1.Mr. Aviraj Chaudhary, 38 years old, is a resident of Jaipur city.

He got married to his wife

Piya, 36 years old, six years ago. Both the husband and wife work as software engineers at a
renowned MNC called "TAC lab". They used to reside with Aviraj's parents, his brother and
sister in law.

2.In their six years of happy marriage, they faced a major issue of infertility and related
medical problems. Since after years of trying for a baby, they could not conceive, they were
advised by Aviraj's younger brother and sister in law, Sameer and Muskan to opt surrogacy.
After extensive consideration and legal consultation, they opted for surrogacy as a away to
build their family.

3.Aviraj's father though an orthodox man, at first opposed the idea of surrogating a child,
but eventually agreed upon it.

Piya was always fascinated by the fact that her in laws adored and liked Sameer and
Muskan's son, a four year old. She used to express her wish to see their child receive the
same love from the family.

4.Kriti's sister, who is a house help at Piya's home since a long time, was the one who
introduced Kriti to Piya, insisting the former to act as a surrogate for Aviraj and Piya, in
return to get financial help from them. Kriti Singh, a 28 year old married woman from a
nearby village with two children of her own, went under thorough medical and
psychological screenings and was deemed as a suitable surrogate.

5.Aviraj and Piya, entered into a detailed surrogacy agreement on 4th August 2021, with
Kriti. The agreement outlined Kriti's role, prenatal care, compensation of Rupees 5 lakh,
and Aviraj and Piya Chaudhary's exclusive parental rights upon the child's birth. The
agreement also specified that all the medical decisions during the pregnancy would rest
with the intending couple. The agreement mentioned that in case of failure of payments of
compensation amount, within a year after baby's birth the amount would double in its
price. The surrogacy procedure was successful.
6.With deteriorating health of Aviraj's father, he expressed his intention to the family in the
presence of all the servants and house helps, of making a will to transfer his property
amongst his grandchildren, once Aviraj's child is born.

7.However in the beginning of the ninth month ofpregnancy, Aviraj and Piya visited Kriti, to
check on her. On their way back home, they got into a tragic car accident, as a result of
which, they lost their lives. The whole family, as a result of this huge loss, went through a
hard time. They incident left Kriti in distress. However, she continued to take care of herself
to conceive a healthy baby. In June 2022, Kriti gave birth to a healthy baby girl. The
information of the birth was given to the family.

8.Since even after two weeks, nobody showed up to Kriti from the Chaudhary's, she herself
took the child to the family, for handling them over the custody of the child, and for taking
her compensation money. To her surprise, the family disagreed upon this idea. They abused
Kriti and called the birth of the girl unfortunate. Aviraj's father expressed his gloom on the
birth of a girl child. They forced Kriti and the baby out of the house.

9.Disheartened and confused, Kriti went back but in due intervals she would reach out to
the family and convince them to take the child. After several attempts, in October, the
family finally agreed upon taking the child, but only on the condition of doing the same after
a span of 3 months, as the child needed. breastfeeding. Even after the given time span, the
family didn't reach out and so, by the end of April, Kriti contacted the family again, upon
which they insisted Kriti keep the child with her. Kriti did not respond to it.

10. The agreement between Aviraj and Piya, and Kriti did not have a designated legal
guardian for the unborn child. Therefore, in July Kriti filed a case against the Chaudhary's, in
concern to the child's custody and compensation, enforceability to the agreement and
additionally, for the double of the compensatory amount to be paid.

Issues:

1. Is the case maintainable before the sessions court or district court.

2. Can the surrogacy agreement be enforced despite the unforeseen death of the intended
parents and is Kriti entitled to any parental rights.

3. Who holds the legal custody of the child born out of the surrogacy

agreement.

4. Is kriti entitled to compensation?

5. Could the child born out of surrogacy agreement be considered a potential heir of the
Chaudhary's estate.

6. Does the grandfather's verbal intent hold any legal weight.

{ Participants can also include issues by themselves, of the moot problem}

Disclaimer: All the names, characters and incidents used in the above moot problem are
fictitious. Any resemblance with actual person(s), living or deceased or places is
unintended and a mere coincidence.
Respondent side

Absolutely! Here's how the Chaudhary family (the respondents) might approach the
legal issues in this case, including potential arguments:

Issue 1: Is the case maintainable before the sessions court or district court?
• Argument: The respondents could argue that the Family Court holds primary
jurisdiction over matters related to child custody, guardianship, and potentially
inheritance disputes related to the child. They could try to transfer the case or
portions of the case to the Family Court.
Issue 2: Can the surrogacy agreement be enforced despite the unforeseen death
of the intended parents, and is Kriti entitled to any parental rights?
• Death of Intended Parents: The respondents could emphasize the tragic and
unforeseeable death of Aviraj and Piya. They could argue it created an
impossible situation rendering the agreement unenforceable under principles of
force majeure or frustration of contract.
• Kriti's Parental Rights: The respondents would strongly assert that the
surrogacy agreement clearly outlines Kriti's role as a surrogate and her
relinquishment of any parental rights over the child.
Issue 3: Who holds the legal custody of the child born out of the surrogacy
agreement?
• Intended Parenthood: The respondents would highlight Aviraj and Piya's
intention to be the child's parents and legal guardians. They were only prevented
from fulfilling this role due to their untimely demise.
• Responsibility as Heirs: The respondents could argue that as Aviraj's closest
living relatives, they have an obligation to provide for the child and become her
legal guardians.
• Kriti's Suitability: The family could cast doubt on Kriti's capability to provide the
best environment for the child given her existing responsibilities as a mother to
her own children
• Child's Best Interests: The respondents may stress that stability and
consistency within the Chaudhary family would be in the child's best interests.
Issue 4: Is Kriti entitled to compensation?
• Tragic Circumstances: They could acknowledge the compensation clause in
the agreement but emphasize the extraordinary and tragic circumstances that led
to delayed payment.
 • Willingness to Pay: The respondents could express their willingness to pay the
stated compensation amount and potentially offer additional support for Kriti in
recognition of her role.
• Rejecting Double Compensation: The respondents would firmly contest the
claim for double compensation, arguing it unjust given the unforeseen nature of
events.
Issue 5: Could the child born out of the surrogacy agreement be considered a
potential heir of the Chaudhary estate?
• Grandfather's Intent: The respondents could dispute the intent behind the
grandfather's verbal statement. They might point to his initial reluctance toward
surrogacy and his later negative sentiments towards the child.
• Right to Change Will: They'd likely argue that the grandfather had the right to
change his mind about the will and that verbal statements hold less legal weight
than a formal will.
Issue 6: Does the grandfather's verbal intent hold any legal weight?
• Lack of Formality: The respondents would question the binding nature of a
verbal will lacking legal formality and witnesses.
• Circumstances Have Changed: They would emphasize that the verbal
statement was made before the tragic turn of events, and that circumstances
warrant a different approach to inheritance.
Additional Arguments
• Kriti's Behavior: They may highlight Kriti's repeated appearances at the family
home as disruptive and counterproductive to a smooth transition for the child.
• Emotional Considerations: The respondents could stress the overwhelming
grief and emotional trauma caused by the loss of Aviraj and Piya, justifying their
initial actions and delays.
Important Note: It is crucial to remember that the respondents' success in this case
would hinge on convincing the court that the tragic circumstances merit special
consideration and that they are best suited to provide for the child's wellbeing.
Petitioner side

Absolutely! Here's how the Chaudhary family (the respondents) might approach the
legal issues in this case, including potential arguments:

Issue 1: Is the case maintainable before the sessions court or district court?
• Argument: The respondents could argue that the Family Court holds primary
jurisdiction over matters related to child custody, guardianship, and potentially
inheritance disputes related to the child. They could try to transfer the case or
portions of the case to the Family Court.
Issue 2: Can the surrogacy agreement be enforced despite the unforeseen death
of the intended parents, and is Kriti entitled to any parental rights?
• Death of Intended Parents: The respondents could emphasize the tragic and
unforeseeable death of Aviraj and Piya. They could argue it created an
impossible situation rendering the agreement unenforceable under principles of
force majeure or frustration of contract.
• Kriti's Parental Rights: The respondents would strongly assert that the
surrogacy agreement clearly outlines Kriti's role as a surrogate and her
relinquishment of any parental rights over the child.
Issue 3: Who holds the legal custody of the child born out of the surrogacy
agreement?
• Intended Parenthood: The respondents would highlight Aviraj and Piya's
intention to be the child's parents and legal guardians. They were only prevented
from fulfilling this role due to their untimely demise.
• Responsibility as Heirs: The respondents could argue that as Aviraj's closest
living relatives, they have an obligation to provide for the child and become her
legal guardians.
• Kriti's Suitability: The family could cast doubt on Kriti's capability to provide the
best environment for the child given her existing responsibilities as a mother to
her own children
• Child's Best Interests: The respondents may stress that stability and
consistency within the Chaudhary family would be in the child's best interests.
Issue 4: Is Kriti entitled to compensation?
• Tragic Circumstances: They could acknowledge the compensation clause in
the agreement but emphasize the extraordinary and tragic circumstances that led
to delayed payment.
 • Willingness to Pay: The respondents could express their willingness to pay the
stated compensation amount and potentially offer additional support for Kriti in
recognition of her role.
• Rejecting Double Compensation: The respondents would firmly contest the
claim for double compensation, arguing it unjust given the unforeseen nature of
events.
Issue 5: Could the child born out of the surrogacy agreement be considered a
potential heir of the Chaudhary estate?
• Grandfather's Intent: The respondents could dispute the intent behind the
grandfather's verbal statement. They might point to his initial reluctance toward
surrogacy and his later negative sentiments towards the child.
• Right to Change Will: They'd likely argue that the grandfather had the right to
change his mind about the will and that verbal statements hold less legal weight
than a formal will.
Issue 6: Does the grandfather's verbal intent hold any legal weight?
• Lack of Formality: The respondents would question the binding nature of a
verbal will lacking legal formality and witnesses.
• Circumstances Have Changed: They would emphasize that the verbal
statement was made before the tragic turn of events, and that circumstances
warrant a different approach to inheritance.
Additional Arguments
• Kriti's Behavior: They may highlight Kriti's repeated appearances at the family
home as disruptive and counterproductive to a smooth transition for the child.
• Emotional Considerations: The respondents could stress the overwhelming
grief and emotional trauma caused by the loss of Aviraj and Piya, justifying their
initial actions and delays.
Important Note: It is crucial to remember that the respondents' success in this case
would hinge on convincing the court that the tragic circumstances merit special
consideration and that they are best suited to provide for the child's wellbeing.