TEAM CODE : ZN - 33

REPUBLIC OF BOGGART, 30th APRIL 2023

___________________________________________________________________________
BEFORE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ACROMANTULA ,

___________________________________________________________________________

CCCA NO. - __/2023

___________________________________________________________________________

ANGELINA ….APPELLANT

VERSUS

FRED
MUNDUNGUS ....RESPONDENTS

___________________________________________________________________________
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS LORDSHIP’S
COMPANION
JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ACROMANTULA
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM FOR THE APPELLANT

DRAWN AND FILED BY COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

__________________________________________________________________________________________
__
[MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT]

1
 8TH ZENITH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

___________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
________________________________________________________________________________

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………..… (3)

I. TABLE OF CASES……………………………………………………………….....(3)

II. BOOKS…………………………………………..………………………………….(4)

III. STATUTES……………………………………………………………….………..(4)

IV. LEGAL DATABASE…………………………………………………..…………..(4)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………….……………………………………….(5)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………(6)

STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………………………………………………..(7)

STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………………………..(8)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………(10)

ARGUMENTS ADVANCE ................................................................................................ (12)

1. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT ..………………...……… (12)

[1.1] Divorce was obtained Fraudulently……..…………...……..………….……………..(12)

[1.2] Fred never wanted to Renounce the world……………………………………………(12)

2. WILL MUNDUNGUS BE LIABLE FOR THE DEFICIENCY OF SERVICES ?.....… (13)

[2.1] They are impleaded as a party…………………………………………….…….……(13)

[2.2] Mungundus did not provide accurate information to the Appellant….………………(14)

3.WHETHER THE ACTS OF PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR WERE ILLEGAL AND IS

VIOLATIVE OF FRED’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO PRIVACY……………… (15)

[3.1] Hiring a Private Detective Agency is Legal for Spouse.………………...…….……..(16)

[3.2] The rights of the Defendant were not violative in nature……..……..………………(17)

[MEMORIAL OF APPELLANT]
2
 8TH ZENITH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

__________________________________________________________________________________
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
__________________________________________________________________________________

S.NO. CASE NAME

1. Amar Nath vs. Shanti devi (1987)

2. Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1995)

3. Smt. Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash (1991)

4. Rishikesh Sharma v. Saroj Sharma (2007)

5. Vishnu Datt Sharma v. Manju Sharma (2009)

6. Preeti Jain v. Kunal Jain

7. Deepti Kaur v. Kunal Julka

8. Sital Das v. Sant Ram & Ors.

9. Baldeo Prasad v. Arya Priti Nidhi Sabha & Ors.

10. Jagar Nath Gir v. Sher Bahadur Singha & Ors.

11. Uyyamperumal & Ors. (2005)

12. Mahadeva Rice & Oil Mills v. Chennimalai Gounder

13. Antony Devraj v. Aralvaimozhi (Kurusadi) Devasahayam Mount Oor &

Thuya Viagula, Annai Church rep by the Trustee (2004)

14. Mumbai International Airport v. Regency convention Centre (2010)

15. Gurshinder Singh v. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. (2020)

16. Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel (1996) II CPJ Q SC

17. South Eatern Railway v. Anand Prasad Sinha I (1991) CPJ 10 (12) NC

[MEMORIAL OF APPELLANT]
3
 8TH ZENITH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

BOOKS

S.NO. BOOK NAME

1. The Family Law in India, Prof. G.C.V. Subba Rao

2. Family, Kinship. And Marriage in India, Oxford India Paperback

3. Introduction to the Constitution of India, Dr Durga Das Basu

4. Civil Procedural Code, C.K.Takwani

STATUTES

S.NO. STATUTE NAME

1. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Indian Divorce Act, 1954.

3. Family Courts Act, 1984.

4. Information Technology Act, 2000

6. The Private Detective Agencies (Regulation) Bill, 2007.

LEGAL DATABASES

S.NO. LEGAL DATABASES

1. SCC Online
2. Manupatra
3. LexisNexis
4. JSTOR
5. Heinonline

6. WestLaw

[MEMORIAL OF APPELLANT]
4
 8TH ZENITH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

__________________________________________________________________________________
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
__________________________________________________________________________________

S.NO. ABBREVIATIONS DEFINITION

1. & And

2. SCC The Supreme Court Cases

3. v. Versus
4. Ors. Others.
5. art. Article

6. AIR All India Reporter

7. SC The Supreme Court

8. no. Number

9. cl. Clause

10. HC High Court

11. Hon’ble Honourable

12. ICA Indian Contract Act

13. § Section

[MEMORIAL OF APPELLANT]
5
 8TH ZENITH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

__________________________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
__________________________________________________________________________________

THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HUMBLY SUBMITS THIS MEMORANDUM

FOR THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT INVOKES ITS
JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 19841. THE
PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND
ARGUMENTS.

1
§ 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984.
[MEMORIAL OF APPELLANT]
6
 8TH ZENITH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

__________________________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS
__________________________________________________________________________________

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Arnold is a peninsula situated in the south of Boggart, with a quasi-federal Government

Structure & is the largest democracy in the world. The Country witnessed a lot of peace-making
reforms in various religions & communities. In 2010, in the state of Errol, Guru Rubeus (a
spiritual leader) began to spread the message ‘experiencing God and His peace by connecting
with nature’. A lot of people showed interest & joined the community who propagated the
message of renunciation of the world & finding peace. Griffin, a leader, conducted several
workshops in Acromantula, where Fred, a 29 year old man resided. Fred was always interested
in attending the workshops conducted & wanted to join the community to see the inside of it.
In 2016, after his graduation, asked Angelina’s, his high school girlfriend’s hand in marriage
& have done their rituals as per the Hindu Marriage Act. After marriage also, Fred kept himself
updated on events while both were working at MNCs. In January 2022, they had a baby girl
due to which Angelina decided to become a stay-at-home mother. After attending a full day
session by Guru Rebeus himself, Fred wanted to renounce the world & he also filled an
application to join the Hangleton Centre of Peace, by Griffin. On Nov 10, 2022, Fred handed
over divorce papers to Angelina & asked her to sign them at the earliest. He expressed his
interest to live alone, in a simple & holy life. Angelina tried to explain to Fred his duties as a
father & a husband. However, Angelina refused to sign the papers. Unable to convince
Angelina, Fred filed a divorce petition in the Family Court

SITUATION THEREAFTER

The Family Court gathered information given by the private Detective Agency, Mundungus
which hired Vernon as the Private Investigator for the case & was given the next hearing. On
March 13, 2023, the Family Court held that the divorce must be granted as there were no new
facts or evidence that helps Court to refuse the divorce or fist order a judicial separation.

[MEMORIAL OF APPELLANT]
7
 8TH ZENITH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

CAUSE OF ACTION

On April 8, 2023, Angelina filed an appeal against the divorce decree at the High Court of
Acromantula, challenging it on various grounds like the divorce was obtained Fraudulently &
that Fred never wanted to renounce the world. At the same time, the Appellant also filed an
application to implead the private detective agency as a party to the appeal & to the made liable
for the deficiency of services provided by Vernon. Fred filed an application to frame additional
issues, i.e, The Private Detective Agency was procuring information relating to personal
information & was illegal and violative of his right to privacy.

CLAIMS

Angelina Claimed that the Divorce must be void & the Private Detective Agency, Mundungus
must be held liable for the Deficiency of Services.

APPEAL

The appeal was filed byAngelina which was registered in the Hon’ble High Court of Acromantula.
The High Court further directed the first hearing to be done on 30th April, 2023.

[MEMORIAL OF APPELLANT]
8
 8TH ZENITH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

__________________________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
__________________________________________________________________________________

1. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT ?

2. WILL MUNDUNGUS BE LIABLE FOR THE DEFICIENCY OF SERVICES ?

3. WHETHER THE ACTS OF PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR WERE ILLEGAL AND IS

VIOLATIVE OF FRED’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO PRIVACY?

[MEMORIAL OF APPELLANT]
9
 8TH ZENITH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

__________________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
__________________________________________________________________________________

1. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT ?

The appeal is maintainable in the Hon’ble High Court of Acromantula under Section 19 of
Hindu Marriage Act, 19552, in which the court ruled that an appeal is maintainable if incase it
is filed within 90 days of the judgement passed by Hindu Law. The Respondent has
fraudulently proceeded with the divorce, which further falls under Section 12(1)(c) of Hindu
Marriage Act3 which states that if the consent of the spouse/guardian of spouse is obtained by
Fraud, the divorce decree becomes voidable in nature. In the case, the appeal is maintainable,
the divorce was obtained Fraudulently & that Fred never wanted to renounce the world.

2. WILL MUNDUNGUS BE LIABLE FOR THE DEFICIENCY OF SERVICES ?

The Mundungus Private Detective Agency will be impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10
(2) of C.P.C4 which said without any application to be impleaded as a party, the Court may
order to be joined as a party in the proceedings. The Investigator, Vernon & the principal of
this Agent, Mundungus will be liable for the deficiency of services under Section 2 (11) of
Consumer Protection Act, 20195, says that any sort of defect, imperfection, quality failure, etc.
which are set as standards for providing a particular service & that the standards have not been
set, it is said to be deficient in nature. According to the proposition, Mundungus has provided
incomplete information due to which Angelina had to face the consequences.

2
§ 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
3
§ 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
4
Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C.
5
§ 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
[MEMORIAL OF APPELLANT]
10
 8TH ZENITH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

3. WHETHER THE ACTS OF PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR WERE ILLEGAL AND IS

VIOLATIVE OF FRED’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO PRIVACY?

The Acts of Private Investigator was Legal & is not violative of Fred’s Fundamental Rights to

Privacy under Section 2 (h) of the Private Detective Agencies Regulation Bill act, 20076 which

defines “Private Detective Agencies” as a body of people working on investigations in a lawful

manner & to earn profits in return. Fred’s Fundamental right to privacy is not being violated

because of the Evidence being essential in nature & under Section 14 of the Family Courts

Act7, which provides a basic structure & procedure of the functioning of the family courts &

at the same time, gives the power to such Courts to take Evidence if incase they are essential

for the Court to declare the judgement. Furthermore, it can get ignorant with the right to privacy

if needed.

6
§ 2(h) of the Private Detective Agencies Regulation Bill, 2007.
7
§14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
[MEMORIAL OF APPELLANT]
11
 8TH ZENITH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

__________________________________________________________________________________
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
__________________________________________________________________________________

1. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

1. The Counsels for the Appellant humbly submit before the Hon’ble HC of Acromantula
that the appeal is maintainable under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, that
an appeal automatically becomes maintainable if it is filed within 90 days prescribed
under Hindu Law & that the divorce is obtained Fraudulently & that Fred never wanted
to renounce the world.

2. The Counsels put forward two contentions, [1.1] The divorce being obtained
Fraudulently, [1.2] Fred never wanted to renounce the world.

3. In the Case of Amar Nath vs. Shanti Devi (1987)8, the issue was of maintainability of
an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19559. The appellant filed a
petition seeking divorce & the Hon’ble HC dismissed the case on the ground that this
case has been appealed after the prescribed time limit. However, he appealed in the SC
& the SC held that the appeal was maintainable as the appellant filed a case within the
period of 90 days.

4. In the present case at hand, the appellant, Angelina, filed the case within the period of
90 days, so it should be maintainable before this Hon'ble HC.

5. In the Case of Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani and others v. Union of India and
others (1995)10, the validity of the case under Section 19 was dealt. It was held that a
husband or spouse cannot renounce a religion without getting a divorce from his wife. In
the Case at hand, the appeal stands maintainable as the Respondent cannot renounce the
world without taking divorce & this appeal must be heard for the same.

8
(1987) 3 SCC 379.
9
§28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
10
(1995) 3 SCC 635.
[MEMORIAL OF APPELLANT]
12
 8TH ZENITH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

[1.1] The divorce being done Fraudulently

5. The Counsels submit before the Hon’ble HC that the divorce by the Respondent, Fred
was done Fraudulently & falls under the Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 195511
which says that mutual consent is a must. The consent must be Free, not done by
Coercion, Fraud or undue influence.

6. In the Case of Smt. Sureshta Devi vs Om Prakash, 199112, in this case, the appellant
and respondent who were a married couple, applied for divorce by mutual consent under
Section 13-B in the District Court in a petition. Later, the appellant submitted an
application, alleging that the Respondent pressured and threatened her into making the
statement she gave. Furthermore, it was asserted that the appellant was not even allowed
to visit or communicate with her family members before filing the divorce petition. The
appellant asked for the petition to be dismissed as a result. The Supreme Court ruled in
this case that a divorce obtained through fraud is invalid, and the party who was cheated
may challenge the divorce order. In the Case at hand, Fred had asked Angelina to sign
the papers as soon as possible, whereas, unable to convince her, he filed a petition in the
Family Court in which, due to Mere Silence, the Court presumed that Angelina was
informed about Fred’s interest in joining the Griffin Committee. It was held by the
Family Court that the divorce has been granted which was done fraudulently.

7. In the Case of Rishikesh Sharma v. Saroj Sharma (2007)13, it was held that the
respondent wife had been living separately since the beginning of the year, and the
marriage has irretrievably dissolved with little chance of reconciliation. The Court further
noted that it would be impossible for the parties to cohabitate, and that there was no
justification for ordering them to do so. Hence, the divorce was granted. In the Case at
hand, referring to the facts to the case, there has been no evidence proving that Fred &
Angelina have been living separately for a year, & according to the grounds of divorce,
the spouses must live separately for a year or more in order to get a divorce granted.
Similarly, Angelina had no intention to live separately & had no intention to do so. Thus,
the divorce was granted fraudulently in the Family Court.

11
§13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
12
AIR 1992 SC 1904.
13
(2007) 14 SCC 419.
[MEMORIAL OF APPELLANT]
13
 8TH ZENITH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

8. In the Case of Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Manju Sharma (2009)14. The couple was living
separately for more than 10 years & had filed a joint petition under 13(b) on the grounds
of mutual consent. While it was seen that both the parties have lived together for more
than 1 year & have mutually agreed to this, the Court granted Divorce. In the Case at
hand, the facts state that the Appellant had tried all the ways to explain to Fred his
responsibility as a husband & a father & the divorce was not mutually consented. The
divorce decree must be declared void.

[1.2] Fred never wanted to Renounce the world.

9. The Counsels submit before the Hon’ble HC of Acromantula that Fred never really
wanted to renounce the world & has dissented Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
195515, which provides several grounds of divorce in which “Renunciation of the world”
is one of them. It is said that if one spouse decides to renounce the world & become a
sanyasi, he/she has the right to ask for divorce on the same grounds. This Section has
been falsely claimed by the Respondent.

10. In the Case of Sital Das vs Sant Ram And Ors16, the spouse claimed to have returned
to Hinduism after renouncing his new faith after converting to Islam. He claimed that
when he gave up Islam, his marriage to his wife was also instantly dissolved. The
Supreme Court, however, ruled that the HMA did not automatically terminate his
marriage when he renounced Islam. The court argued that the HMA did not recognise
renunciation as a basis for divorce and that a Hindu husband's conversion to a different
religion did not end his marriage unless he specifically requested a divorce on that basis.

11. In the Case at hand, Fred wanted to take divorce on the grounds of renunciation of
the world whereas it has clearly been seen that he was kept under Observatory & did not
genuinely renounce the world. Hence, the divorce decree must be declared void.

12. In the Case of Baldeo Prasad Vs. Arya Priti Nidhi Sabha and Ors.17The husband
claimed that his conversion to Islam caused the end of his marriage to his Hindu wife.
This assertion was refuted by the wife, who made the argument that the marriage could

14
(2009) 6 SCC 379.
15
§13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
16
AIR 1963 SC 1164.
17
AIR 2007 SC 2268.
[MEMORIAL OF APPELLANT]
14
 8TH ZENITH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

not be dissolved only because the husband had converted to Islam. The wife was finally
granted support and other rights as a Hindu wife, and the court determined that the
husband's conversion to Islam did not automatically end the marriage. The court further
determined that a conversion performed only to end a marriage was not legal under Hindu
law.

13. In the Case at hand, it is mentioned that Fred had been instated as a temporary member
of Hangleton, as his application to join Griffin has been put on hold which clearly shows
his intentions for not renouncing the world but just being granted a Divorce Decree.

14. In the Case of Jagar Nath Gir Vs. Sher Bahadur Singha and Ors.18,the husband
claimed that his conversion to Christianity caused the end of his marriage to his Hindu
wife. This assertion was disputed by the wife, who made the case that the marriage could
not be dissolved only because the husband had become a Christian. The wife was finally
granted maintenance and other rights as a Hindu wife, and the court determined that the
husband's conversion to Christianity did not automatically end the marriage.

15. In the Case at hand, Fred directly asked Angelina to sign the divorce papers & within
no time, filed an application in the Court seeking divorce whereas, his renunciation does
not automatically end the marriage & he has to mutually conclude the marital rituals
according to hindu law.

2. WILL MUNDUNGUS BE LIABLE FOR THE DEFICIENCY OF SERVICES ?

16. The Counsels for the Appellant humbly submit before the Hon’ble HC of
Acromantula that Mundungus is impleaded as a party & will be liable for the Deficiency
of Services. The Counsel puts forward two contentions. [2.1] They can be impleaded as
a party, [2.2] Mundungus provided accurate information to the Appellant.

[2.1] They can be impleaded as a party.

17. The Counsel submit before the Hon’ble HC that Mundungus is impleaded as a party
under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C which explained that to have all parties engaged in

18
(2005) 7 SCC 82.
[MEMORIAL OF APPELLANT]
15
 8TH ZENITH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

the disagreement about the subject matter appear before the court at the same time so that
the problems can all be resolved at once without delay, annoyance, or money on separate
actions and trials.

18. In the Case of Uyyamperumal and others (2005)19, the Hon’ble SC held that two tests
must be conducted for a party to be considered necessary & they are, a right must be
there to get relief that relate to the proceedings of the on-going case & the decree of
judgement will not be effective enough if the party is absent.

19. In the Case at hand, both the tests, i.e., the right to get relief that relate to the divorce
proceedings in between Fred & Angelina & secondly, the judgement that will be passed
in the absence of Mundungus, will not be as effective as it should be.

20. In the Case of Mahadeva Rice & Oil Mills Vs. Chennimalai Gounder20, the Hon'ble
Madras HC lays down the principles under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the C.P.C & they are
- the presence of third party is impleaded for the adjudication of any real controversy in
the proceedings, if the dispute among parties have been given a judgement such that, it
does not have to come back to the Court again, the third party must be impleaded, the
third party must have direct interests in legal rights, the addition of a third party must not
find way for new grievances of either of the parties which is unnecessary.

21. In the Case at hand, it is noticed that there is a real controversy in between Fred &
Angelina & the presence of Mundungus is required, the presence of the Private
Investigator will make the case moreclear & will provide the best judgement possible as
all the Evidences will be presented in front of the Court, & all the other principles have
been met. Hence, the party must be impleaded.

22. In the Case of Anotony Devraj v. Aralvaimozhi (Kurusadi) Devasahayam Mount Oor
& Thuya Viagla, Annai Church rep by the trustee (2004)21, it was held by the Hon’ble
Madras HC that the person added as one of the parties additionally must be necessary as
a party to conclude the case, his/her presence must help in obtaining relevant Evidence
& the third party should not be considered as a necessary party on the basis of the main

19
(2005) 3 SCC 211.
20
AIR 1968 Mad 287.
21
2004(2) C.T.C. 183.

[MEMORIAL OF APPELLANT]
16
 8TH ZENITH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

issue in the suit. The intention behind adding the person must be that it helps the Court
to effectively adjudicate the issues filed in the suit.

23. In the present Case at hand, as mentioned before, the Private Detective Agency is
merely necessary for the adjudication of the case by the Hon’ble HC & it does help in
obtaining necessary information or Evidence for the ongoing proceedings.

24. In the Case of Mumbai International Airport v. Regency Convention Centre22, it was
held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that a few illustrations for the power of adding of parties
are - An application made by the Appellant/Plaintiff for the addition of parties as
Defendant/Respondent, the Court may implead him under Order 1 Rules 9 & 10 (2).

25. In the Case at hand, the Appellant, i.e., Angeline herself filed an application to
implead the private detective agency as a party to the appeal & to be made liable for
deficiency of services.

[2.2] Mundungus did not provide accurate information to the Appellant.

26. The Counsel submit that Mundungus will be liable as a principal for Vernon under
Section 2 (11) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, says that a deficit/deficient nature is
any flaw, imperfection, shortcoming, or defect in a quality, quantity, nature, worth,
authenticity, capability, or standard that must be preserved and regulated in accordance
with the rules and statutes currently in effect.

27. In the Case of Gurshinder Singh v. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
(2020)23, the complainant took a car insurance from the company & the insurance terms
included coverage for damage due to natural calamities. After the car being damaged in
a flood, the company refused to compensate for the same. The Hon’ble SC held that
Gurshinder Singh is supposed to be compensated for the same & the company cannot
provide deficit amount in their service.

28. In the present Case at hand, Angelina had taken services from Mundungus & due to
the incomplete information provided by them, it was difficult for her to present Evidences

22
(2020) 6 SCC 485.
23
(2020) 13 SCC 655.
[MEMORIAL OF APPELLANT]
17
 8TH ZENITH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

in front of the Family Court, due to which she had to face the further consequences.
Hence, Mundungus did not provide the services promised by him accurately.

29. In the Case of Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel24, even though he was only licensed
as a homoeopathic practitioner, the doctor treated the plaintiff using the allopathic
approach. The patient filed a complaint, holding the doctor accountable for her improper
care. The Commission considered it as a service defect.

30. In the Case at hand, the Private detective agency was supposed to find proper,
complete & accurate information about Fred whereas, Angelina was provided incomplete
information about the same leading to being found a defect in the services provided by
Mundungus, it should be held liable for the same.

31. In the Case of South Eastern Railway v. Anand Prasad Sinha I25, the complainant
boarded a train with his wife. They were travelling in a compartment that was in poor
condition. Moreover the complainant's wife was hurt by several rusty nails. The railway
department was the target of a complaint for poor service. The allegation was determined
to be a "deficiency in service," and the complainant was given a sum of compensation
for the same.

32. In the present Case at hand, Mundungus was hired by Angelina to investigate about
his on-going life plans to figure out if he actually wants to renounce the world, due to the
poor concentration of Vernon, the information was incomplete & it was determined to be
a “deficiency in service” and the complainant should be given compensation for the same.

3. WHETHER THE ACTS OF PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR WERE ILLEGAL AND IS

VIOLATIVE OF FRED’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO PRIVACY.

The Counsel for the Appellant Humbly submits before the Hon’ble HC of Acromantula
that the Acts of Private Investigator/ Private Detective Agency is Legal & is not violative
of Fred’s Fundamental right to privacy. This Contention is two-fold. [3.1] Hiring a

24
[1996] II CPJ 1 SC.
25
[1991] CPJ 10 (12) NC.
[MEMORIAL OF APPELLANT]
18
 8TH ZENITH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

Private Detective Agency is legal for Spouses, [3.2] Whether the rights of the Defendant
were violative in nature.

[3.1] Whether hiring a Private Detective Agency is Legal for Spouses.

The Counsel for the Appellant submits before the Hon’ble HC that under The Private
Detective Agencies Regulation Bill act, 2007, Private Detective Agencies have been
defined under Section 2 (h) which says that a person or group of persons who work with
a valid detective licence for their client in a lawful manner to get remuneration in return
is a Private Detective Agency under Law. Hence, it has been proved that a Private
Detective Agency is Legal & a spouse can hire a Private Investigator for the same.

[3.2] Whether the rights of the Defendant were not violative in nature.

The Counsel for the Appellant submits before the Hon’ble HC that Fred’s Fundamental
Right to Privacy is not being violated as it is a matrimonial case & is accepted under
Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 198426 which says that a Family Court can receive
any documents, information, statements, anything of this matter as evidence if it affects
the decision of the dispute, irrespective of the same evidence being irrelevant or relevant
under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

In the Case of Preeti Jain v. Kunal Jain27, it was seen that the husband accused the wife
for adultery & further, the wife stated that the video recordings which were presented at
Court were violating her Fundamental Right to Privacy, i.e., Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution28. The Counsel further submitted that this video recording must be
considered under Spousal privilege under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872.29 Later, it was held by the Hon’ble HC that the Family Court has the power to
accept or reject the evidence under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1955. This order
of the Rajasthan High Court did not admit that the video recording was violative of the
right to privacy of Preeti Jain and dismissed the appeal. In the Case at hand, the
documents submitted by Angelina given to her by the Private Detective Agencies has not

26
§14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
27
(2008) 7 SCC 1.
28
Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution.
29
§ 122 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
[MEMORIAL OF APPELLANT]
19
 8TH ZENITH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

been given much importance & must have been considered by the Family Court as the
documents are essential in deciding whether the divorce should be granted or not.

In the Case of Deepti Kapur vs Kunal Julka30, the husband filed a petition for cruelty &
to collect Evidence for the same, he had installed a camera to record & submit the
recordings of conversations she had with her parents & friends. The wife claims that the
camera has been violating her fundamental right to privacy & the evidence must not be
considered on this ground. Whereas, the Hon’ble Delhi HC held that the Evidence will
be considered as it is essential for making the judgement on divorce but at the same time,
this should not be taken as approval for everyone to adopt any illegal means to collect
evidence, especially in relationships of confidence such as marriage. The HC further
granted divorce.

In light of the aforementioned contentions and the arguments put forth, the counsels
humbly submit that the appeal is maintainable in the Hon’ble HC of Acromantula, that
Fred had obtained the Divorce Fraudulently, The third party, i.e. Mundungus will be an
impleaded party & must be liable for the deficiency of services, & lastly, hiring a Private
Investigator is legal for spouses, and at the same time, it is not violative of Fred's
fundamental right to privacy.

30
2019 SCC OnLine Del 7522.
[MEMORIAL OF APPELLANT]
20
 8TH ZENITH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

___________________________________________________________________________
PRAYERS
__________________________________________________________________________________

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly requested that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

(1) The appeal is maintainable in the HC of Acromantula & the Grounds for divorce stand
to be Fraudulently taken.
(2) Mundungus will be impleaded as a party & they will be liable for the same.
(3) The Acts of Private Investigator were Legal & not violative of Fred’s Fundamental
rights.

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this act of kindness, the Appellant shall remain duty bound forever.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

[MEMORIAL OF APPELLANT]
21