Page | 0

UNIVERITY INSTIUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES ACADEMIC MOOT COURT SESSION

TEAM CODE- C7

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE KARKARDOOMA FAMILY COURT AT DELHI

_____________________________________________________________________________
____

_____________________________________________________________________________
____________

UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,1955 FOR DIVORCE

_____________________________________________________________________________
____________

IN THE MATTER OF –

HMA PETITION NO _____/2022

PETITIONER REPONDENT

MANOJ VERSUS MEHAK

NAME – SHUBHAM

CLASS – B.Com. LL.B. (Hons.)

ROLL NO – 234/18

SEMESTER – 9th

[Type text] MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT [Type text]

 Page | 1
UNIVERITY INSTIUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES ACADEMIC MOOT COURT SESSION

TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF ABBREVIATION ……………………………………………….……pg.2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………………………..pg.3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………….pg.4

STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………pg.5

ISSUE RAISED……………………………………………………………………….pg.6

SUMMARY OF ISSUES………………………………………………………………pg.7

ARGUMENT ADVANCED…………………………………………………………..pg.8

PRAYER ……………………………………………………………………………...pg.13

[Type text] MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT [Type text]

 Page | 2
UNIVERITY INSTIUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES ACADEMIC MOOT COURT SESSION

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

1 AIR All India Reported

2 & And

3 V. Versus

4 HMA Hindu Marriage Act

5 i.e. That is

6 HC High Court

7 MP Madhya Pradesh

8 SC Supreme Court

9 SCC Supreme court cases

10 UOI Union of India

11 ORS. Others

12 Hon’ble Honourable

[Type text] MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT [Type text]

 Page | 3
UNIVERITY INSTIUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES ACADEMIC MOOT COURT SESSION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS –

• SIR DINSHAW FARDUNJI MULLA,MULLA HINDU LAW(21st edition 2013)

• Dr.U.P.D KESARI ,MODERN HINDU LAW,(10th edition 2015 )
• Dr. PARAS DIWAN,MODERN HINDU LAW,(24th edition 2019)

STATUTE –

• HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,1955(25 OF 1955)

WEBSITES –

• www.manupatra.com
• www.livelaw.com
• www.indiankanoon.com
• www.lawoctopus
• www.legalservices.com

CASES-

➢ Jayachandra v.Aneel Kaur AIR2004

➢ Joseph Shine v. Union of India AIR 2018

➢ Naveen Kohli v. Neellu Kohli AIR2006 SC 1675

➢ Neelam Kalra v. Vinod Kalra AIR(1981) 1 DMC42

➢ Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey AIR2002

➢ Swaraj Garg v. K.M Garg AIR1978

➢ V.Bhagat v. D.Bhagat AIR 1994 SC 710

[Type text] MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT [Type text]

 Page | 4
UNIVERITY INSTIUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES ACADEMIC MOOT COURT SESSION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The hon’be Family court of Karkardooma at Delhi has the jurisdiction to hear the instant matter under section
13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955.

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as :

1)Any marriage solemnised, 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 solemnisation 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

STATEMENT OF FACT

[Type text] MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT [Type text]

 Page | 5
UNIVERITY INSTIUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES ACADEMIC MOOT COURT SESSION

1. Manoj and Mehak got married on 30th May 2021 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Delhi.

2. At the time of marriage,Manoj was working in a company with salary of Rs 25,000/-per month whereas
Mehak was serving as a TGT teacher at a reputed school in Chandigarh,drawing salary of Rs 20,000/-per
month.

3.After marriage,Manoj and Mehak started residing at Delhi with Manoj”s parents .He was a very caring
husband.The house was quiet small for a joint family .Mehak had to face a lot of discomfort.They both jointly
stayed for some time in Delhi.

4.However,after 6 months of marriage ,Manoj took leave and came to Chandigarh and at that time Mehak
proposed Manoj to settle at Chandigarh where she was serving as a primary teacher in a school.She informed
Manoj that she had received a call from her school to re-join.Manoj did not agree to it and it led to some
disputes,differences and sometimes quarrels between them.

5.In November 2021,Mehak conceived and ultimately in first week of May 2022,Mehak went to her parents
house for the purpose of delivery and rest.A baby was born to Mehak on 7th August ,2022 ,the information of
which was concealed from Manoj.

6.Mehak thereafter has not returned to matrimonial house and have refused to come back until Manoj joins her
at Chandigarh.The repeated requests of Manoj to come and stay at Delhi have been turned down by
Mehak.Manoj’s parents are now aid and ailing and he has to look after them at Delhi and such he cannot leave
them.

7.Finding difficulties to take care of his parents and seeing the changed behavior of Mehak, Manoj felt like
marrying again and as such he filed a case against Mehak for divorce at Delhi.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE -1
[Type text] MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT [Type text]
 Page | 6
UNIVERITY INSTIUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES ACADEMIC MOOT COURT SESSION

Whether or not the Respondent act amounts to mental cruelty to the husband under
section 13(1)(ia)of the Hindu Marriage Act1955?

ISSUE -2
Whether the petition filed by the husband is maintainable on the ground of

mental cruelty?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue-1
Whether or not the Respondent act amounts to mental cruelty to the husband under section 13(1)(ia)of the
Hindu Marriage Act 1955?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that in the instant case the respondent that is the wife has not
committed any act of cruelty to the husband. The conduct complained of cruelty should be grave and
weighty,that is something more than ordinary wear and tear of married life.here ,the acts of the respondent
alleged by the petitioner were not of such degree of cruelty that petitioner’s life became miserable and hence
marital tie be snapped.Additionally,those acts were just ordinary wear and tear of the marriage and doesn’t

[Type text] MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT [Type text]

 Page | 7
UNIVERITY INSTIUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES ACADEMIC MOOT COURT SESSION

amount to cruelty.The respondent has just chosen and prioritized her carrer.Moreover,matrimonial adjustment
by bringing the ailing parents of the petitioner to Chandigarh can meet both the needs ,that is the respondent act
here does not amount to cruelty.

Issue-2

Whether the petition filed by the husband is maintainable on the ground of mental cruelty?

It is highly submitted before the hon’ble court that the petition filed by the husband is not maintainable on the
ground of mental cruelty because the respondent that is the wife has not given any mental pain and suffering to
the husband .And the respondent conduct is not of grave and weighty nature that the petitioner could not live
together with the respondent.

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

(A) Whether or not the Respondent act amounts to mental cruelty to the husband under section 13(1)(ia)of the
Hindu Marriage Act 1955?

1.Matrimonial matters are matters of delicate human and emotional relationship. It demands mutual trust,
regard, respect, love and affection with sufficient play for reasonable adjustments with the spouse. The
relationship has to conform to the social norms as well. The matrimonial conduct has now come to be governed
by statute framed, keeping in view such norms and changed social order.It is humbly submitted before the
hon’ble court that parties to a marriage tying nuptial knot are supposed to bring about the union of souls.It
creates new relationship of love,affection ,care and concern between the husband and the wife.(1)

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as :

[Type text] MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT [Type text]

 Page | 8
UNIVERITY INSTIUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES ACADEMIC MOOT COURT SESSION

1)Any marriage solemnised, 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 solemnisation of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his
or her spouse; or]

[(ia) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty;(2)

The term cruelty constitutes both acts of physical and mental cruelty.Even, though act does not define mental
cruelty as such,the Supreme court has in many verdicts defined and established the grounds of mental cruelty.

(1)Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur

(2)The Hindu Marriage Act,1955,Section 13

2. THAT THE CONDUCT OF RESPONDENT IS NOT OF BRUTAL AND GRAVE NATURE

AND HENCE NO MENTAL CRUELTY

2.1 It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that in Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra
Pandey(3) ,the hon’ble Supreme court observed that “Cruelty to be distinguished from the ordinary wear
and tear of family life.It cannot be decided on the basis of sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be
adjudged on the basis of the course of the conduct which would in general be dangerous for a spouse to
live with the other.”Establishing the facts of the present case,the differences, disputes and sometimes
quarrels between them falls under ordinary wear and tear of family life and not cruelty.

2.2 It is humbly submitted before the hon’be court that in Neelam Kalra v. Vinod Kalra (4), Justice
Ms Leela Seth observed “ the conduct should be grave and weighty,it should be more serious than
ordinary wear and tear of marriage.”Establishing the present case there is no such conduct on the part of
respondent which falls under grave and weighty conduct and thus no cruelty on the husband has been
committed.

In Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (5),the supreme court has observed that the conduct complained of should be
grave and weighty.It should be of such nature that no reasonable person should tolerate it.It should not be
ordinary wear and tear.

[Type text] MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT [Type text]

 Page | 9
UNIVERITY INSTIUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES ACADEMIC MOOT COURT SESSION

(3)AIR 2002 SC 591

(4)(1981)1 DMC 42

(5) 2006 SC 1675

2.3 In Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja,the court held that it is practically impossible to establish with exactitude
what all can amount to mental cruelty.It is not that every conduct of a party in matrimonial relationship that is
not in accordance with the other party will lead to cruelty upon the other party.Random quarrels and arguments
are part of a marital relationship .The conduct must be of grave and brutal nature so as to make the life of the
other party miserable and one party causes mental pain,agony of suffering of such a higher magnitude that it
severes the marital bond and it become impossible for the suffering party to continue living with the other party.

3. The respondent here has in no way meted out mental cruelty to the petitioner by refusing to join the
matrimonial home at Delhi due to her job at Chandigarh.Moreover ,the ailing parents of the petitioner can be
brought to Chandigarh so that they can be taken care of.

4. PRIORITIZING CAREER DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CRUELTY

4.1 If a woman gets good designation or good job on the strength of her education and if a husband
is not earning good income and is residing at another place after the marriage, wife cannot be
compelled, according to orthodox Hindu mythology, to leave her good services or status and stay at the
husband's place. If a woman refuses to do so, she cannot be called upon to be ready for divorce. If it is
so acted upon, it would be an insult to the woman's pride and it would amount to denial of a woman's
right of equality. In view of the same, it cannot be said that the wife has committed an act of cruelty
towards the husband .

[Type text] MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT [Type text]

 Page | 10
UNIVERITY INSTIUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES ACADEMIC MOOT COURT SESSION

4.2 Article 14 -In Swaraj Garg vs. K.M Garg(6), the court held that if a husband and wife are
gainfully employed and the wife is earning more than the husband, then there are sufficient reasons for
the wife to live separately. The court also said that there is nothing in Hindu Law saying that the wife
has no right in choosing the place of a matrimonial home. Thus,the respondent here is just exercising
her right to equality under article14 and not committing any act of cruelty upon husband.

4.3 The court while referring to Supreme court decision in “Joseph Shine v. UOI(7) ,in which it was
observed that “wishes of the husband to throw the choices to the wife to hear his wishes to make a
choice” as happened in this case will slaughter her personal identity .Therefore,the husband and the wife
are to be equally treated and if the wife opted to join the job at different place,she cannot be otherwise
forced at the behest of the husband or the family members to remain at her matrimonial home alone.

(6) AIR 1978

(7) AIR 2018

4.4 The Bombay High Court observed that the desire of the wife to continue in Canada cannot be said to be an
act of selfishness or unjustified.Thus, it cannot be said that cruelty has been meted out on the husband by the
refusal of the wife to join him in India.Therefore,in this case ,the court has rightly observed that a woman
cannot be expected to leave her flourishing career and joins the husband as per his will.

The career and the choices of the wife should have equal importance and thus mere refusal to act as per the
whims of the husband cannot be said to be inflicting mental agony on the husband and thus is not leading to
mental cruelty by the wife.

5. “The question to the course to be adopted if the wife refuses to resign her job and the husband refuses
to allow the wife to continue in the job,is more difficult to decide .Mere refusal on the wife’s part to resign her
job is not a sufficient ground for the husband to seek divorce on the ground of cruelty.”(8)

6. Therfore,it is humbly submitted that the respondent has not by any means inflicted mental cruelty upon
the petitioner and and has just chosen and prioritized her career.Moreover compromise and understanding is the
very base of a marital bond,thus matrimonial adjustment by bringing the ailing parents of the petitioner to
Chandigarh can meet both the ends thereby barring the need of divorce.

6.1 Thus, the respondent has not committed any act of mental cruelty upon husband and cannot be charged
under section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955.

[Type text] MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT [Type text]

 Page | 11
UNIVERITY INSTIUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES ACADEMIC MOOT COURT SESSION

(8) Raghavacharia on Hindu Law ,Vol.!,Seventh Edition,Pge no-58

(B) Whether the petition filed by the husband is maintainable on the ground of mental cruelty?

The term cruelty consists of both physical and mental cruelty.Even though act does not define mental cruelty as
such,the Supreme court in many verdicts defined and established the grounds for mental cruelty. It is highly
submitted before the hon’ble court that the petition filed by the husband is not maintainable on the ground of
mental cruelty because the respondent that is the wife has not given any mental pain and suffering to the
husband .And the respondent conduct is not of grave and weighty nature that the petitioner could not live
together with the respondent.

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that in V.Bhagat v. D Bhagat,(9) Supreme court held that a
conduct that causes mental pain and suffering that make it impossible to live with that person is mental
cruelty.Mental cruelty such that it cannot be reasonably expected to live together.And in instant case ,the
petitioner has not suffer any such mental pain and suffering which makes him impossible to live with her
wife.The respondent has not committed any such act as the husband cannot live together with her,thus the
petition filed by him for divorce is not maintainable as there is no act of mental cruelty on the side of repondent.

[Type text] MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT [Type text]

 Page | 12
UNIVERITY INSTIUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES ACADEMIC MOOT COURT SESSION

(9) AIR1994 SC 710

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities cited, the Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to hold that:

The respondent has not committed any act of mental cruelty upon the husband.

AND

That the court may issue any other order as the court deems fit in the interest of justice,equity and good
conscience.

For this act of kindness ,the respondents shall be duty bound forever.

[Type text] MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT [Type text]

 Page | 13
UNIVERITY INSTIUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES ACADEMIC MOOT COURT SESSION

[Type text] MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT [Type text]