IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE DISTRICT JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,

NARESH PETITIONER

VERSUS

VEENA RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Proposition……………………………………………………………………

List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………...

Index of Authorities ……………………………………….......................

Jurisdiction……………...………………………………………………....

Statement of Facts……….. …………………………………………...........

Question of law …………………………………………………………….

Arguments…… ………………………………………………………..

Prayer………………………………………………………. ………… …..

Relevant Sections…..……………………………………………………….

Power of Attorney…………………………………………………….

Authorities……………………………………………………………..

2
 PROPOSITION

Naresh marred to Veena on 28.04.2000 after performing Hindu Rites. A daughter,

named Rajni was born out of the wedlock on 13.10.2001. Veena was not happy with the
marriage as she started doubting that his husband had some extra martial affair with one of their
made Kamla. Veena also wanted Naresh to live separately from his family but this demand was
not accepted by Naresh. On 04.09.2004, Veena picked up a quarrel with Naresh and went to
bathroom. She locked the bathroom door from inside and put kerosene on her body and tried to
commit suicide. On getting smell of kerosene Naresh, his elder brother and some of their
neighbours broke open the bathroom's door and saved Veena. After this incident, Veena left her
matrimonial home and never returned.

Naresh filed petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty that was contested by Veena.
During this Trial, Veena failed to prove the existence of any maid named Kamala ever worked
in their matrimonial home. The only thing regarding extra material affair, which was proved by
Veena, was that there was some relative of Naresh named Kamala who had visited their
matrimonial home a few times.

On Naresh's side, no FIR against Veena for attempt to commit suicide was placed on
record, but only Naresh, his elder brother and a neighbor were examined on this aspect.

3
 .LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

Cri L J CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL

Cr.P.C CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

HC HIGH COURT

Hon’ble HONORABLE

PW PROSECUTION WITNESS

SC SUPREME COURT

U/S UNDER SECTION

V. VERSUS

C.P.C. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

4
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Referred
 Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate - Versus Neela Vijaykumar Bhate 2003(2) RCR 813
 Ramchander Versus Ananta 2015(3) ALT 38

Statute Referred
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

5
 JURISDICTION

A divorce petition filed in the District of parties and also where the

marriage between the parties was solemnized, therefore this Hon'ble Court has got the

jurisdiction to entertain and decide the case.

6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of this Hon’ble Court the facts of the present case are
summarized as follows:

Naresh marred to Veena on 28.04.2000 after performing Hindu Rites. A daughter,

named Rajni was born out of the wedlock on 13.10.2001. Veena was not happy with the
marriage as she started doubting that his husband had some extra martial affair with one of their
made Kamla. Veena also wanted Naresh to live separately from his family but this demand was
not accepted by Naresh. On 04.09.2004, Veena picked up a quarrel with Naresh and went to
bathroom. She locked the bathroom door from inside and put kerosene on her body and tried to
commit suicide. On getting smell of kerosene Naresh, his elder brother and some of their
neighbours broke open the bathroom's door and saved Veena. After this incident, Veena left her
matrimonial home and never returned.

Naresh filed petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty that was contested by Veena.
During this Trial, Veena failed to prove the existence of any maid named Kamala ever worked
in their matrimonial home. The only thing regarding extra material affair, which was proved by
Veena, was that there was some relative of Naresh named Kamala who had visited their
matrimonial home a few times.

On Naresh's side, no FIR against Veena for attempt to commit suicide was placed on
record, but only Naresh, his elder brother and a neighbor were examined on this aspect.

7
 QUESTION OF LAW

Q1. Does attempt to commit suicide amounts to cruelty under Hindu marriage Act?
Q2. Does making baseless allegation of extra material affair amounts to cruelty or not?
Q3. Does demand to live separately for monetary consideration amounts to cruelty?
Q4. Whether such allegations of extra material affair which are made for the first time in
written statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross
examination could be considered by court while deciding a plea of divorce?

8
 ARGUMENT

Q1. Does attempt to commit suicide amounts to cruelty under Hindu marriage
Act?
Ans. No these are baseless allegation against wife. There is no FIR related to the
attempt of suicide even there is medical on record of veena of said alleged
attempt. In the absence of the FIR and medical record this allegation is not
reliable merely on the statement of interested witnesses.
Q2. Does making baseless allegation of extra material affair amounts to cruelty
or not?
Ans. No as per the settled law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case
tilted as Ramchander Versus Ananta 2015(3) ALT 38 making baseless
allegation of extra material affair does not amounts to cruelty. Law
reproduce as under:
“ Allegation by wife that her husband had extra marital affair with a lady
who was working under him - Husband though admitted that the said lady
was working under him, has specifically denied the said allegation - Mere
failure to prove such allegation would not entitle the husband to a decree of
divorce”
Q3. Does demand to live separately for monetary consideration amounts to
cruelty?
Ans. No demand to live separately does not mounts cruelty . The wife veena
never demanded to live separately from the family members. Husband
himself wants to live separately.
Q4. Whether such allegations of extra material affair which are made for the
first time in written statement or suggested in the course of examination

9
 and by way of cross examination could be considered by court while
deciding a plea of divorce?
Ans. Yes – as per settled law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case tilted

Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate - Versus Neela Vijaykumar Bhate

2003(2) RCR 813 which is reproduce as under Whether averments,

accusations and character assassionate of wife by husband in written

statement constitute mental cruelty for sustaining claim for divorce under

Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act - Yes - Even the fact that application for

amendment seeking for deletion of accusations made in written statement

was ordered and amendments carried out subsequently does not absolve

husband from being held liable for having treated wife with cruelty by

making earlier such injurious reproaches and statements due to their impact

when made and continued to remain on record

10
 PRAYER

Therefore, in the light of facts presented above, the counsel on behalf of respondent

humbly pray before this Court that it may be pleased to adjudge that the petitioner is not

entitled for the decree of the present petition or pass any other order that the court may deem fit

in the light of equity, justice and good conscience and for this Act of kindness of Your

Lordships, the respondent shall as duty bound ever pray.

Counsel for the respondent

11
 RELEVANT SECTIONS

Section 13(1) in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

(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—
16 [(i) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, had voluntary sexual
intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or]
16 [(ia) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with
cruelty; or]
16 [(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two
years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or]
(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; or
17 [(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously
or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that
the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.
Explanation .—In this clause,—
(a) the expression “mental disorder” means mental illness, arrested or incomplete
development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of
mind and includes schizophrenia;
(b) the expression “psychopathic disorder” means a persistent disorder or
disability of mind (whether or not including sub-normality of intelligence) which
results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of
the other party, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical
treatment; or]
(iv) has 18 [***] been suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy; or
(v) has 18 [***] been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form; or
12
(vi) has renounced the world by entering any religious order; or
(vi) has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by
those persons who would naturally have heard of it, had that party been
alive; 19 [***] 20 [ Explanation. —In this sub-section, the expression “desertion ”
means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without
reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and
includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and
its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed
accordingly.] 21 [***]

13