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

___________________________________________________________________________

PLAINT ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

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-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------17

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 before this Hon’ble Court, that the Respondent, Anasuya can
be held liable for Contempt of Court, for not complying with the Restitution of Conjugal
Rights Decree, under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. Enforceability of the RCR decree.

It is humbly pleaded before this Hon’ble Court that the Restitution of Conjugal
Rights( RCR) Decree is enforceable by law under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure
Code,1908, under Section 28A the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. Would the enforcement of the RCR Decree infringes Anasuya’s Fundamental Rights?
It is kindly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the enforcement of RCR Decree
would not infringe the Respondents i.e., Anasuya’s Fundamental Rights.

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

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Anasuya’s live-in relationship
with John without ending her previous marriage, if proven true would be morally wrong and
also considered a crime under Section 494/495 of Indian Penal Code,1860.

8
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether Anasuya is liable for contempt of court?

a. The counsel on behalf of the plaintiff humbly submits that the defendant is liable
for contempt of court, that it shall be established by following arguments:

What is Contempt of Court?

b. An act of disrespect, disobedience, defiance or interference by any party involved

in legal proceedings – from witness and defendants to lawyers can be considered to have
done Contempt of Court.

Civil Contempt:

c. 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

d. Essentials of Contempt of Court,1971:

1. Disobedience to any type of court proceedings, its orders, judgements, decree etc.,
should be done wilfully in case of civil contempt of court.
2. The court should make valid order and this order should be in the knowledge of
the respondent.
3. The action of the contemnor should be deliberate and also it should clearly
disregard the court’s order.

e. In Anurag Goel v. Chhavi Agarwal 9 Aug 2023, Section 12 of The Contempt of

Court Act,1971, states that under contempt of court a person may be punished with simple

9
imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months or with a fine which may extend to
Rs.2000/-, or with both, provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment
awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court.

f. Sonali Bhatia V. Abhivansh Narang 2021 SCC Online Delhi 5114, in the
aforesaid case the family court had passed orders for payment of maintenance in favour of
wife. The husband refused to comply despite numerous reminders and accordingly contempt
proceedings were initiated against the respondent.

10
 2. Enforceability of the RCR decree.

a.The counsel on behalf of the plaintiff humbly submits before the hon’ble court that,
the Restitution of Conjugal Rights decree issued in the plaintiff’s favour, is enforceable by
law under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

b. In Lakshmamma and ors. V. B.K.Ramesh ,2015 Karnataka, if a decree holder

satisfies the court that judgement debtor had an opportunity of obeying the decree but has
wilfully failed to obey or comply with it, the decree in question can be executed under Order
XXI Rule 32(1) of CPC1 i.e., by detaining the judgement debtor in civil prison or by
attachment of the property or by both.

c. Section 28A in the Hindu Marriage Act ( HMA ), 1955, also states that the
enforcement of decrees and orders i.e., all decrees and orders made by the court in any
proceeding under this act2 shall be enforced in the like manner a the decreed and orders of the
court made in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction for the time being enforced.

d. The execution of the decrees and orders are as covered by order XXI Rule 32 of
CPC and Order XXI Rule 33, CPC deal with the execution and enforcement of decrees for
restitution of conjugal rights.

e. In Smt. Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar, it was observed as follows - According

to Section 21 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, application of act 5 of 1908 subject to the
other provisions contained in this Act and to such rules as the High Court may make in this
behalf, all proceeding under this act shall be regulated, as far as may be, by Civil Procedure
Code of 1908.

________________________________________________________________________

1.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908

11
 2.
Hindu Marriage Act( HMA), 1955.

f. According to Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act ( HMA ), 1955, application of

act 5 of 1908 is subject to other provisions contained in this act and to such rules as the High
Court may make in this behalf, all proceeding under this act shall be regulated as far as may
be by CPC i.e., Civil Procedure Code of 1908.

g. In Ghan Shyam Das v. Anant Kumar Sinha, (1991) 4 SCC 379, dealing with the
provisions of the Code, relating to execution of decrees and orders, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court stated: “So far the question of executability of a decree is concerned, the Civil
Procedure Code contains elaborate and exhaustive provisions for dealing with it in all its
aspects. The numerous rules of order XXI of the Code take care of different situations,
providing effective remedies not only to judgment-debtors and decree-holders but also to
claimant objectors as the case may be. In an exceptional case, where provisions are rendered
incapable of giving relief to an aggrieved party in adequate measure and appropriate time, the
answer is a regular suit in the civil court. The remedy under the Civil Procedure Code is of
superior judicial quality than what is generally available under other statutes, and the Judge
being entrusted exclusively with admin- istration of justice, is expected to do better.”

h. In Satyawati v. Rajinder Singh and anr. (2013) 9 SCC 491, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that there should not be unreasonable delay in execution of a decree
because the decree holder id unable to enjoy the fruits of his success by getting the decree
executed, the entire effort of successful litigant would be in vain.

12
 3. Would the enforcement of the RCR Decree infringes Anasuya’s Fundamental
Rights?

a.The counsel for the Plaintiff humbly submits that the enforcement of Restitution of
Conjugal Rights ( RCR ) decree doesn’t infringe the respondent’s Fundamental Rights.

b. Moreover Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955, merely imposes
cohabitation upon spouses and does not compel sexual relations in a marriage. It is only a
positive relief under the Act3 aiming at the preservation of the institution of marriage.

c. In Smt. Harvinder Kaur v. Harminder Singh , [A.I.R. 1984 Del. 66.], the Delhi
High Court held that Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955,is to promote
harmony and amicable relation between the husband and wife, which is the primary purpose
of the marriage and in the married life, there is no question of ultra freedom and negative
thoughts like one is superior to another. The court has held that Section 9 is not violative of
Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, for Restitution of Conjugal Rights does
not impose forced sex or coerced sexual relations.

d. In Smt. Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadda,4, the Supreme Court upheld
the decision of the Delhi High Court by overruling the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court and finally held that Section 9 of the Act5 is not violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution. It has been held by the Supreme Court that:

In India conjugal rights i.e., right of the husband or wife to the society of the
other spouse is not merely a creature of the statute. Such a right is inherent in the very

13
 institution of marriage itself. The term conjugal rights may be viewed in its proper
perspective by keeping in mind the dictionary meaning of the expression ‘ conjugal ‘.
Section 9 only is a codification of pre-existing law. It serves a social purpose as an aid
to the prevention of break-up of marriage.

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

3.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
4.
AIR 1984 SC 1562.
5
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

e. The court further observed,” The object of the restitution decree is to bring about
cohabitation between the estranged parties so that they can live together in the matrimonial
home in amity. The remedy of restitution aims at cohabitation and consortium and not merely
sexual intercourse.

f. In this case the Supreme Court delivered judgement in favour of the husband
treating that section 9 does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution as the objects of both
Section 9 and Article 21 are different. Article 21 protects the life whereas Section 9 protects
the family relations.

g. Therefore, it can be said that the constitutional validity of section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act,1955 has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India.

14
4. Validate the legal standing of Anasuya’s Live-in relationship with John.

a. The counsel on behalf of the plaintiff humbly submits that it would be wrong and
considered a crime for a married woman to stay in a live-in relationship with another person
without ending her marriage i.e., during the term of her marriage with her husband. Also the
person living in such a relationship with a woman will be considered a criminal under Section
494/495 of IPC6.

b. Section 494 reads as whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case
in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or
wife , shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to 7 years and shall also be liable to a fine.

c. The Allahabad High Court recently observed in Asha Devi and Anr. V. State of
U.P and 3 ors December 01, 2020, that if a married person is in a live-in relationship,
without obtaining a decree of divorce from his/her spouse, then that may amount to an
offence under 494 of Indian Penal Code ( Bigamy ). The Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar
Verma observed this while dealing with a plea filed by a woman along with her partner, who
was in a live-in relationship with her, it was also observed and concluded by remarking that
if it is not a live-in relation then it amounts to adultery.

d. In Samuel v. Rashmi [AIR 1960 M.P.142], the court granted the decree for
divorce by observing the following:

In India it is not usual for a young man and woman to live together in a house
when they are not related to each other. Society being more conservative here than
elsewhere it would not be unreasonable to infer adultery from the facts-

1. That only the respondent and co-respondent stayed in one house together for a long
period of time.
2. That the respondent had refused to go back to her husband

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

6.
Indian Penal Code, 1860.

15
 3. That the respondent and the co-respondent not had the courage to come into the
witness box to deny the charge of adultery; and
4. That they had ample opportunities to commit adultery by being alone in the house and
their stay together cannot be accounted for any other reasonable innocent hypothesis.

f. In Devyani Kanti Lal v. Kantilal Shroff [AIR 1968 Bom. 98], it was observed that
direct proof of adultery looked upon with disfavour as it is highly improbable that any person
could be a witness to acts which are generally performed with utmost secrecy. If there is
evidence enough to show that the respondent had a reasonable opportunity of having sexual
intercourse in the conditions of life in which they lived for days together may be justified in
raising an inference of adultery.

g. In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V.Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 775 , the Supreme Court held that a
live-in relationship is akin to a marital relationship.

16
 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 enforce the Restitution of Conjugal Rights Decree and ensure Anasuya’s return.

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 Plaintiff )

17