1

TEAM 1

V.R. KRISHNAN EZHUTHACHAN LAW COLLEGE,

ELAVANCHERY

9TH SEMESTER INTRA-CLASS MOOT COURT

______________________________________________________________________

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF V.R. KRISHNAN

EZHUTHACHAN LAW COLLEGE, ELAVANCHERY

______________________________________________________________________

UNDER SECTION 13 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,1955

RAKESH …………………PETITIONER

V.

KAVITA……..…………….RESPODENT

SUBMITTED BY,

S.DEVADEVAN

ROLL NO. LVATLBA045 BBA,LL.B(HONS.) (2019-24)

NIKHILA.P.V

ROLL NO. LVATLBA037 BBA,LL.B(HONS.) (2019-24)

_________________________________________
 2

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

LIST OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................3-4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......................................................6

STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………..7

ISSUED RAISED……………………………………………………… 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ………………………………………9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED …………………………………………10

PRAYER………………………………………………………………20
 3

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

& And

AIR All India

Reporter

Art. Article

Anr. Another

DDR Development
department committee

HC High court

Hon’ble Honorable

i.e That is

Ltd Limited
 4

Ors. Others

SC Supreme
court

V. Versus

U.O.I Union of
India

SCC Supreme
court cases
 5

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED

1. Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan

2. Bipinchandra Jaisinghbai v. Prabhavati
3. Prabhakar Govindrao Bokade v. Mangala Prabhakar Bokade
4. Uma Wanti v. Ram Dayal
5. K. Srinivas Rao vs D.A. Deepa
6. Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan
7. N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975)
8. Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty
9. Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat
10. Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena
11. Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai
12. Dwarka Prasad v. Dwarka Devi
13. Kuldip Nayar vs. Uma Vasudeva

BOOKS REFERRED

 Dr. J.N PANDEY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA

 Modern Hindu law Dr.Paras Divan

 S.N. Misra, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 20 Edition, 2017

WEBSITES REFERRED

 www.indiakanoon.org

 www.livelaw.in

 Iblogpleaders.in

 Legal.un.org

 traceyourcase.com

 lawtimesjournal.in
 barelaw.in
 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioners filed special leave petition before the hon'ble supreme court under section 13 of
the Hindu marriage act,1955
 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The petitioner husband and the respondent wife were married under Hindu rituals and
customs in Delhi, on 16.04. 1994. Regrettably, it did not take long for the marital discord to
set in their marital life. The petitioner’s case is that his wife was not happy in their small
dwelling, and used offensive, even abusive language against him. It has also been alleged that
in September, 1994, she got her pregnancy terminated, without any prior intimation to the
petitioner. It was in September 1994, again when she left her matrimonial home, but due to
the efforts made by the well-wishers and relatives, they started living together from March
1995 onwards. This again did not last long, as on 16.02.1998 she left her matrimonial house,
and lodged a complaint with the local police on 16/17.02.1998. In March 1998, she agreed to
join her husband, on the condition that the appellant would take another accommodation and
consequently in April, 1998 another house was taken on rent, and the two started living
together in the new house. But then, on 24.08.1998, the appellant alleges that he was beaten
by his wife and her brother.

2. On 29.11.1998, he was kept out of his own house for the entire night. On 17.12.1998 she
left her matrimonial house and lodged an FIR against the petitioner and his brother, under
Section 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner and his brother were arrested the
same day, while they were attending a marriage ceremony, and this was done in the presence
of 15 to 20 of his friends. Later the two were released on bail, though the wife persisted with
the matter and even moved an application for cancellation of their bail. The wife then filed a
complaint under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC against the husband and his
family members, however, they were subsequently discharged from the case. The respondent
also initiated proceedings against petitioner under Section 107 read with Section 150 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. She then filed a petition, under Section 18 of Hindu Adoption
and Maintenance Act, 1956, for her maintenance.

3. Left by his wife and burdened with multiple litigations slapped on him, the petitioner took
the decision to end the matrimonial relations. He thus moved his petition for dissolution of
marriage under Section 13(1) (ia) & (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Additional
District Judge, North Delhi on 20.09.2002.The Family Court on 15.10.2003 framed issues on
 8

cruelty and desertion. The Trial Court gave the findings on cruelty as well as desertion in
favour of the husband and a decree for the dissolution of marriage was passed.

4. The High Court in appeal, came to the conclusion that the mere fact that the respondent
did not allow her husband to enter his house on 29.11.1998, would not prove that it was her
intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end and therefore the ground of dissolution
of marriage on desertion were not made out. As far as filing of various complaints under
Sections 323, 324 and 498A IPC are concerned, the High Court was of the view that mere
filing of such complaints, or their result in acquittal would not amount to cruelty, as the wife
was only exercising her options available to her under the law. Moreover, what has to be seen
are also the circumstances under which these complaints were filed. At the very initial stage
the Trial Court had sent the parties
5. for mediation, which did not succeed. This Court had also sent the two for mediation,
which failed. The case was again sent for settlement in the Lok Adalat but with no results. On
11.04.2015, this Court again requested the parties to explore possibilities of living together,
but nothing materialised. Then on 09.05.2015, this Court asked the parties to come to some
mutual settlement, but in vain. In other words, every single effort of the Court and the
mediators, towards a compromise or settlement has led to a blind alley.

ISSUES RAISED

I. WHETHER THE GROUNDS OF THE PETITION ARE SUFFICIENT TO GET THE

DIVORCE?

II. WHETHER IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE CAN BE TAKEN AS

GROUND FOR DIVORCE?
III. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE AFTER THE
BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE?
 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE GROUNDS OF THE PETITION ARE SUFFICIENT TO GET

THE DIVORCE?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble apex court that the grounds mentioned here are
section not sufficient for getting the divorce .As there are no sufficient evidence for the
grounds specified.

II WHETHER IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE CAN BE TAKEN

AS GROUND FOR DIVORCE?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble supreme court that irretrievable breakdown of
marriage can be taken as a ground it is stated in article 142 of indian constitution,1950. Article
142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete
justice in any case or matter pending before it. These decrees or orders are enforceable across
India's territory, making them significant tools for judicial intervention .Thus there is no
specific section to deal with the matter in that statute the to both the parts make sure the
complete justice to both the parties.

III.WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE AFTER

BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble supreme court that the wife is entitle to get the
maintainance under Section 24 and Section 25 of the Hindu marriage act, deals with the
provisions of allowing pendente lite and permanent maintenance respectively. And section
125 of crpc says about the maintainance .
 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE GROUNDS OF THE PETITION ARE SUFFICIENT TO GET

THE DIVORCE?

The grounds of the petition is not sufficient since the petitioner is unable to provide the exact
evidence as per the section specify. The ground provide here mentioned under section
13(1),(ia)&(ib) of Hindu marriage act,1955

Section 13 (1) (ia)(ib)in The Hindu marriage act, 1955 deals with divorce

Section 13. Divorce.

(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on
a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on
the ground that the other party--

1[(i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any
person other than his or her spouse; or

(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or

(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately
preceding the presentation of the petition; or]

(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; or

2[(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or
intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner
cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent 1.

Explanation.--In this clause,--

(a) the expression mental disorder means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development
of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes
schizophrenia;

1
Hindu marriage act,1955 section13
 11

(b) the expression psychopathic disorder means a persistent disorder or disability of mind
(whether or not including subnormality of intelligence) which results in abnormally
aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and whether or
not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; or]

3* * * * *

(v) has 3* * * been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form; or

(vi) has renounced the world by entering any religious order; or

(vii) has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons
who would naturally have heard of it, had that party been alive; 4***

5*** *

6[Explanation .In this sub-section, the expression desertion means the desertion of the
petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent
or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other
party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be
construed accordingly.]

7[(1A) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of
this Act, may also present a petition for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce
on the ground2

(i) that there has been no resumption of cohabitation as between the parties to the marriage
for a period of 8[one year] or upwards after the passing of a decree for judicial separation in a
proceeding to which they were parties; or

(ii) that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage
for a period of 8[one year] or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal
rights in a proceeding to which they were parties.]

(2) A wife may also present a petition for the dissolution of her marriage by a decree of
divorce on the ground,--

2
Hindu marriage act,1955 section 13
 12

(i) in the case of any marriage solemnized before the commencement of this Act, that the
husband had married again before such commencement or that any other wife of the husband
married before such commencement was alive at the time of the solemnization of the
marriage of the petitioner:

Provided that in either case the other wife is alive at the time of the presentation of the
petition; or

(ii) that the husband has, since the solemnization of the marriage, been guilty of rape, sodomy
or 9[bestiality; or]

10[(iii) that in a suit under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78
of 1956), or in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974) (or under the corresponding section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of
1898), a decree or order, as the case may be, has been passed against the husband awarding
maintenance to the wife notwithstanding that she was living apart and that since the passing
of such decree or order, cohabitation between the parties has not been resumed for one year
or upwards;

(iv) that her marriage (whether consummated or not) was solemnized before she attained the
age of fifteen years and she has repudiated the marriage after attaining that age but before
attaining the age of eighteen years.

Explanation. This clause applies whether the marriage was solemnized before or after the
commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976).] 3

In the present case, the petitioner husband and the respondent wife were married under
Hindu rituals and customs in Delhi, on 16.04. 1994. Regrettably, the marital discord did not
take long to set in their marital life.
Section 13 (1a) deals with cruelty. According to Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, if any person,
after the solemnization of his or her marriage, has treated the other with cruelty then that
person can file a suit for divorce in the court of law. The Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.,
2004) describes the term "mental cruelty" as "(without actual violence) the behavior of a
spouse that endangers life, physical health, or mental health of the other spouse. 4

3
Hindu Marriage Act,1955 section 13
4
Black’s law dictionary (8th ed..2004)
 13

Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan, 5the Supreme Court

acknowledged that the concept of legal cruelty changes as social concepts and living
standards change and evolve. Some of the factors recognized as mental cruelty by the
Supreme Court are indifference from the spouse, persistent abuse, regular ridiculous
remarks, refraining from making sexual relations, and blaming the spouse for it. Not only
these, but the constant threat of dissolving marriage and harassment was recognized as the
basis for mental cruelty.
Here in this case the petitioner alleges that he experienced mental cruelty from the act of the
responded as she filed cases against him .The judgement of high court clearly states that As
far as filing of various complaints under Sections 323, 324 and 498A IPC are concerned, the
High Court was of the view that mere filing of such complaints, or their result in acquittal
would not amount to cruelty, as the wife was only exercising her options available to her
under the law.
1.2 13 (ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years
immediately preceding the presentation of the petition
Section 13(1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 deals with desertion as a ground for divorce
and the explanation of the same reads It was in Bipinchandra Jaisinghbai v. Prabhavati that the
Court elaborated and shed light on the concept of desertion. “The expression “desertion” means
the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and the
consent of or against the wish of such party, and includes the willful neglect of the petitioner by
the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be
construed accordingly”.
i) the fact of separation;
ii) ii) the intention to desert or animus deserendi;
iii) iii) such desertion being willful;
iv) iv) such separation sustaining for a period of continuous 2 years;6
Here in this case petitioner alleges that On 29.11.1998, he was kept out of his own house for the
entire night and that amounts to desertion.
The High Court in appeal, concluded that the mere fact that the respondent did not allow her
husband to enter his house on 29.11.1998, would not prove that she intended to bring
cohabitation permanently to an end and therefore the ground of dissolution of marriage on
desertion were not made out.it doesn’t exceed for 2 years that’s can’t be termed and desertion.
Prabhakar Govindrao Bokade v. Mangala Prabhakar Bokade 7, the Bombay High Court held that
the term “desertion” cannot be said to have an exhaustive definition and facts and circumstances

5
1981 AIR 1972, 1982 SCR (1) 695, AIR 1981 SUPREME COURT 1972, 1981 (4) SCC 250
6
scr 838: air 1957 sc 176
7
AIR 1978 Del 296
 14

of every case need to be considered accordingly in order to find out whether desertion is made
out within the meaning of section 13(1)(ib) of the Act.
In Uma Wanti v. Ram Dayal8 it was seen that even if the wife who was the deserting spouse was
unable to prove just cause for her to be living away, it was the husband who was burdened with
the onus to prove that the living apart of the wife was without any cause.

II. WHETHER IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE CAN BE TAKEN

AS GROUND FOR DIVORCE?

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage is when, despite the parties’ best efforts, their marriage
cannot be restored as it was before. It is often used as a no-fault ground for divorce, meaning
that neither party needs to prove that the other is at fault for the breakdown of the marriage.
Although till now the legislature has not incorporated it as a valid ground to grant divorce, the
courts have felt the need to recognize it and have pronounced various judgments based on the
concept

2.1 IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE

K. Srinivas Rao vs D.A. Deepa 9 in the year 2013, the Supreme Court held that the concept of
Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage can be applied to cases where the parties have been
living separately for a considerable period, and the marriage has broken down irretrievably.

in a recent Supreme Court Judgment of Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan10, the
Constitution Bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kaul

The Hon’ble Court laid down the factors to determine the irretrievable breakdown of
marriage-

1. The period for which the parties had cohabited after marriage.

2. When the parties had last cohabited.

8
(1990)98PLR390.
9
AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 2176,
10
T.P. (C) No. 1118 of 2014
 15

3. The nature of allegations made by the parties against each other and their family members.

4. The orders passed in the previous legal proceedings and their impact on the personal
relationship.

5. Number of attempts made to settle the disputes by intervention of the court or mediation.

6. The period of separation should be sufficiently long. (6 years and more)

Along with these factors, the economic and social status of the parties, including their
educational qualifications, existence of children and alimony are also to be considered before
granting a decree of divorce. The Court was also of the opinion that, when there is complete
separation over a long period and the parties have moved apart and have mutually agreed to
separate, it would not serve any purpose to prolong the litigation, and the divorce should be
granted without further delay as the parties have had time to ponder, reflect and take a
conscious decision.

6. Relying on principles of equity, the court held that if one party opposes the grant of divorce,
the court must ensure that the circumstances and the background of the opposite party are
balanced, before granting a divorce

.2.2 Article 142 to the Rescue

The Supreme Court’s power under Article 142(1) to grant divorce on the ground of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a matter of right, but a discretion that is to be
exercised with great care and caution to ensure complete justice in a case.
The power is not limited to granting divorce under Fault Theory but also extends to granting
divorces under No-Fault Theory and the Court must be satisfied that the facts established by
the parties clearly show that the marriage has completely failed and there is no possibility that
the parties will cohabit together.
The power further allows exemption on the cooling period of 6-18 months that has to be
observed by the parties to rethink and introspect their decision before getting a divorce. The
exemption can only be granted if the parties can convince the Hon’ble Apex Court that there is
no possibility of reconciliation and that it is meaningless to prolong the agony. The Apex
Court further has the power to quash and set aside other proceedings that run side by side with
the matrimonial dispute.
 16

The court clearly stated that the parties have not been given a right to file a writ petition under
Article 32 to directly seek divorce.in N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975)11, a petition was filed
by the husband seeking judicial separation, but his application was rejected on technical
grounds. This case laid the importance of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the
trauma and impact it has on the children. The court also in several instances felt that where the
parties cannot live with each other and there is no possibility of restoring the relationship, the
marriage must be dissolved based on irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
K. Srinivas Rao vs D.A. Deepa in the year 2013, the Supreme Court held that held that the
concept of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage can be applied to cases where the parties have
been living separately for a considerable period, and the marriage has broken down
irretrievably.

III WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE AFTER

THE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the respondent is entitled to maintenance
after the breakdown of the marriage
3.1 MAINTENANCE UNDER CRPC

Section 125 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides that if any person having
sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself,
then in such a case a magistrate of the first class may upon proof of such neglect or refusal,
order such person to pay a monthly allowance at such monthly rate which the magistrate
thinks fit.12

i) Wife here includes a woman who has been divorced by or has obtained a divorce from her

husband and has not remarried. The ‘wife’ under Section 125 (1) (a) means a legally married

wife and can be of any age, minor or major.

ii) The wife is not allowed to receive an allowance from her husband in three cases-

o if she is living in adultery, or

o if she refuses to live with her husband and without any sufficient cause, or

11
AIR 1975 SC 1534 81
12
Section 125 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
 17

o if they are living separately by mutual consent.

iii) While passing any order under Section 125(1) (a) it has to be kept in mind that

the husband has sufficient means and also that the wife after separation does

not have sufficient money to maintain herself.

iv) The order for interim maintenance can also be passed by the court while the

case is pending.13

1. Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty14: This case emphasized that the

objective of maintenance laws is to prevent vagrancy and destitution and that
maintenance should be provided considering the status and financial capacity of the
husband.

2. Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat15: In this case, the Supreme Court
held that even if a wife is living separately without sufficient reason, she is entitled to
maintenance as long as she is not living in adultery.

3. Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena16: The Supreme Court ruled that maintenance under
Section 125 CrPC is not limited to subsistence or survival but extends to the capacity
of the husband to pay and the standard of living of the wife.

13
Section 125 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
14
1996 AIR 922, 1996 SCC (1) 490
15
AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 1809
16
AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 2875
 18

4. Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai17: This case established that if a wife can maintain herself but
chooses not to do so, she can be denied maintenance.

5. Dwarka Prasad v. Dwarka Devi18: It was held that even if a wife has remarried, she
is entitled to maintenance if she is unable to maintain herself financially.

3.2 MAINTENANCE UNDER HINDU MARRIAGE ACT

The relief of maintenance is considered an ancillary relief and is available only upon
filing for the main relief like divorce, restitution of conjugal rights judicial separation,
etc. Further, under matrimonial laws, if the husband is ready to cohabit with the wife,
generally, the claim of a wife is defeated. However, the right of a married woman to
reside separately and claim maintenance, even if she is not seeking a divorce or any other
major matrimonial relief has been recognized in Hindu law alone. A Hindu wife is
entitled to reside separately from her husband without forfeiting her right of maintenance
under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Act envisages certain
situations in which it may become impossible for a wife to continue to reside and cohabit
with the husband but she may not want to break the matrimonial tie for various reasons
ranging from growing child

MAINTENANCE OF WIFE

Under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, either the wife or husband can apply for
interim maintenance. 19 The basis of the claim for interim maintenance is that the
claimant has no independent income of his/her own to support himself/herself. The
provision is silent on the quantum of maintenance and it is upon the discretion of the
court to determine the quantum. Similarly, maintenance pendente lite is to be provided
to the claimant who does not have an independent income and the financial need of

17
AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 530
18
1975 AIR 1758, 1976 SCR (1) 277
19
S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
 19

litigation expenses has to be provided by the other spouse. The interim maintenance is
payable from the date of presentation of the petition till the date of dismissal of the suit
or passing of the decree. Interim maintenance is supposed to meet the immediate needs
of the petitioner.

Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai20: The Supreme Court held that maintenance under Section
18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is a statutory right and is available
to a wife even if she is living separately without any sufficient cause.

Kuldip Nayar vs. Uma Vasudeva: In this case, the Delhi High Court emphasized that
maintenance is not just for the wife’s bare existence but should be adequate to
maintain the same standard of living enjoyed by the wife before separation.

Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat: The Gujarat High Court ruled that
while deciding the quantum of maintenance, the court should consider various factors
such as the status of the parties, their financial capacity, needs, and other relevant
circumstances.So kindly grant. the petitioner to give a maintenance amount of Rs 30
Lakhs.

It is humbly contended that the respondent is entitled to get the compensation as she
doesn’t have any means to live. The husband has sufficient income and he is stable
and ignored her for years. The husband is not ready to cohabit with her. The long
separation and absence of cohabitation completely break the bond there is no child
out of wedlock and no one to take care of her. She suffered mentally due to the
allegation of abortion and the cruelty made by the petitioner. She doesn’t have
anyone to rely on.

20
AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 530
 20

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it
is more humbly and respectfully prayed before his Hon’ble court that it may be pleased to
adjudge and declare that:

The respondent seeks a divorce on the grounds of an irretrievable breakdown of marriage and
is entitled to compensation as a wife who has no other source of income.

AND/OR pass any other order/orders as this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the
circumstances of the given case and in the light of justice, equity, and good conscience and
thus render justice

The counsel pleads this hon’ble court to bind “Sacramentum habet in se tres comites,
veritatem, justitiam et judicium habenda est in jurato, Justitia et judicium in judice”

And for this act of kindness and justice, the RESPONDENT shall be duly bound and
forever pray

All of which is submitted with utmost reverence

Place: s/d

Date: COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS