, nay bound, to give due weight to a child's ordinary comfort, contentment, health,
 education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings. But over and above physical
comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored”]

2. Petitioner is currently searching for jobs and has enough savings to cater to the welfare needs
of both the children.

II. Case Analyses Chart

Legal Claim Elements of Facts to Support Source of Informal Formal Opponent’s

Claim Claim Proof Discovery Discovery Defences
(Theory, Proof
Discovery
A. The father 1. Ms 1. Ms 1. Cross 1. That
of a child is vested Shivani’s Shivani once examination the Resp.
with guardianship temperamental slapped her son of Ms Shivani slapped out of
of the minor's and volatile Rohan over Malhotra and Previous The motherly
person by section nature. something as testimony of conduct of testimonial concern and
19 (b) of the Act, trivial as Master Rohan the evidence the necessity
and this incomplete and Mr. Raj. respondent received of sometimes
guardianship homework. in a marital through Oral being a
should not be setting. Examination disciplinarian.
interfered with 2. Negative 2. Respond 2. Cross Future of 2. The
unless the guardian effects of the ent, while having examination probability Petitioner. Resp.
is unfit. Respondent’s custody of kids, of Ms. of unhealthy maintained
B. Welfare of live-in was in a live-in Shivani and circumstance The that she her
the minor to be relationship with relationship with testimony of s transpiring testimonial partner are fit
given paramount another man on another man. The Mr. Raj, during the evidence to look after
importance in the welfare of the true nature of Master Rohan present live- received the children
appointing a children. relationship not and baby in through and that live-
guardian as per disclosed to the Muskan. relationship. cross in
Section 7 of children yet. examination relationships
Guardians and of the are a common
Wards Act. Respondent. occurrence in
3. Positive 3. Children 3. State British society
effects of the are happy, have ments of Mr. The 3. No
children living in settled in school Raj, Master statements contested.
New Delhi with well and made Rohan and on record by
Father and good friends in Baby the children.
Grandparents. New Delhi. Mr. Muskan.
Raj and the
Grandparents
dedicate enough
time towards the
children to hone
their hobbies and
the homely bond.