Moot court assignment

2019-2020
B.B.A L.L.B (HONS.)
Semester- 1
IN THE MATTER OF:

MS. GANGA SINGH V. MR. KIRAN LAL

(APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT)

SUBMITTED BEFORE SIR RADHESHYAM PRASAD (FACULTY MOOT COURT

CLINICAL 1)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

LIST OF ABBREVIATION
ABBREVIATION FULL FORMS
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
All ER All England Reporter
& AND
Art. ARTICLE
No. Number
Hon’ble Honourable
Pg. Page
SC Supreme court
v. Versus
Raj. Rajasthan
FB. Full bench
DMC Divorce and matrimonial cases
Sec Section

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:-
1. Angelo v. Angelo, 1967 (3) All. E.R 314
2. Anusayabai v. Vasudeo, 1991
3. Ashwin Kumar Sehgal v. Swatantar Sehgal 1979
4. Brown v. brown, 1968
5. Central bank of India v. Ram Narain 1955
6. Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan (1993)
7. D.S. Seshadri v. Jayalakshmi AIR 1963
8. Family courts acts, 1984
9. Harmeeta Singh v. Rajat Taneja 102 (2003)
10.K. Vimla v. K. Veera Swamy(1991)
11.Lalita Devi v. Radha Mohan AIR 1976
12.V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994)

Other Authorities
1. Law commission of India , 178th Report on recommendation for
amending various enactments, both civil and criminal (2001)

SECTIONS:-
Sec 9 of CPC deals with the jurisdiction of civil courts in India. It says that the
court shall (subject to the provision herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all
suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is expressly or
impliedly barred.
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The appellant in civil miscellaneous appeal no. _______ most humbly submits
that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has the appropriate jurisdiction under
Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Sec. 19 of the Family
courts Act, 1984 to hear the matter and adjudicate accordingly.

Hence the present case is in this Hon’ble Court.

 Statement of facts
1 Shri Ram Singh and his wife had three daughters, one of whom is the appellant, Ms. Ganga.
He had published her profile on all matrimonial websites to find a suitable groom. He found
suitable match for his daughter in the respondent, Mr. Kiran Lal, who belonged to the Hindu
religion. He was working in the United States of America since 2000 and held a permanent
residency card of that country. He also held an Indian passport.

2 The marriage was solemnized on the 12th of December, 2007 as per Hindu religion and the
Brahmin community traditions. It was also registered in the sub-registrar’s office in New
Delhi.

3 On the 1st January, 2008, the couple left for the United States of America and stayed there
for
approximately a year. Meanwhile, the appellant applied for permanent residence. Also, she
discovered that the respondent had already married a Ms.Stella in 2006 in the United States
of
America and had completed the marriage with her while divorce proceedings were still
pending

4 The respondent started ill-treating the appellant, by harassing her and keeping her in
confinement.
She escaped to India with the help of her neighbors and in March, 2009 approached the
District
Court for a decree of divorce which was rejected on grounds of want of jurisdiction.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. WHETHER THE PRESENT APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE?

2. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR
WANT OF
JURISDICTION?
3. WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO HER CLAIM OF DIVORCE AND
COMPENSATION?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: Whether the present appeal is maintainable?

The decision of the District Court, dismissing the appellant’s petition is an order that can be
appealed against in the High Court .
Marriage Act, 1955. The legislative intent of this provision makes it apparent that it provides
for
an appeal from all orders and decrees.
ISSUE 2: Whether the District Court erred in dismissing the petition for want of
jurisdiction?
As the marriage was solemnised in India, it is the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act that
will
be applicable for any dispute. Both the appellant and the respondent, it is urged, had their
domiciles in India and thereby the Delhi District Court had jurisdiction. Even assuming but
not conceding that the respondent had his domicile
in the United States, the archaic principle that a wife’s domicile follows that of her husband is
no
longer applicable in the light of the Courts’ decisions and hence as the appellant’s domicile is
clearly India, the District Court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
ISSUE 3 : Whether the appellant is entitled to her claim of divorce and compensation?
Though, the facts state that the respondent had married the appellant while divorce
proceedings of his first marriage was still pending, the lawfulness of the appellant’s marriage
will be presumed
till the respondent proves the subsistence of the first marriage. Also, the respondent has
clearly
adopted behaviour that will classify as ‘cruelty’, which affords the appellant a ground for
divorce .
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
THE PRESENT APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE.
Order of the District Court is appealable: The decision of the District Court, dismissing the
petition is an order and the appellant has moved to high court which provides for an appeal
from every order passed by a Family Court to the High Court, both on facts and law. The
words “any law for the time being in force” were held to regulate the forum and the
procedure and not restrict the right created. The legislative purpose is clearly to make all
orders appealable and hence interpreting it to mean the right to appeal dependent upon the
Code of Civil Procedure.
THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION.
Jurisdiction with the District Court: The appellant and respondent’s marriage was performed
according to Hindu rites and also the Brahmin community’s traditions. Since both are
Hindus, by the application of S.1 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, that act would be
applicable to them as both have their domicile in India and the only law that can be applicable
to the matrimonial disputes is the one under which the parties are married, and no other law
Both parties are domiciles of India: Domicile is the place where person has his habitation is
fixed without any present intention of removing therefrom. By merely leaving his country,
even permanently, one will not, in the eye of law, lose one's (his) domicile until he acquires a
new one.12 The husband’s domicile of origin is clearly India, which can be concluded from
the fact that he is an Indian citizen by birth (as his parents are Indian citizens) and a person’s
domicile of origin is determined at the time of his birth by the person upon whom he is
legally dependent.
Compensation: The appellant’s prayer for compensation in the form of maintenance can be
granted under Sections 24 and 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant is entitled to
grant of both maintenance pendente lite as well as permanent maintenance.In Chand Dhawan
v. Jawaharlal Dhawan43 the Court held that Section 25 can be invoked by either of the
spouses where a decree of any kind governed by Sections 9 to 13 has been passed and the
marriage-tie is broken, disrupted or adversely affected. In Laxmibai v. Ayodhya Prasad44 , it
was held that 'wife' and 'husband' used in Section 24, HMA are not to be given strict literal
meaning as to convey only legally married wife and husband. For grant of permanent
maintenance, this Hon’ble court is to take into account the income enjoyed by the
respondent45 and the quantum can be decided on the basis of guidelines evolved by the
Supreme Court.46 In fact, it is seen from decisions of Indian courts47 as well as English
courts48 that a question as to jurisdiction does not affect the power of the Court to grant
maintenance to the wife. In Ramesh Chandra Daga v. Rameshwari Daga49, even a spouse of
a null and void union is entitled to maintenance on the passing of a decree of null
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, in the light of above, it is most humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be
pleased to allow the appeal and adjudge and declare that: :
1. The appellant be granted a decree of divorce and compensation as prayed for
And pass any other order in favour of the humble appellant which it may deem fit in the ends
of justice, equity and good conscience