Trial Diary Specimen

Office of Manmeet Arora, Abhijat and Prosenjeet

Banerjee

1. 1.07.19 – Saket Family Court: Vaishali Jain v. Kartik Jain

- Aggrieved (Vaishali Jain) made complaints under the DVA.
Under the present appeal the Judge was reviewing the
application by her of the removal of CCTV cameras from the
shared household as it violated her privacy.
- Research based on waiving off the cooling off period under 13
(B) of HMA: Precedent of Amardeep Singh v Harveen Kaur was
used, in which case the parties had been living separately for
8 years before filing a petition for divorce. The 6 month
cooling off period prior to divorce was waived, since it had
already been 8 years since they were unable to reach a
settlement.

2. 2.07.19 – Artiva Bose v. Aditi Bose

- Aggrieved sought relief on ground of cruelty and adultery.
- Divorce petition filed under 27(1)(a) of Special Marriage Act,
claiming that after the solemnization of marriage, spouse had
voluntary sexual intercourse with others.
- 27(1)(d) was also claimed – after solemnization, petitioner
had been treated cruelly.

1
 Trial Diary Specimen

3. 3.07.19 – Research: Exceptions Under Prohibition of

Benami Transactions Act, 2016
- Benami transactions are prohibited by law. However, there
are certain exceptional circumstances – property can be held
on behalf of a spouse, child, karta, or a member of the HUF
on behalf of the HUF, among others.
- In Manoj Arora v. Mamta Arora, appellant husband claimed
relief with respect to two properties which he claimed were
purchased by him from his own resources, however the Title
Deeds lay in the name of the respondent wife. Accordingly,
the High Court ruled that properties in the name of the wife
will fall as an exception under 2(9)(a) exception (iii) as it is
legally permissible for a person to purchase an immovable
property from his own resources and he will be the de jure
owner.

4. 4.07.19 – Patiala House Court: Shweta Tyagi v. Sumit

Tyagi
- Petitioner wife has filed for an increase in maintenance, and
has claims under DVA of cruelty and adultery.
- Sumit Tyagi files income affidavit.

2
 Trial Diary Specimen

- Research with petitioner, Shweta Tyagi, on husband’s

expenses and lifestyle in Dubai.

5. 5.07.19 – Leave

WEEKEND

6. 8.07.19 – Shweta Tyagi v. Sumit Tyagi

- Meeting with Shweta Tyagi
- Income affidavit of Shweta Tyagi perused to estimate her
expense, as well as the expenses of her children, compared
with her annual income.
- Inspection of order passed for Afiya Dixit v Syed Mohammed;
Counsel for the petitioner asked for time to file a rejoinder to
the reply to the application for bringing on record certain
facts pertaining to the matter. One week granted.

7. 9.07.19 – Patiala House Court: Chand Rani Puri v.

Joginder Nath Puri
- Applications filed by the petitioner on the basis of Section 26,
read with Sections 18, 19 and 23(2) o the DVA.
- Petitioner asks for an injunction against respondent husband
from entering the second floor of the shared household.

3
 Trial Diary Specimen

- Inspection of order passed

8. 10.07.19 – Meeting with Shweta Tyagi

- Sumit Tyagi’s income affidavits thoroughly perused
- Expenses mapped out, depicting a lavish lifestyle. He is
frequently at clubs, restaurants, cinemas and bars.
- He has not adequately filed his bonus evidence, depicting that
his annual income is far more that documents currently show.
- Evidence of adultery peppered in income affidavit: payment
for toys, women’s beauty salon, children’s nursery school,
and excessive purchase of Viagra every weekend.

9. 11.07.19 – Patiala House Court - Shweta Tyagi v. Sumit

Tyagi
- Matter is listed for arguments
- Adultery charges rebuked by defendants, who claim that
expenses over childrens items were done for a friend in a
financial crunch. No evidence provided for this. Also argued
that women’s beauty salon charges were done by his mother,
who had been travelling to Dubai frequently. No evidence
provided for this. Viagra charge not discussed.

4
 Trial Diary Specimen

10. 12.07.19 – Inspection done for Vaishali Jain v.

Kartik Jain
- Judge dismisses application for removal of CCTV cameras
from the shared household. Not a violation of privacy as
cameras only recorded the exterior portions of the
household.

11. 13.07.19 – Saket Family Court: Mahendra Rawal v.

Meena Rawal
- Listed for arguments.
- Issue; Defendant-petitioner Meena Rawal constantly
harassed by husband who is suffering from early dementia to
move out of the shared home. Mahendra Rawal (husband)
wishes to partition and sell.
- Conveyance Deed states Mahendra Rawal as 50% owner.
- Meena Rawal claims property was bought entirely by her own
funds, and that the land was allotted to her by virtue of her
membership to the housing society.
- Concept of ‘name-lender’. Mahendra Rawal’s name on the
deed was merely a matter of formality, his contribution to the
purchase of the property, as well as its construction and
maintenance has been nil.

5
 Trial Diary Specimen

- The property tax is paid by Meena Rawal, the rent from

tenants comes directly to her, membership fee of housing
society is paid through that rent.
- Mahendra Rawal has claimed to have extra-marital affairs and
has also embezzled funds from the joint family account.

12. 15.07.19 – Delhi High Court; Ashok Baury v. State

- Matter listed for arguments. Adjourned.
- Patiala House Court; Sumiti Tehlani v. Yogesh Tehlani.
- Cross examination.
- Sumiti Tehlani has filed for divorce on the basis of cruelty and
adultery.
- Cross was mostly centered on debunking Yogesh Tehlani’s
claim that his wife had hacked into his email account
numerous times and doctored emails that he sent to other
women.
- It is made clear that the account being referred to is a
business account which is given to each employee by the
company Yogesh Tehlani works for. All emails sent had the
electronic signature of the company. Using the logical
argument, counsel for the petitioner claims that it would
make little sense to doctor and send emails of such a sensitive
nature from a company account. If the petitioner was so privy
to hacking, she would have done so from a personal account.
6
 Trial Diary Specimen

13. 16.07.19 – Patiala House Court: Afiya Dixit v Syed

Mohammad.
- Matter listed for arguments pertaining to maintenance of
Afiya Dixit by father, Syed Mohammad.
- Counsel for the defendant brings up a ‘new’ question of law
for the Judge to consider: Section 125 of the CrPC lays down
the concept of maintenance. It is a secular law. However, in
the case of Sanjay Kumar Sinha v. Asha Kumari, it was held
that HMA 24 (maintenance pendent lite), supersedes CrPC
125. Considering Syed Mohammad was not a Hindu, how
would Section 125 then be interpreted.

WEEKEND

14. 19.07.19 – Patiala House Court; Abhishek Meena v

Promila Meena
- Case pertaining to members of the Meena tribe, married and
divorced under Meena c customs.
- The Meena tribe is found mainly in Rajasthan and Madhya
Pradesh. On 27th February, 2018, Promila Meena claims she
received a notice from the Rajasthan Adivasi Meena Sewa

7
 Trial Diary Specimen

Sangh, a family tribal court, informing her of her divorce, and

amount for monthly maintenance.
- Counsel for Promila Meena claims that the divorce is not
valid.
- Since such scheduled tribes are not governed by the Hindu
Marriage Act, tribal groups can often exploit this legal lacuna.

15. 20.07.19 – Saket Family Court – Mahendra Rawal v.

Rahul Rewal
- Mahendra Rawal files for temporary injunction against son,
Rahul Rewal from entering the shared family household.
- He believes that his son is try to poison him or otherwise
persecute him.
- It is believed that Mahendra Rawal is suffering from early
dementia.
- Rahul Rewal himself is a cancer patient with two young
children. He is divorced and therefore, living in the shared
household is essential and his mother is their primary
caretaker.
- Order is passed shortly after. Application for injunction is
dismissed.

16. 21.07.19 – LEAVE

8
 Trial Diary Specimen

17. 22.07.19 – Shweta Tyagi v. Sumit Tyagi

- Inspection: further arguments listed for the 26th of this
month.
- Meeting with Shweta Tyagi regarding information on Sumit’s
work bonuses.
- It is discovered that every three months, Sumit is paid a bonus
of 59, 775 INR. This is in addition to his monthly salary of 29,
157 INR.
- Arguments prepared for increase in maintenance –
undisclosed salary amount, along with his previously
established lavish lifestyle warrants and increase in
maintenance.

18. 23.07.19 – Research on Anjali Goswami v. Utpal

Goswami
- Essential research for precedents on the Tyagi matter.
- Precedents related to spouses earning income abroad and the
effect that has on maintenance.
- An ongoing matter which currently stands on the footing that
by virtue of earning abroad, maintenance is not affected.

9
 Trial Diary Specimen

19. 24.07.19 – Saket Family Court; Annapurna Nair v

Manu Nair
- Annupurna Nair has filed for restitution. However, in pending
matters, she has filed under many sections of the DVA.
- It is argued by the counsel for the defendant that these
petitions are in friction with eachother and are mutually
destructive.
- The claims are not consistent, one cannot desire restitution
with someone who is being indicted for being cruel and
violent.
- Therefore, the maintainability of the DVA petitions are being
questioned, considering the petitioner has asked for
protection clauses, as well as has filed on behalf of her
daughter under POCSO.
- Moreover, petitioner now asks for restitution, as their
separation was not an ‘unreasonable withdrawal’ by the
husband, but a decision that had already previously been
blessed by the court.

20. 25.07.19 – Research on Abhishek Meena v Promila

Meena

10
 Trial Diary Specimen

- Essential research to accumulate precedents on matters

pertaining to divorce in the Meena tribe as it has been listed
for arguments.
- It was found that in the case of Surajmani Kujur v Durga
Charan Hansdah, the provisions of the HMA were not
applicable to members of such tribes and in the absence of
such a notification, the valid custom governs the field.
- It was found in Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara
Swamy, which was a Supreme Court judgement, that divorce
is permissible as per custom prevailing in the community
wherein both parties to the marriage are members of the
same tribe.

21. 26.07.19 – Patiala House Court: Shweta Tyagi v.

Sumit Tyagi
- Arguments ensued.
- Order passed later of an increase in maintenance.
- Maintenance enhanced by 1,25,000 lakhs.
- Petition for divorce filed.

11