Team Code : T7

POST GRADUTE COLLEGE OF LAW, OSMANIA UNIVERSITY

___________________________________________________________________________

INTRA- COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

NOVEMBER, 2023

___________________________________________________________________________

IN THE HON’BLE CITY CIVIL COURT OF HYDERABAD

( UNDER CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

E.P. NO.____/2023

___________________________________________________________________________

BETWEEN:

VIRAT.…………..……………………….…………PLAINTIFF

v.

ANASUYA……….…………………………………...RESPONDENT

_________________________________________________________________________
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDGE OF THE CITY CIVIL COURT

___________________________________________________________________________

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS-------------------------------------------------------------3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES-------------------------------------------------------------4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION----------------------------------------------------5

STATEMENT OF FACTS---------------------------------------------------------------6

ISSUES PRESENTED--------------------------------------------------------------------7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS--------------------------------------------------------8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-----------------------------------------------------------9

PRAYER-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------16

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CPC Civil Procedure Code

IPC Indian Penal Code

Hon’ble Honourable

HC High Court

SC Supreme Court

AIR All India Report

SCC Supreme Court Cases

V. Versus

Anr. Another

& And

Ors. Others

Art. Article

Sec. Section

H.M.A Hindu Marriage Act 1955

Pg. no Page Number

Etc. Et cetera

i.e., Id est

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

ACTS & STATUTES

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949

2. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908
3. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
4. THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955
5. THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005
6. THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971

BOOKS

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA BY J.N. PANDEY

2. THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE BY RAJESH TANDON J.
3. FAMILY LAW IN INDIA BY G.C.V.SUBBA RAO.

WEBSITES

1. scconline.com
2. ipleader.in
3. 3.indiankanoon.org
4. legalservicesindia.com
5. livelaw.com
6. casemine.com

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Family Court has the jurisdiction in this matter under the Section 19 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides:

Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the district court within the local
limits of whose ordinary original jurisdiction-

i. The marriage was solemnized or

ii. The respondent at the time of the presentation of the petition resides or
iii. The parties to the marriage last resided together or

iii(a) in case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of
the petitioner or

iv. The petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case
where the respondent is, at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act
extends, or has not been heard of as being alive from a period of seven years or more
by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive.

In Arjun Singhal v. Pushpa Karwel, AIR 2003 MP 189, Jurisdiction of the

Court if a marriage is solemnised at a place within the municipal limit and the party
reside there only, the Family Court would have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with
case. The case cannot be transferred to district court on a ground that the husband
resides outside the limits of municipal corporation.

Petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 shall be presented to the district
court. District court means in any area for which there is a City Civil Court, that Court
and in any other area the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, and includes
any other Civil Court which may be specified by the State Government, by
notification in the Official Gazette as having jurisdiction in respect of the matters delt
within this Act [Section 3(b)].

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Virat, a resident of Nampally, and Anasuya, a resident of Kukatpally, got married to

each other on September 01, 2022.

2. They have a child during the course of their marriage, but the child’s legitimacy is
questioned. Their marital relationship also took a difficult turn when Anasuya left
Virat’s matrimlnial home on September 03, 2023.

3. Virat due to his concern about his marriage and family, attempted to persuade
Anasuya to return, and also took the help of elders in their community and also
conducted several panchayats for resolving the issues between them. However
Anasuya remained resolute and did not return to their matrimonial house.

4. As a response to Anasuya’s refusal to return, Virat filed a case for the ‘Restitution of
Conjugal Rights’(RCR) in the Family Court. The court after careful consideration of
the matter, issued a decree in favour of Virat, there by compelling Anasuya to return
to Virat and resume their conjugal life as per the court’s orders.

5. Anasuya did not return to Virat despite of the court’s explicit directives.

6. It was also heard that Anasuya is involved in a live-in relationship with John and does
not intend to return or take divorce.

7. Virat has filed a legal case, seeking the court’s intervention to either enforce the RCR
Decree and ensure Anasuya’s return or grant him a divorce.

6
 ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Whether Anasuya is liable for contempt of court?

2. Enforceability of the RCR decree.

3. Would the enforcement of the RCR Decree infringes Anasuya’s Fundamental Rights?

4. Validate the legal standing of Anasuya’s Live-in relationship with John.

7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether Anasuya is liable for contempt of court?

It is humbly submitted on behalf of the Respondent before this Hon’ble Court that the
Respondent Anasuya is not liable for Contempt of Court under section 13 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, for not complying with the Restitution of Conjugal Rights Decree issued
by the Hon’ble and competent Family Court.

2. Enforceability of the RCR decree.

It is kindly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Restitution of Conjugal Rights
( RCR) Decree issued by the Family Court in the favour of the Plaintiff i.e., Virat is
enforceable under Section 28A in The Hindu Marriage Act( HMA), 1955, and it is enforced
through attachment of property. But at the end it is upto the judgement debtor whether to
follow the RCR decree or not, as Restitution of Conjugal Rights( RCR) Decree is just a
directive decree.

3. Would the enforcement of the RCR Decree infringes Anasuya’s Fundamental Rights?

It is humbly pleaded on behalf of the Respondent, that the enforcement of the RCR
Decree would be infringing the Fundamental Rights of the Respondent i.e., Anasuya. The
Enforcement which is carried through by attachment of property, would violate the Article 21
of the Constitution of India.

4. Validate the legal standing of Anasuya’s Live-in relationship with John.

It is kindly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the matter of Anasuya being in a
live-in relationship with John is just a heresy and a baseless assumption, but if it is proven to
be true, it is not considered a criminal offence or illegal as held by the Supreme Court in its
recent judgements in the issues related to the matters of live-in relationship.

8
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether Anasuya is liable for contempt of court?

a. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court by the respondent’s counsel on

behalf of the respondent that the respondent Anasuya is not liable for contempt of court that it
shall be established by the following arguments:

What is Contempt of Court?

b.Contempt of Court constitutes anything that curtails or impairs the freedom of limits
of the judicial proceedings must of necessarily result in hampering of the administration of
law and in interfering with the due course of justice.

c. Oswald defines contempt to be constituted by any conduct that tends to bring the
authority and administration of law into disrespect or disregard or interfere with or prejudice
parties or their witness during litigation.

d. In India, Contempt of Court is defined as Civil Contempt or Criminal Contempt

under section 2(a) of the Contempt of Court Act,1971. The Constitution of India under
Article 129 and Article 215 empowers the Supreme Court and High Court respectively to
punish people for their respective contempt.

e. Essentials of Contempt of Court

1. A valid court order made by the court.

2. Knowledge of the order by respondent.
3. Respondent’s ability to render compliance to the order.
4. Willful disobedience of the court order by respondent.

Civil Contempt:

9
 f. Civil Contempt is defined as willful disobedience to any judgement, decree,
direction, order, writ, or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to
a court, u/s 2(b) of Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

g. Under Section 13 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, contempt in a few cases is not
punishable. Section 13(a) specifies that no court shall impose a sentence under this Act1 for a
Contempt of Court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that is
substantially interferes, or tends to interfere with the due course of justice.

h. Decree older cannot force judgement debtor to stay with him or her in the
execution of Restitution of Conjugal Rights. It is the only remedy available with decree
holder that in case despite the decree passed for the Restitution of Conjugal Rights if spouse
does not come back and not compliance the order than after one year decree holder may file
the divorce petition against the judgement debtor. No any contempt of court is made out for
the non-compliance of order.

i. In Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar 1, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that after a decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights the husband’s failure to resume
cohabitation would not amount to ‘wrong’ within the meaning of Section 23(1)(a) of the
Act 2.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.
AIR 1984 SC 1562 : (1984) 4 SCC 90.
2.
The Hindu Marriage Act( HMA), 1955.

10
2. Enforceability of the RCR decree.

a. The counsel on behalf of the defendant pleads that the RCR Decree through
enforceable by law , but cannot be enforceable in terms of justice. It shall be proved as
follows.

b. Justice Chopra observed in Sunder Mal v. Budh Ram, ILR 1955 4 Patiala 481 –

b(i). “ Courts exist for administering justice. In India every Court is a Court
of equity as well as of law. For the administration of justice it is necessary that it should have
powers to undo a wrong and do the right. It there is a specific law of procedure by which the
court is to be governed, that has to be followed and justice administered in accordance with
its provisions. But where the law is silent, every Court must be deemed to possess, as
inherent in its very constitution, powers to carry into effect the purpose for which it exists.”

b(ii). “A code can hardly be expected to cover all possible eventualities for all
times. The reason is that no rules can regulate for all time to come so as to make express
provision against al inconveniences which are infinite in number and so that their disposition
shall express all the cases that may probably happen. So long as a particular procedure or
action is not expressly prohibited, the court can act according to justice, equity and good
conscience,”

c. In Ram Kali.s Case( Supra) a full bench of Delhi High Court held that mere non-
compliance with the decree for restitution does not constitute a wrong within the ambits of
Section 23(1).

d. In Hamid Hussain v. Kubra Begum (1918) ILR 40 All 332 , the Gujarat High
Court observed that even if there is lack of satisfactory proof of cruelty by the husband, the
court may refuse to grant a decree of restitution if the court considers it inequitable and unfair
to compel the wife to live with her husband.

e. Another consequence can be the filing of an RCR by the husband to defeat the
claim of the wife for maintenance, as mentioned in the Report of the High Level Committee
on the Status of Women in India, , 2015. Forcing the cohabitation of a wife with her husband
in a marriage that has turned sour also increases the risk of women being subjected to
domestic violence.

11
3. Would the enforcement of the RCR Decree infringes Anasuya’s Fundamental Rights?

a. The counsel on behalf of the respondent submits that the enforcement of the
Restitution of Conjugal Rights decree will infringe the respondent i.e., Anasuya’s
Fundamental Rights. It shall be established by the following arguments:

b. Article 21 of the Constitution provides 2 rights, that are

1. Right to life
2. Right to personal liberty.

c. The Supreme Court of India has described these rights as the heart of the
Fundamental Rights. The right to life is not just about the right to survive, it also entails and
includes being able to live a complete life of dignity and meaning.

d. In the Harvinder Kaur case is that the court failed to consider forced sexual
intercourse as a likely outcome of compelling a wife to cohabit with her husband. Because
forced sexual intercourse in marriage, i.e., marital rape, is not an offence, compelling a wife
to live with her husband indirectly amounts to forced sexual intercourse, which is a violation
of individual autonomy and bodily dignity. As held in Joseph Shine vs. Union of India
(2018), “sexual choices are an essential attribute of autonomy, intimately connected to the
self-respect of the individual.”

e. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 3, this case overturned the Gopalan case
judgement. Here the Supreme Court said that Articles 19 and 21 are not watertight
compartments. The idea of personal liberty in Article 21 has a wide scope including many
rights, some of which are embodied under Article 19, thus giving them ‘additional protecton’.
The court also held that a law that comes under Article 21 must satisfy the requirements
under Article 19 as well. That means any procedure under law for the deprivation of life or
liberty of a person must not be unfair, unreasonable, or arbitrary.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.
AIR 1978 SC 597; (1978) 1 SCC 248.

12
 f. In Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1993, in this case the Supreme
Court upheld the expanded interpretation of right to life. The court gave a list of rights that
Article 21 covers based on earlier judgements. Some of them are:

Right to privacy.

1. Right to go abroad.
2. Right to shelter.
3. Right against solitary confinement.
4. Right to social justice and economic empowerment.
5. Right against handcuffing.
6. Right against custodial death.
7. Right against delayed execution.
8. Doctor’s assistance.
9. Right against public hanging.
10. Protection of cultural heritage.
11. Right to pollution free water and air.
12. Right of every child to a full development.
13. Right to health and medical aid.
14. Right to education.
15. Protection of under-trials.

g. In Justice K.S.Puttaswamy( Retd.) and anr. V. Union of India and ors 4, the
nine judge bench in this case unanimously reaffirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental
right under the Constitution of India.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

4.
AIR 2017 SC 4161.

13
4. Validate the legal standing of Anasuya’s Live-in relationship with John.

a. The counsel on behalf of the respondent humbly submits before this Hon’ble court
that Anasuya’s live-in relationship with John is just a heresy and a baseless allegation against
the respondent Anasuya, even if the live-in relationship between Anasuya and John is true
and real, it is not illegal or considered a criminal offence, this shall be established by the
following arguments.

What is a Live-in relationship?

b. A Live-in relationship also known as cohabitation refers to an arrangement where

two individuals who are romantically involved with each other live together without being
married. The couple here shares a common household and engage in sexual relationship but
does not formalise their relationship i.e., do not get married. In a live-in relationship, the
couple, without marriage and the legal obligations which entail after it, enjoy the benefits of
living together with each other.

c. In S.Khushboo v. Kanniammal 5, the Supreme Court held that Live-in

relationships are not illegal or immoral and that two consenting adults have the right to live
together without getting married to each other.

d. It is also humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that falsr allegations of illicit
relationship are the ultimate kind of cruelty as it reflects a complete breakdown of trust and
faith amongst the spouses without which no matrimonial relationship can survive.

e. In Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand 6, the Supreme Court held that a live-in
relationship can be presumed to be a valid marriage if the couple has lived together for a long
period of time and there is enough evidence to show that they have held themselves out to
society as being akin to spouses.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.
(2010) 5 SCC 600
6.
(2019) 13 SCC 796

14
 e. In Kedari and anr. V. State of U.T. Chandigarh and ors on 5th july, 2022,
where two married people enter into a live-in relationship without divorcing their respective
spouses plead for protection from their relatives, here the court after considering the aspect of
protection of life and liberty being of paramount interest and without getting into the issue as
to whether the relationship between the two parties was legal or not, granted the petitioners
therein protection of life and liberty.

f. In Alok Kumar vs State (2010) the court held that in a live-in relationship, there
are no strings attached, and the parties do not have any legal bond between them . The court,
while referring to the live-in relationship as a walk-in and walk-out, held that those who do
not wish to enter in such relations may enter the bond of marriage, where the parties cannot
simply break the bond and have legal obligations. Individuals who are in live-in relationships
cannot complain of infidelity or immorality as live-in relationships are usually between a
married man and an unmarried woman or between a married woman and an unmarried man.

15
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and

arguments advanced, it is most humbly prayed and implored before this Hon’ble City Civil

Court, that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that-

1. To grant stay in the current matter.

And / Or

Pass any order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the best interests of Justice,

Fairness, Equity, & Good Conscience.

For this act of kindness, the appellant shall be duty bound forever pray.

Date : ………. Sd/-

Place: ………. ( Counsel for Respondent )

16