1

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE

COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AT DISTRICT COURT,
CHANDIGARH

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

PETITION NO.: 1234/2023

Mrs. Amrita …PETITIONER

VERSUS

Mr. Tarun Negi …RESPONDENT

__________________________________________________
WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR SEEKING RESTUTUION OF CONJUGAL
RIGHT UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955
__________________________________________________

DRAWN AND FILED BY

COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS__________________________________________3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES___________________________________________4
Cases_______________________________________________________4
Books_______________________________________________________4
Websites____________________________________________________4
Statues______________________________________________________4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION______________________________________5
STANTMENT OF FACTS____________________________________________6
ISSUES RAISED__________________________________________________8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMRNTS_______________________________________9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED_________________________________________10
1. Whether the petitioner has the sufficient grounds for seeking divorce
under The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or not?
___________________________10

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the custody of her minor child or
not?_______________________________________________________11

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for permanent alimony and

maintenance for herself and for child as well or not?
_______________________________________________________12
PRAYER________________________________________________________13
 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

ALL ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Cal CALLCUTTA HIGH COURT

Cri LJ CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL

Del DELHI HIGH COURT

Ed. EDITION

Guj GUJRAT HIGH COURT

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE

IC INDIAN CASES

Mad MADRAS HIGH CORT

Ori. ORISSA HIGH COURT

p. PAGE NO.

P&h PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Pat PATNA HIGH COURT

Raj RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Sc SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SCJ SUPREME COURT JOURNAL

SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTER

Sec. SECTION

v. VERSUS
 4

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:
1. Kailash Wati v. Ayodhia Prakash
2. Rosy Jacob v. Jacob Chakramakkal

Books:
1. Family law by Dr. Paras Diwan
2. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Websites:
1. http://www.findlaw.com

2. https://indiankanoon.org

3. http://www.judis.nic.in

__________________________________________________

Statues:
1. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

2. The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956

3. The Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956

 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Defendant have approached the Hon’ble District Court of Chandigarh with
arguments in defence against Plaintiff under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 for the restitution of conjugal right.
 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mrs. Amrita daughter of Mr. Sham Singh residing at 23, Sector-4,

Panchkula and the respondent Mr. Tarun Negi s/o Mr. B.S. Negi, R/o
143, Sector-45, Chandigarh were married on 23 rd April, 2018 at
Panchkula according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in the presence of
friends, relatives and family members of both the parties.
2. That after the marriage both the petitioner and respondent lived
together as husband and wife and cohabited with each other at 143,
Sector-45, Chandigarh. And out of the said wedlock one daughter named
Vaani aged 3 years was born.
3. That the petitioner was serving as teacher in a primary school in
Panchkula since before marriage and told the respondent and his family
that she will be continuing her job even after the marriage, for which the
respondent and his family consented at the time of solemnization of
marriage.
4. That however, the consent for the continuance of her job even after
marriage comes with an implied expectations that the plaintiff will fulfil
at least bare minimum of her moral obligations and responsibilities as a
wife and a daughter in law of the family.
5. That after few months of the solemnization of the marriage my mother
suffered from Jaundice and was recommended for complete bed rest for
a month and also because of her old age she is unable to handle
household responsibilities all by herself and my sister is a college student
so, during that time period the request was made by the respondent to
his wife as to either take a break from her job or should handle more
household responsibility along with her sister-in-law. As before that the
plaintiff neither did any household work after returning from her job nor
asked to do the same.
6. That as the plaintiff refused to the request of the respondent which
leads to some arguments between both of them the plaintiff has never
performed any household work or responsibility even after returning
back from her job.
7. That the respondent never used cruelty towards the plaintiff although
there were constant quarrels happened between them which indeed
resulted in stressful environment at home.
 7

8. That there were indeed constant arguments happening that created

stress between family members moreover the arguments were always
from both sides.
9. That respondent’s family members including his mother and sister
always look after his daughter at home in absence of the plaintiff since
she has never quitted her job.
10. That the plaintiff has deserted the respondent and she didn’t return
from her parent’s house since 10th May, 2022. She left the house without
saying anything along with the child.
 8

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1:

Whether the petitioner has sufficient grounds for seeking divorce under
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or not?

ISSUE 2:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the custody of her minor child or
not?

ISSUE 3:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for permanent alimony and

maintenance for herself and for child as well or not?
 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1:
Whether the petitioner has sufficient grounds for seeking divorce under The
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or not?

It is humbly submitted that there was no physical cruelty towards the

petitioner and as for the mental cruelty the arguments on certain disputes
were always initiated from both sides.

ISSUE 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for the custody of her minor child or not?

It is humbly submitted that the custody of the child should not be given to the
petitioner as she is a working woman and her parents are too old to look after
the child in her absence.

ISSUE 3:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for permanent alimony and maintenance
for herself and for child as well or not?
It is humbly submitted that the respondent does not want to end the marriage
and is willing to perform his responsibilities hence seeking the decree of
restitution of conjugal right.
 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
________________________________________________________________
ISSUE 1:
Whether the petitioner has sufficient grounds for seeking divorce under The
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or not?

1. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is valid under
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
1. The defendant is seeking the decree of restitution of conjugal right
under section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As the respondent is
well educated, well versed with obligation of conjugal right and value of
marriage, bondage of marriage, following tradition and respecting
tradition value of joint living with marriage bond, responsible and doing
all acts of lawfully wedded husband with care and affection.
2. The respondent is not ready to separate from marriage bond as he got
younger sister to get married and also concerned for the healthy growth
of his child.
3. There were indeed arguments over certain things and disagreement
between both petitioner and the defendant however the disputes were
not of the degree that she had to leave the house and ask for divorce.
4. As it was stated in the case of KAILASH WATI V. AYODHIA PRAKASH1,
that the spouse has the marital obligation except in case of distinct and
specific misconduct on the part of the husband.

1
1977 (79) PLR 175
 11

________________________________________________________________

ISSUE 2:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the custody of her minor child or not?

1. The daughter of the respondent is 3 year old and indeed she is a minor
and need her mother’s care however the petitioner is a working woman
and cannot look after the child very well.
2. The parents of the petitioner are too old to look after the child in the
absence of the petitioner and there is no one else in her house as she is
the only child of her parents.
3. As for the provision provided under section 26 of The Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 that the welfare of the child will be considered. As mentioned
earlier in the facts that the family members of the respondent always
took care of the child in the absence of the parents. The healthy
environment is necessary for the healthy welfare or growth of the child
hence the love and affection from both the parents is necessary for the
betterment and a healthy growth of the child.
4. As stated in the case of ROSY JACOB V. JACOB CHAKRAMAKKAL2, that
the controlling consideration governing the custody of the children is the
welfare of the children and not the right of the parents.

2
AIR 1973 SC 2090; (1973) 3 SCR 918; (1973) 1 SCC 840
 12

________________________________________________________________
ISSUE 3:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for permanent alimony and maintenance
for herself and for child as well or not?

Since the respondent is already willing to take the responsibility of the

marriage bond and does not want to end this marriage and want to give his
child a healthy environment as well as love and affection of a healthy family for
the child’s welfare and betterment hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the
maintenance from the respondent.
 13

PRAYER

Therefore, in the light of facts of the matter, arguments advanced, and

authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed before the Hon’ble Court that it may
be pleased to hold, adjudge and declare:

1. That Mr. Tarun Negi be granted the decree of restitution of conjugal right.
2. That Mr. Tarun Negi be given the custody of his minor child.

And/or any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant in the
interest of justice, Equity and Good conscience.

And in these premises the respondent as duty bound shall forever pray.

Counsels on behalf of the Respondent

Mr. Tarun Negi