Name: Poonam Bansal

Roll No. 33008

BEFORE THE HON’ABLE

FAMILY COURT OF BOMBAY

IN THE MATTER OF

Ananya…………………………………………………………………………...Petitioner

VS.

Aarav ………………………………………………………………………….Respondent

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’ABLE JUSTICE

OF THE

HON’ABLE FAMILY COURT OF MUMBAI

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS [INDEX]

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATION

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

7. ARGUMENTS ADVERSED-:

8. PRAYER

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
AIR All India Reporter
Art. Articles
Anr Another
FIR First Information Report
HC High Court
i.e. That is
IEA Indian Evidence Act
IPC Indian Penal Code
PMR Post Mortem Report
PS Police Station
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Record

SLP Special Leave Petition
UOI Union of India
v. Versus

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Legal Databases:

1 Manupatra
2 SCC Online
3 Westlaw
4 Indiankanoon

Statutes and Acts

1 The India Penal Code

2 The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
3 The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted that the Respondent has appeared before this Honorable
Court in response to the notice sent to the respondent with regards to the petition
filed by the appellant under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On April 1, 2015, the petitioner, Ananya, and Arav entered into a marital
agreement and subsequently solemnized our marriage. We entered into this
sacred union with genuine intentions of building a life together.
2. Initially, Ananya resided with me at our matrimonial place for a brief period
of five days following the solemnization of our marriage. Regrettably, during
this time, our marriage was not consummated due to reasons not within my
control. The lack of consummation was neither my intention nor my desire,
and I remained committed to resolving this issue.
3. Ananya, following the customs and practices of Indian society, returned to
her parents' home after the initial five days, anticipating that the situation
would improve over time. Her parents urged her to be patient and expressed
hope for reconciliation.
4. Despite our challenges, I always treated Ananya with kindness, respect, and
care. I was willing to work on our marriage and resolve the issues that arose.
Ananya's decision to move out of the matrimonial home in May 2020 was
unilateral and unexpected.
5. In my efforts to preserve our marriage, I filed a petition under Section 9 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. I
genuinely wanted our marriage to continue and took legal action to that
effect. However, the petition remained uncontested by Ananya, and she did
not return to our matrimonial home.
6. I consistently made sincere attempts to persuade Ananya to return, but she
adamantly refused to do so, despite my willingness to address her concerns.
7. It is pertinent to note that Ananya moved out of our matrimonial home with
her personal belongings, including her Stridhan, without citing any
reasonable or valid justification for her departure.
8. The demand made by Ananya to live separately from my parents was both
absurd and unacceptable, given my unemployed status at the time. I was
unable to financially support a separate household.
9. In light of these facts, I, Aarav, the respondent, maintain that my actions have
been consistent with a genuine desire to uphold our marital commitment and
protect the sanctity of our marriage. I respectfully submit these facts to this
Honorable Court for its consideration.

6
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Issue No.1

Whether the ground stated in the petition by the Petitioner are sufficient enough to
entitle her to obtain a decree of divorce?

Issue No.2

Whether the petition is maintainable.?

Issue No.3

Whether the Petitioner has any cause of action and locus standi to file and maintain
the present petition?

7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the ground stated in the petition by the Petitioner are sufficient
enough to entitle her to obtain a decree of divorce?
In response to the question of whether the grounds stated in the petition by the
petitioner, Ananya, are sufficient to entitle her to obtain a decree of divorce, it is
respectfully submitted that the grounds presented are insufficient and do not justify
the dissolution of the marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

In conclusion, the grounds presented by the petitioner do not, on their own, provide
sufficient justification for the dissolution of the marriage. It is essential for the
court to examine the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence supporting these
allegations and consider the respondent's commitment to the marriage, genuine
efforts to resolve the issues, and the impact of the petitioner's actions on the marital
relationship.

2. Whether the petition is maintainable.?

In response to the question of whether the petition filed by the petitioner, Ananya,
is maintainable, it is respectfully submitted that the petition is not maintainable for
given reasons
In conclusion, the grounds presented by the petitioner do not, on their own,
provide sufficient justification for the dissolution of the marriage. It is essential for
the court to examine the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence supporting
these allegations and consider the respondent's commitment to the marriage,
genuine efforts to resolve the issues, and the impact of the petitioner's actions on
the marital relationship

3. Whether the Petitioner has any cause of action and locus standi to file and
maintain the present petition?

In response to the query of whether the petitioner, Ananya, has a cause of action
and locus standi to file and maintain the present petition, it is respectfully
submitted that the petitioner lacks a valid cause of action and locus standi for the
following reasons:
in conclusion, the petitioner's failure to establish valid grounds for divorce, her
non-contestation of the Section 9 petition, her abandonment of the matrimonial
home, and her failure to exhaust available legal remedies for reconciliation
collectively impact her cause of action and locus standi to maintain the present
petition for divorce.
8
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the ground stated in the petition by the Petitioner are sufficient
enough to entitle her to obtain a decree of divorce?

In response to the question of whether the grounds stated in the petition by the
petitioner, Ananya, are sufficient to entitle her to obtain a decree of divorce, it is
respectfully submitted that the grounds presented are insufficient and do not justify
the dissolution of the marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

1) Non-Consummation of Marriage: The petitioner alleges that the marriage

was not consummated within the initial five days following the
solemnization. However, this situation was beyond the respondent's control,
and he was willing to work towards resolving it. Non-consummation alone,
particularly under the specific circumstances presented, should not serve as a
ground for divorce. It is important to consider the genuine intent and efforts
of the parties to overcome this issue.

2) Allegations of Cruelty: The petitioner claims physical, mental, and

emotional abuse by the respondent. Nevertheless, the veracity of these
allegations is disputed. The respondent maintains that he always treated the
petitioner with kindness and respect and was committed to preserving the
marital relationship. The allegations need to be substantiated with credible
evidence and verified in accordance with the legal standards for cruelty as
per Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

3) Extra-Marital Affairs and Alcoholism: The petitioner's assertion of the

respondent's involvement in extra-marital affairs and alcoholism is
contested. These allegations require rigorous scrutiny and substantiation, as
they have significant implications on the grounds for divorce. The court
should consider the reliability and credibility of the evidence presented by
the petitioner.

4) Unilateral Departure: It is crucial to assess the petitioner's decision to move

out of the matrimonial home unilaterally and her refusal to return. This
action has had a substantial impact on the marital relationship. Whether such
actions are justified or reasonable in seeking a divorce under Section 13 of
the Hindu Marriage Act needs to be carefully evaluated.

9
In conclusion, the grounds presented by the petitioner do not, on their own, provide
sufficient justification for the dissolution of the marriage. It is essential for the
court to examine the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence supporting these
allegations and consider the respondent's commitment to the marriage, genuine
efforts to resolve the issues, and the impact of the petitioner's actions on the marital
relationship.

2. Whether the petition is maintainable.?

1) In response to the question of whether the petition filed by the petitioner,

Ananya, is maintainable, it is respectfully submitted that the petition is not
maintainable for the following reasons:

2) Uncontested Petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights: The respondent

filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking
restitution of conjugal rights. This petition was a sincere effort to preserve
the marriage and address the issues that had arisen. Significantly, the
petitioner did not contest this petition and failed to comply with the court's
orders for restitution. The non-contestation of the Section 9 petition raises
concerns regarding the petitioner's commitment to the marriage. Her failure
to respond or return to the matrimonial home, as ordered by the court, affects
the maintainability of the present appeal for divorce.

3) Abandonment of Matrimonial Home: The petitioner, Ananya, made the

decision to unilaterally move out of the matrimonial home and reside
separately. This action is a form of abandonment of the marital relationship
and the matrimonial home. Such abandonment, coupled with her refusal to
return to the respondent's home, significantly affects the maintainability of
her appeal for divorce under Section 13.

4) Non-Exhaustion of Remedies: The petitioner's failure to engage in the

process of reconciliation as ordered by the court and her refusal to comply
with the Section 9 petition for restitution of conjugal rights indicate a lack of
good faith efforts to salvage the marriage. She has not exhausted available
legal remedies before seeking a divorce.

10
 5) Lack of Sufficient Grounds: The grounds cited in the petitioner's appeal for
divorce, as previously discussed, are insufficient and need rigorous scrutiny.
Without clear and substantiated grounds for divorce, the maintainability of
the petition is questionable.
In light of the above points, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner's appeal
is not maintainable, considering her failure to contest the Section 9 petition for
restitution, her abandonment of the matrimonial home, and her non-exhaustion of
available remedies for reconciliation. The petitioner's actions and inactions have a
significant impact on the maintainability of her current appeal for divorce.

3. Whether the Petitioner has any cause of action and locus standi to file and
maintain the present petition?

In response to the query of whether the petitioner, Ananya, has a cause of action
and locus standi to file and maintain the present petition, it is respectfully
submitted that the petitioner lacks a valid cause of action and locus standi for the
following reasons:

1) Failure to Establish Sufficient Grounds: The petitioner's claims are primarily

based on allegations of non-consummation, cruelty, and misconduct,
including extra-marital affairs and alcoholism on the part of the respondent.
However, these allegations have not been substantiated with credible
evidence. Without the requisite evidence to establish valid grounds for
divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner lacks a
valid cause of action to seek a decree of divorce.

2) Non-Exhaustion of Legal Remedies: The petitioner has failed to exhaust

available legal remedies for reconciliation before seeking a divorce.
Specifically, the respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, a legitimate
attempt to restore the marital relationship. The petitioner did not contest this
petition, nor did she comply with the court's orders for restitution. Her
refusal to participate in the reconciliation process, which is a prerequisite
under the law, affects her locus standi to seek a divorce.

3) Abandonment and Unilateral Departure: The petitioner's unilateral decision

to move out of the matrimonial home and reside separately constitutes
abandonment of the marital relationship and the matrimonial home. Her
actions have disrupted the marital status quo and have a direct bearing on her
locus standi to file for divorce.

11
 4) Non-Contestation of Section 9 Petition: The respondent filed the Section 9
petition to seek the return of the petitioner to the matrimonial home. This
petition remained uncontested, and the petitioner did not comply with the
court's orders to return to the matrimonial home. Her non-contestation and
failure to comply with the court's orders further erode her locus standi to
maintain the present petition for divorce.

in conclusion, the petitioner's failure to establish valid grounds for divorce, her
non-contestation of the Section 9 petition, her abandonment of the matrimonial
home, and her failure to exhaust available legal remedies for reconciliation
collectively impact her cause of action and locus standi to maintain the present
petition for divorce.

12
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities

cited, may this Hon’ble Court be pleased to

1) That this Honorable Court, in the interest of justice, may be pleased to

dismiss the petitioner's appeal seeking a decree of divorce under Section 13
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2) That all costs, charges, and expenses incurred by the respondent in

defending against the petitioner's appeal may be assessed and awarded as per
the Court's discretion.

3) Any other relief or order that this Honorable Court deems appropriate and
just under the circumstances.

Place: Mumbai

Date:

S/d

Defendants Advocate

13
BEFORE THE HON. HIGH COURT of HUMBAI , Division Bench

Appeal No 123 of 2023

State of Maharashtra
Ananya
(APPELANT)

V/s

Arav

(RESPONDENT)

Application.

Dated on this ____________________________________

Adv. Mr. XYZ

Advocate, High Court.
Advocate for Appellant
Mumbai.
xyz@gmail.com

14