STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble supreme court of Wakanda has jurisdiction to hear the instant matter under article
136 of constitution of Wakanda.

Article 136 of constitution of Wakanda reads as:

“136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its
Discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree,
Determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any
Court or tribunal in the territory of India
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, and sentence
Or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any
Law relating to the Armed Forces.
 PRAYER

Therefore in light of the Issues Raised, Arguments Advanced and Authorities Cited, The Hon’ble

Supreme court may be pleased to:

1) Declare Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad is not liable for any offence under Muslim Women

(Protection of rights on Marriage) Act, 2018.

2) To Invalidate the constitutionality of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage

Act), 2018.

3) To overturn the decision of High court of Thoth in dismissing the complaint filed under

S. 482 of Criminal procedure Code and under S. 497 of Indian Penal Code.

AND/OR

Pass any other order, direction or relief that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity

and Good Conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Appellants shall duty bound forever

Pray.
 PRAYER FOR RESPONDENTS

Therefore in light of the Issues Raised, Arguments Advanced and Authorities Cited, The Hon’ble

Supreme court may be pleased to:

1) Declare that Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad was liable for criminal offence under Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2018.

2) To uphold the Constitutional validity of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on

Marriage) Act, 2018.

3) To uphold the decision of High Court of Thoth in dismissing the complaint filed under S.

482 of Criminal procedure Code and under S. 497 of Indian Penal Code.

AND/OR

Pass any other order, direction or relief that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity

and Good Conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Appellants shall duty bound forever

Pray.
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Constitutional validity of Adultery S. 497 of IPC.

The counsel for the appellants submits that the section 497 of IPC is
constitutionally valid. Article 14 of the constitution implies among the equals the law
should be equal. S. 497 treats all the married persons equally. There is reasonable
classification in the provision and also it has reasonable nexus with the object to be
achieved by the Act. So it can be understood that there has been no violation of article 14
of the constitution. Article 21 of the constitution gives right to life and personal liberty.
But there can be reasonable restriction in article 21 based on based on public morale and
interests. The restriction under S. 497 I.P.C was subject to such restrictions. And also
S.497 can be held unconstitutional under article 21 only when the procedure established
by law was not followed, but no such incident took place in the present case. So S. 497 is
to be considered constitutionally valid and the Judgment in Joseph Shine V. Union of
India needs to be overturned.
Constitutional invalidity of Adultery S. 497 of IPC.
The counsel for the respondents humbly submits that S. 497 of IPC has already been
held unconstitutional in the case of Joseph Shine V. Union of India. The provision is
found to be violation of article 14 of the constitution as there is no reasonable
classification in classifying between Men and women, women and married women. And
also, there is no reasonable nexus between the provision and the object sought to be
achieved by the act. S. 497 doesn’t come under the ambit of Article 15(3) of the
constitution as it was a penal provision and not a provision for benefit of women. Article
21 has been clearly violated as there is a patriarchal control by the husband over women’s
privacy and women’s right to life has been affected in this manner. S. 497 is found to be
violation of Article 14 and 21 the courts decision in Joseph Shine V. Union of India
needs to be upheld.