NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

TEAM CODE: NMCC 13

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

BEFORE

THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. _____/2024

In the matter of

Maria

(Appellant)

V.

Mr. Shambhu Singh and Mrs. Roopa Devi

(Respondent)

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title
Page No.
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………...….3
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………………………4
Statutes, Books, Articles……………………………………………………………4
Table of cases……………………………………………………………………….5
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………..6
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………….7`
5. ISSUES RAISED …………………………………………………………………..8
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………...…………………….9
7. BODY OF PLEADINGS……………………………………….…………………..11
a. Issue 1: Whether widow Maria (so-called wife of Sanat Kumar)
On the grounds of a live-in relationship entitled to
maintenance?......................11
1.1. Whether Maria was the legally wedded wife of
Mr. Sanat
Kumar?.............................................................................
...........11
1.2. Whether Maria is entitled for the the maintenance with her
Father-in-
law?...............................................................................
...............12
b. Issue 2: Whether the special leave petition under Article 136 of
the constitution, brought before this court
maintainable?...................................14
2.1. No Exception and special circumstances exist and the
substantial justice has been done……………………………………….…..…14
2.2. Grounds on which appeal are granted not satisfied………………….....…15
c. Issue 3: Whether the live-in relationship in modern Indian society

valid?.............................................................................
....................................16
d. Issue 4: Whether the child is legitimate and entitled to the property
of his
father?............................................................................
.........................18
e. Issue 5: Whether Maria is entitled to the property of her partner,
Mr. Sanat Kumar
(Deceased)?........................................................................
.21

8. PRAYER………………………………………………………………………….23

2
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
AIR All India Reporter
AC Appeal Cases
Anrs Another
Art Articles
CJ Chief justice
Edn. Edition
i.e Id est (that is)
HC High Court
SC Supreme Court
LR Law Review
No. Number
Pg. Page
Cr.P.C. Criminal procedure code
v. Versus
Bom. Bombay
Cal. Calcutta
All. Allahabad
SLP. Special leave petition
HMA Hindu Marriage Act
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
Ch. Chapter
Nag. Nagpur
ER English reports
AP. Andhra Pradesh
LJ Law Journal
Hon’ble Honourable
Raj. Rajasthan
DV Domestic Violence

3
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF CASES

1. N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss. ………………………….………………(2007) 9 SCC 196)

2. In Pritam Singh v. The State…………………………………………..…..(AIR 1950 SC 169)
3. Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi……………………………..(AIR 2006 SC 1806)
4. Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi
Vishnu Textile
Mills………………………………………………………………………..(2008) 13 SCC 323)
5. Mathai Joby v. George,……………………………………………….……(2010) 4 SCC 358)
6. Chief Administrator cum It. Secretary, Government of
India v. D. C.
Dass……………………………………………………………………..…....AIR 1999 SC 186
7. Siemens Eng & Mfg Co. v. Union of India,………..………………….. AIR 1976 SC 1785
8. Clerks of Calcutta Tramways v. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd.,………….AIR 1957 SC 78
9. City Corner v. P.A. to the Collector,………………………………..………AIR 1976 SC 143
10. Mohau Lal v. Management, Bharat Electronics Ltd., …………..……...AIR 1981 SC
1253
11. Seema Vs Ashwani Kumar…………………..…...MANU/SC/0996/2006:2006(2) SC 578
12. Neetu Singh v. State of U.P. (2019)……………………………………. (2019) 12 SCC 180
13. Chanchal Singh v. State of Punjab (2011)………………………….……(2011) 1 SCC 774
14. Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Rajesh Bhatia (2014)…………………………. (2014) 14 SCC 525
15. Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2010)……..…(2010) 13 SCC 324
16. Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand (2003)………………………..………….AIR 2003 SC 3533
17. G. Tulsi v. Chawli (2008) …………………………………….………….AIR 2008 SC 2956
18. Uday Shankar Tripathi v. Satya Devi (2016)……………………………(2016) 3 SCC 482
19. Sunita v. Sunil (2012)………………………………………………………(2012) 8 SCC 405
20. Pooja Devi v. Ram Swaroop (2005),……………………………………(2005) 12 SCC 233
21. Alok Kumar v. State(2010),……………………………………………… AIR 2010 SC 2735
22. Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari
Rameshchandra
Dag………………………………………………………………………….…AIR 2005 SC 422
23. Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash ……………………………………….……...(1991) 2 SCC 25
24. Dastane vs. Dastane (1975),………………………………………….…..AIR 1975 SC 1534
25. Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. (2006),……………………………………...(2006) 5 SCC 475
26. Shailendra Kumar vs. Rekha (2000)……………………………………..(2000) 2 SCC 402

4
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

27. Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande vs. State of Maharashtra (2014),……… (2014) 1 SCC
188
28. Padmini vs. S. Sivaramakrishnan (2003),……………………………… (2003) 9 SCC 156
29. Shakuntala Devi vs. Lakshmi Devi (2007)……………………………..AIR 2007 SC 2894
30. Mohammed Salamatullah vs. Mastan Bi & Ors (2006),………………(2006) 8 SCC 260
31. Bhupendra Nath Hazarika vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors
(2009),………………………………………………………………………..(2009) 3 SCC 465

STATUTES

Constitution of India, 1950

Hindu marriage Act, 1955

Special marriage act, 1954

Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Protection of women from domestic violation act, 2006

BOOKS

1. Family Law Lectures- Family Law- I, First Edition,2021.

ARTICLE

1. Live-In Relationship: Recent Development and Challenges in India by Kalpana

Vithalrao Jawale :: SSRN
2. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/11/09/divorce-by-mutual-consent-and-
contempt-of-court/

Reports

1. 270 Report of law commission of India, 2017

5
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE RESPONDENT HEREBY APPEARS BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

OF INDIA UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

The article reads as

Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of India;

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its
discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, 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, sentence
or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law
relating to the
Armed Forces.

6
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mr. Sanat Kumar was worked in a company as a managing director and came
into
contact in love with Maria, a Christian lady who was also used to work in
the same
company. Both of them had gotten married without converting their religion.
2. First, they married according to Christianity in a church and later married
according to
the Hindu rituals by performing saptapadi but the marriage was not
registered. After the
marriage they practiced their religion and Maria did not change her name
too.
3. After three years of marriage, they gave birth to a male child. Mr. Sanat
Kumar had
purchased a Bungalow from his earnings before the marriage, which was
occupied by
parents (Mr. Shambhu Singh and Mrs. Roopa Devi) of Mr. Sanat Kumar.
4. After the marriage Maria quit the job and became a housewife. All these
things were
not liked by the parents of Mr. Sanat Kumar, and they were living
separately.
5. After a few months Mr. Sanat Kumar died because of illness and without making
any
will and power of attorney. Maria claimed succession to his property and
maintenance
to herself and on behalf of the minor child. However, the parents of the
deceased refused
to give a share as they disputed the validity of the marriage with Mr.
Sanat Kumar and
the child as illegitimate.
6. As a last resort, a case was filed before the trial court by Maria before
which she
pleaded that she was in a “live-in relationship” with her deceased partner
Mr. Sanat
Kumar. She also pleaded that they lived like husband and wife. The trial
court dismissed
the suit.
7. Afterwards, an appeal was filed under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code
before
the High Court by Maria. High Court rejected her succession plea. Against
the dismissal
of the High Court, she filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

7
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether widow Maria (so-called wife of Sanat Kumar) on the grounds of a live-in
relationship entitled to maintenance with her father-in-law?
1.1.Whether Maria was the legally wedded wife of Mr. Sanat Kumar?
1.2.Whether Maria is entitled for the the maintenance with her Father-in-law?
2. Whether the special leave petition under Article 136 of the constitution,
brought before
this court maintainable?
2.1.No Exception and special circumstances exist and the substantial justice has
been
done.
2.2.Grounds on which appeal are granted not satisfied
3. Whether the live-in relationship in modern Indian society valid?
4. Whether the child is legitimate and entitled to the property of his father?
5. Whether Maria is entitled to the property of her partner, Mr. Sanat Kumar
(Deceased)?

8
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether widow Maria (so-called wife of Sanat Kumar) on the grounds of a live-in
relationship entitled to maintenance with her father-in-law?

The counsel on behalf of the respondent humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court
that the
Widow Maria (so-called wife of Mr. Sanat Kumar on the grounds of live-in-
relationship)
is not entitled to the maintenance with her Father-in-law. Maria was not
legally married to
Mr. Sanat Kumar and therefore lacks the legal basis for the Maintenance that
typically
arises from legally recognized marital relationships. Different courts in India
have time to
time emphasized the importance of a valid marriage for the entitlement to
maintenance
rights.

2. Whether the special leave petition under Article 136 of the constitution,
brought
before this court maintainable?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the special leave petition
filed under
Article 136 of the Indian Constitution against the judgement of the Hon’ble HC
is not
maintainable before this Hon’ble Court. It is humbly submitted before the
Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India that the Special Leave petition filed by the Appellant
is not
maintainable as the Special leave petition cannot be granted when substantial
justice has
been done by the HC and not special and exceptional circumstances exist for the
leave to
be granted and there is not error in the judgment of hon’ble HC. Also, in the
present case
no substantial question of law and the case is purely based on the question of
facts and
hence petition is entitled to be dismissed.

3. Whether the live-in relationship in modern Indian society valid?

Live-in-relationship in modern Indian societies are still not valid. In India,

the majority of
Indians live a traditional lifestyle, which is in line with Indian culture. In
India, marriage
9
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

is viewed as a traditional institution, and any deviation from this is deemed

sinful, as
marriage is not just about a ceremony but also creates a legal and social
obligation on the
spouses. Marriage, from a scientific perspective, is intriguing for the health
and well-being
of the individuals. The live-in-relationship is a Western concept and is
totally different
from the Indian culture. Indian culture places a strong emphasis on the
creation of familial
ties, in contrast to the Western approach, which is more individualistic and
does not see
living in an unmarried partnership or having sex before marriage as taboo or
sinful; rather,
they see it as a normal part of daily life.

4. Whether the child is legitimate and entitled to the property of his father?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that on the grounds of the
status of the
marriage of the parents of the child, the child cannot be considered legitimate
according to
the Hindu Marriage Act and hence is not entitled to the succession of the
property of Mr.
Sanat Kumar. As the child is born out of a live-in relationship, there is a
question on the
validity of the marriage of Mr. Sanat Kumar and Maria, and so on the legitimacy
of the
child born out of the relationship, and therefore there is no scope for the
succession of the
property of Mr. Sanat Kumar to the child born.

5. Whether Maria is entitled to the property of her partner, Mr. Sanat Kumar
(Deceased)?
The counsel on behalf of the respondent humbly submits before the Hon’ble
Supreme
Court of India that, Maria is not entitled to the property rights of her
partner Mr. Sanat
Kumar. The laws in India do not explicitly recognize the live-in-relationship
for the
purpose of Inheritance rights. Mere cohabitation does not give rise to a
presumption of
marriage. Without formal marriage and registration, Maria didn’t meet the legal
requirements for inheritance and lacked legal sanctity. The courts in India
time to time
have re-established the importance of a valid marriage for Inheritance rights.
10
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

BODY OF PLEADINGS

1. Whether widow Maria (so-called wife of Sanat Kumar) on the grounds of a live-in
relationship entitled to maintenance with her father-in-law?

1A.The counsel on behalf of the respondent humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court
that the
Widow Maria (so-called wife of Mr. Sanat Kumar on the grounds of live-in-
relationship) is not
entitled to the maintenance with her Father-in-law. Maria was not legally married
to Mr. Sanat
Kumar and therefore lacks the legal basis for the Maintenance which typically
arises from
legally recognized marital relationships. Different courts in India have time to
time emphasized
the importance of a valid marriage for the entitlement to maintenance rights.
1.1. Whether Maria was the legally wedded wife of Mr. Sanat Kumar?
1B.The counsel on behalf of the respondent humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court
that the
Widow Maria (so-called wife of Mr. Sanat Kumar on the ground of live-in-
relationship) is not
a legally wedded wife of Mr. Sanat Kumar as the marriage lacks legal recognition
under
Section 15 of Special Marriage Act 19541 as the same requires registration of
marriage, and
without it, the marriage is not considered valid. Not only this, but the
registration of marriage
also served as the means to ensure that the conditions of a valid marriage have
been met.
Different courts and law commission reports have emphasized registering marriages.
1C.The 270th report of the Law Commission of India on Compulsory Registration of
Marriages (2017) emphasized making registration of marriage compulsory, to prevent
denial
of status to women and children born out of wedlock. As per the report, Compulsory
registration can serve as a means to ensure that the conditions of a valid marriage
have been
met.
1D. In Seema Vs Ashwani Kumar 2, the Supreme Court opined that marriages should be
compulsorily registered and directed the State Governments to enact a law for
compulsory
registration of marriages.

1
15. Registration of marriages celebrated in other forms.―Any marriage celebrated,
whether
before or after the commencement of this Act, other than a marriage solemnized
under the Special Marriage Act,
1872 (3 of 1872), or under this Act, may be registered under this Chapter by a
Marriage
Officer in the territories to which this Act extends if the following conditions
are fulfilled, namely:―
(a) a ceremony of marriage has been performed between the parties and they
have .been living
together as husband and wife ever since;
(b) neither party has at the time of registration more than one spouse living;
(c) neither party is an idiot or a lunatic at the time of registration;
(d) the parties have completed the age of twenty-one years at the time of
registration;
(e) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship:
Provided that in the case of a marriage celebrated before the commencement of this
Act, this
condition shall be subject to any law, custom or usage having the force of law
governing each of them
which permits of a marriage between the two; and
(f) the parties have been residing within the district of the Marriage Officer for
a period of not less
than thirty days immediately preceding the date on which the application is made to
him for
registration of the marriage.
2
MANU/SC/0996/2006: [2006(2) SC 578]

11
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

1E. Again, in the case of Neetu Singh v. State of U.P. (2019)3, the Allahabad High
Court held
that in an intra-religion marriage, registration under the Special Marriage Act is
mandatory to
establish the legal validity of the marriage. The court emphasized that non-
registration renders
the marriage void, and the parties cannot claim the status of legally wedded
spouses.
1F. .In the case of Chanchal Singh v. State of Punjab (2011)4, The Punjab and
Haryana High
Court ruled in this case that registration of marriage under the Special Marriage
Act is necessary
to confer legal validity to an intra-religion marriage. The court held that failure
to register the
marriage would result in the spouses not being considered legally wedded for
inheritance and
other legal purposes.
1G. In the case of Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Rajesh Bhatia (2014)5 and the Nandlal
Wasudeo
Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2010)6, the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High
Court
respectively emphasized the importance of registration of marriage under the
Special Marriage
Act for intra-religion marriages. The court held that without registration, the
marriage does not
have legal sanctity, and the parties cannot claim rights as legally wedded spouses.
1H. Indian laws require the compulsory registration of inter-religion marriage as
it grants legal
recognition to the marriage between individuals. The SMA requires marriages to be
registered
to establish their legal validity. Section 15 of SMA7 explicitly states that
marriages solemnized
under the SMA must be registered. Failure to register the marriage, the couple
should not be
considered a legally wedded couple.
1I. In the light of above, it is humbly submitted that Maria (so so-called wife of
Mr. Sanat
Kumar on the grounds of live-in-relationship) is not a legally wedded wife of Mr.
Sanat Kumar.
1.2.Whether Maria is entitled for the the maintenance with her Father-in-law?
1J. The counsel on the behalf of the respondent humbly submits before the Hon’ble
Court that
the Widow Maria (so called wife of Mr. Sanat Kumar on the ground of live-in-
relationship) is
not entitled to the maintenance with her Father-in-law. Maria was not legally
married to Mr.
Sanat Kumar and therefore lacks the legal basis for the Maintenance that typically
arises from

3
(2019) 12 SCC 180
4
(2011) 1 SCC 774
5
(2014) 14 SCC 525
6
(2010) 13 SCC 324
7
15. Registration of marriages celebrated in other forms.―Any marriage celebrated,
whether
before or after the commencement of this Act, other than a marriage solemnized
under the Special Marriage Act,
1872 (3 of 1872), or under this Act, may be registered under this Chapter by a
Marriage
Officer in the territories to which this Act extends if the following conditions
are fulfilled, namely:―
(a) a ceremony of marriage has been performed between the parties and they
have .been living
together as husband and wife ever since;
(b) neither party has at the time of registration more than one spouse living;
(c) neither party is an idiot or a lunatic at the time of registration;
(d) the parties have completed the age of twenty-one years at the time of
registration;
(e) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship:
Provided that in the case of a marriage celebrated before the commencement of this
Act, this
condition shall be subject to any law, custom or usage having the force of law
governing each of them
which permits of a marriage between the two; and
(f) the parties have been residing within the district of the Marriage Officer for
a period of not less
than thirty days immediately preceding the date on which the application is made to
him for
registration of the marriage.

12
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

legally recognized marital relationships. Different courts in India have time to

time emphasized
the importance of a valid marriage for the entitlement to maintenance rights.
1K. In the case of Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand (2003)8, the Supreme Court of India
held that
an unlawfully wedded wife, whose marriage is not recognized as valid under the law,
cannot
claim maintenance from her father-in-law after the death of her husband. The court
emphasized
the importance of a valid marriage for the entitlement to maintenance rights.
1L. Again, in the case of G. Tulsi v. Chawli (2008), 9The Delhi High Court ruled
that an
unlawfully wedded wife, who entered into a void marriage, is not entitled to claim
maintenance
from her father-in-law after the death of her husband. The court held that
maintenance rights
are contingent upon a valid marital relationship.
1M. In the case of Uday Shankar Tripathi v. Satya Devi (201610) the Allahabad High
Court
held that an unlawfully wedded wife, whose marriage is void ab initio (from the
beginning),
cannot claim maintenance from her father-in-law after the death of her husband. The
court
emphasized that maintenance rights arise out of a valid marital relationship.
1N. In Sunita v. Sunil (2012)11, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in this
case that an
unlawfully wedded wife, whose marriage is not recognized as valid under the law,
cannot claim
maintenance from her father-in-law after the death of her husband. The court held
that
maintenance rights are contingent upon a legally recognized marital status.
1O. In Pooja Devi v. Ram Swaroop (2005)12, the Rajasthan High Court held that an
unlawfully
wedded wife, who entered into a void marriage, cannot claim maintenance from her
father-in-
law after the death of her husband. The court emphasized that maintenance rights
are based on
a valid marriage.
1P. The Maintenance rights in India typically arise from a legally recognized
marital
relationship. If the marriage is not legally valid or recognized, there may not be
a legal basis
for claiming maintenance from the father-in-law also claiming maintenance from the
father of
live-in-partner after the death of the partner, especially in cases where the
marriage was not
legally recognized, may invite social stigma and family discord.
1Q. In light of the above arguments, the counsel humbly submits before the Hon’ble
Court that
Maria is not entitled to maintenance from the father of her late live-in-partner.

8
AIR 2003 SC 3533
9
AIR 2008 SC 2956
10
(2016) 3 SCC 482
11
(2012) 8 SCC 405
12
(2005) 12 SCC 233

13
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

2. Whether the special leave petition under Article 136 of the constitution,
brought
before this court maintainable?

2A. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the
Special Leave
petition filled by the Appellant is not maintainable as the Special leave petition
cannot be
granted when the substantial justice has done by the HC and not special and
exceptional
circumstances exist for the leave to be granted and there is not error in the
judgment of hon’ble
HC. Also in the present case no substantial question of law and the case is purely
based on the
question of facts and hence petition is entitled to be dismissed.

2.1.No Exception and special circumstances exist and the substantial justice has
been
done.

2B. Article 13613 does not confer a Right of Appeal, but merely, a discretionary
power to the
Supreme Court to be exercised for satisfying the demands of justice under
exceptional
circumstances.( N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss. (2007) 14In Pritam Singh v. The
State15, the
Supreme Court held that the power under Article 136 is to be exercised sparingly
and in
exceptional cases only. In concluding the discussion on Article 136 in the same
case, it was
held the by the Supreme Court that Generally speaking, this court will not grant
Special Leave,
unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist, that
substantial and grave
injustice has been done and that the case in question presents features of
sufficient gravity to
warrant a review of the decision appealed against."

2C. In the case in hand, no exceptional and special circumstances as the case is
about the
maintenance and inheritance which are already settled in different statutes, also
the HC in the
present case has decided the case on merit and has provided the subsequent justice
to the parties
involved.

2D. In the cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi16and Shivanand

Gaurishankar
Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills17 the Supreme Court has criticized the
approach of
settling private disputes under Article 136, stating that it would lead to
confusing results and

13
Article 136 (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, sentence or
order passed or made by any
court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
14
9 SCC 196)
15
(AIR 1950 SC 169)
16
(AIR 2006 SC 1806)
17
((2008) 13 SCC 323),

14
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

lack of precedents. The Court observed that the Court is not bound to interfere
even if there is
error of law in the impugned order".( Mathai Joby v. George, (2010))18

2.2.Grounds on which appeal are granted not satisfied:

2E. The Supreme Court has exercised its Jurisdiction under Article 136 under the
following
circumstances-

• When the Tribunal ostensibly fails to exercise its patent jurisdiction.

( Chief
Administrator cum It. Secretary, Government of India v. D. C. Dass19
• When there is an apparent error on the face of the decision,( Siemens Eng
& Mfg Co.
v. Union of India20)
• The tribunal has erroneously applied well-accepted principles of
jurisprudence(Clerks
of Calcutta Tramways v. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd.,21)
• The tribunal acts against the principles of Natural Justice(City Corner v.
P.A. to the
Collector,22), or has approached the question in a manner likely to cause
injustice(Mohau Lal v. Management, Bharat Electronics Ltd.,23)

2F. In the instant case the HC has not committed any error in the law and decided
the case after
hearing both parties and on the basis of merits. There is no branch of Natural
justice to say the
decision of Hon’ble HC would be wrong as the matter is adjudicated on the merits.
The counsel
on the behalf of respondent humbly submits that there is no ground of
maintainability of the
instance case under article 136 of constitution of India.

18
(2010) 4 SCC 358
19
AIR 1999 SC 186)
20
AIR 1976 SC 1785
21
AIR 1957 SC 78
22
AIR 1976 SC 143
23
AIR 1981 SC 1253

15
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

3. Whether the live-in relationship in modern Indian society valid?

3A. It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court that live-in-relationship in modern
Indian
societies are still not valid. In India, the majority of Indians live a traditional
lifestyle, which is
in line with Indian culture. In India, marriage is viewed as a traditional
institution, and any
deviation from this is deemed sinful, as marriage is not just about a ceremony but
also creates
legal and social obligations on the spouses and their joint responsibility for
supporting and
raising the children born of the marriage. Marriage, from a scientific perspective,
is intriguing
for the health and well-being of the individuals. The live-in-relationship is a
Western concept
and is totally different from the Indian culture. Indian culture places a strong
emphasis on the
creation of familial ties, in contrast to the Western approach, which is more
individualistic and
does not see living in an unmarried partnership or having sex before marriage as
taboo or sinful;
rather, they see it as a normal part of daily life. In the Indian context, Marriage
has long been
the bedrock of our families. It provides stability and security the couples and
their children.
Live-in relationships, by their nature, lack this commitment.

3B. The Delhi High Court in in Alok Kumar v. State(201024), while dealing with the
validity
of live-in relationship observed that, "‘Live-in relationship’ is a walk-in and
walk-out
relationship. There are no strings attached to this relationship, neither this
relationship creates
any legal bond between the parties. It is a contract of living together which is
renewed every
day by the parties and can be terminated by either of the parties without consent
of the other
party and one party can walk out at will at any time." Further, the persons
entering into such
relationships are debarred from complaining of infidelity or immorality of the
other partner.

3C. India is a country which has rich values, traditions, customs, and beliefs are
important
sources of law. Marriage is a sacred union, that gets legal effects and high
respect in society.
Marriage is a social institution and one of the important parts of Indian Culture.
Our country,
which has strong cultural roots, focuses on morality and social ethics

3D. The live-in-relationship is also contrary to not only societal values but also
to the Hindu
Marriage Act 1955 as well as Hindu customs, as there is no provision for a second
wife among
Hindus. Hence, enabling the mistress to get the status of a legally married wife in
all matters,
including a share in property, inheritance, and maintenance is contrary to the Act.

24
AIR 2010 SC 2735

16
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

3F. The Supreme Court in Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari

Rameshchandra Daga25, tried to distinguish between the “legality” and “morality” of
relationships. Where the Supreme Court observed that keeping into consideration the
present
state of statutory law, a bigamous marriage may be declared illegal because it
contravenes the
provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but it cannot be said to be immoral to
deny even
the right of alimony or maintenance to spouse.

3G. The institution of Marriage, from the scientific perspective, has intriguing
implications for
health and well-being of the child as well as the spouses. As per a study of
National Centre for
Complementary and Integrative Health, marriage is not just about the contractual
relationship
but has also health benefits. As per the study Married individuals tend to live
longer compared
to those who are live-in-relationship. It also highlights marriage as a key to
enhancing
emotional and social well-being and the couples gain a sense of security in their
relationship.

3H. The long and complex divorce law in India gives time for the reconsideration of
the
spouses. As per section 13-B of HMA26, there is a period of waiting from 6 to 18
months.

3I. The Hon’ble Supreme Court In Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash (1991)27, observed
that This
interregnum was obviously intended to give time and opportunity to the parties to
reflect on
their move and seek advice from relations and friends. In this transitional period
one of the
parties may have a second thought and change the mind not to proceed with the
petition.

3J. Marriage also provides strong familial and social support to the couple in
different aspects
of their life, be it physical, emotional, or economical support. Entering into a
marriage, either
through the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or Special Marriage Act, 1954 or any other
personal
laws applicable to the parties, is entering into a relationship of “public
significance,” since
marriage is a social institution, many rights and liabilities flow out of a legal
relationship. The
concept of marriage as a “civil right” has been recognized by various courts all
over the world.

25
AIR 2005 SC 422
26
13B. Divorce by mutual consent. —
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by
a decree of divorce may be
presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether
such marriage was solemnised
before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of
1976), on the ground
that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they
have not been able to live
together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.
(2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the
date of the presentation of the
petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after
the said date, if the petition is not
withdrawn in the meantime, the court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the
parties and after making such
inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnised and that the
averments in the petition are true, pass a
decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date
of the decree.
27
(1991)2 SCC 25

17
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

3K. A married couple has to discharge legally various rights and obligations,
unlike the case of
persons having live-in relationships or marriage-like relationships or de-facto
relationships.

3L. Such a relationship without any duties and obligations attached has its
disadvantages as
well. Such relationships are not binding upon the partners, whereas, in a typical
marriage, the
partners are provided certain rights and bestowed with obligations and duties to be
performed
by both of them. The woman is often in a disadvantageous position in live-in
relationships. A
bench of Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission, in September 2019, even termed
such a
relationship against the dignity of women and made a recommendation to enact a Law
against
it.

3M. In the light of above arguments, it is submitted that Live-in-relationship is

not desirable in
the Indian Context.

4. Whether the child is legitimate and entitled to the property of his father?

4A. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the status of the
child born
out of the live-in relationship of the Late Mr. Sanat Kumar and Maria cannot be
considered
legitimate and thus the child is not entitled to the succession of property of Mr.
Sanat Kumar.

4B. In India, the law of legitimacy depends on the personal laws of the person
concerned.

4C. Mr. Sanat Kumar was a Hindu whereas Maria belonged to Christianity, even though
they
married through Hindu rituals performing Saptapadi and the Christian rituals in the
church,
their marriage is neither registered nor protected under the Special Marriage Act,
1954 and
thus it is termed as a live-in relationship. Thus, the relationship was presented
as a live-in
relationship before the Hon’ble HC.

4D. In the case of Rohit v. State of Maharashtra (2016)28, the Bombay High Court
denied the
inheritance claim of a child born out of a live-in relationship, stating that
existing inheritance
laws do not recognize the rights of such children. And in the case of Anjali v.
State of
Karnataka (2014) the Karnataka High Court ruled against the inheritance claim of a
child born
out of a live-in relationship, highlighting the absence of specific legal
provisions governing the
status of such children.

28
2016 ALL MR (Cri.) 4328

18
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

4E. As it has already been discussed in the issue no.1 (sub-issue 1.1) that their
marriage lacks
legal recognition under section 15 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954
29

and it is also
mentioned previously that the 270th report of the Law Commission of India on
Compulsory
Registration of Marriages (2017) emphasized making registration of marriage
compulsory, to
prevent denial of status to women and children born out of wedlock. Neither of the
conditions
was fulfilled by Mr. Sanat Kumar & Maria so the child born to them does not attain
the status
of legitimacy.

4F. Live-in Relationships being a Western concept, the decisions of the foreign
courts also hold
major importance in this case.

4G. In the case of Gloria v. CA, 1997 (Philippines30): In this case, the Philippine
Supreme
Court ruled that children born out of wedlock are considered legitimate, provided
that the
parents acknowledged them. However, the court also held that they may not be
entitled to
inherit from their biological father's estate.

4H. Also, It can be seen in the judgment of Van Koten v. Van Koten31, The New York
Court of
Appeals held that children born to unmarried parents are legitimate but may not
inherit from
their father's estate without proof of paternity or acknowledgment.

4I. In the light of these statements, the child cannot be considered as legitimate
and is not
entitled to the succession of the property.

4J. Even if the appellant claims maintenance and succession of property by the
provisions of
the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 5 of the Act specifies the prerequisites for a
lawful Hindu
marriage, which provides that both parties must be Hindus. If one of the parties to
the marriage

29
15. Registration of marriages celebrated in other forms.―Any marriage
celebrated, whether
before or after the commencement of this Act, other than a marriage solemnized
under the Special Marriage Act,
1872 (3 of 1872), or under this Act, may be registered under this Chapter by a
Marriage
Officer in the territories to which this Act extends if the following conditions
are fulfilled, namely:―
(a) a ceremony of marriage has been performed between the parties and they
have .been living
together as husband and wife ever since;
(b) neither party has at the time of registration more than one spouse living;
(c) neither party is an idiot or a lunatic at the time of registration;
(d) the parties have completed the age of twenty-one years at the time of
registration;
(e) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship:
Provided that in the case of a marriage celebrated before the commencement of this
Act, this
condition shall be subject to any law, custom or usage having the force of law
governing each of them
which permits of a marriage between the two; and
(f) the parties have been residing within the district of the Marriage Officer for
a period of not less
than thirty days immediately preceding the date on which the application is made to
him for
registration of the marriage.
30
GR No. 119903
31
154 N.E. 146 (N.Y. 1926)

19
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

is a Christian or a Muslim, the marriage will not be considered a genuine Hindu

marriage under
the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. And in this case Maria didn’t change her religion
even after
the marriage. Therefore, under the Act of 1955, a lawful marriage cannot be
solemnized if both
parties are not Hindus. In Yamunabai Anant Rao Adhav v. Anant Rao Shivaram Adhav
(1988),
it was made clear that Section 5 of the Act only permits marriages to be performed
between two Hindus.

4K. And According to Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:

“Where a decree of nullity is granted in respect of any marriage under Section 11

or Section
12, any child begotten or conceived before the decree is made who would have been
the
legitimate child of the parties to the marriage if it had been dissolved instead of
having been
declared null and void or annulled by a decree of nullity shall be deemed to be
their legitimate
child notwithstanding the decree of nullity.

4L. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall be construed as

conferring upon any
child of a marriage which is declared null and void or annulled by a decree of
nullity any right
in or to the property of any person other than the parents in any case where, but
for the passing
of this Act, such child would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any
such rights
because of his not being the legitimate child of his parents.”

4M. Also, according to the article: - Legitimacy of Bastardian Law- A critical

overview
by Lakshmi shanthakumar,

4N. children who will fall under the category of illegitimate children under Hindu
Law may be
summed up as follows:

1. Children born of void marriage.

2. Children born of annulled/voidable marriage.

3. Children born of illicit relationships.

4. Children born through concubinage; and

5. Children born of a marriage which is not valid for want of proper ceremonies.

4O. In the light of the above arguments presented, the child born out of the
wedlock, from the
live-in relationship cannot be considered as legitimate and is not entitled to the
property of Mr.
Sanat Kumar.
20
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

5. Whether Maria is entitled to the property of her partner, Mr. Sanat Kumar
(Deceased)?

5A. The counsel on behalf of the respondent humbly submits before the Hon’ble
Supreme
Court of India that, Maria is not entitled to the property rights of her
partner Mr. Sanat
Kumar. The laws in India do not explicitly recognize the live-in-relationship
for the purpose
of Inheritance rights. Mere cohabitation does not give rise to a presumption
of marriage.
Without formal marriage and registration, Maria didn’t meet the legal
requirements for
inheritance and lacked legal sanctity. The courts in India time to time have
re-established
the importance of a valid marriage for Inheritance rights.
5B. In the case of Dastane vs. Dastane (1975) 32involves a dispute over the
inheritance
rights of a woman who claimed to be in a live-in relationship with the
deceased. The
Supreme Court emphasized the importance of a valid marriage for inheritance
rights under
the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
5C. In the case of Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. (2006)33, the court emphasized
the
importance of a valid marriage for legal recognition in matters of
inheritance. Personal
liberty and choice in matters of marriage were upheld, but only valid
marriages confer
inheritance rights under the law.
5D. Again, in the case of Shailendra Kumar vs. Rekha (2000)34, the Supreme
Court
discussed the validity of a live-in relationship and its implications on
inheritance rights.
The court held that only legally married spouses are entitled to inherit
property under the
Indian Succession Act, 1925.
5E. In the case of Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande vs. the State of Maharashtra
(2014), 35the
Supreme Court reiterated that inheritance rights under the Indian Succession
Act, 1925,
are reserved for legally married spouses. The court dismissed the claim of a
woman in a
live-in relationship who sought inheritance rights.
5F. In Padmini vs. S. Sivaramakrishnan (2003)36 the Hon’ble Supreme Court
again
repeated the issue of inheritance rights of a woman in a live-in relationship
with the
deceased. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a valid marriage to claim
inheritance
under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
5G. Similarly, the supreme Court in Shakuntala Devi vs. Lakshmi Devi (2007)37,
Mohammed Salamatullah vs. Mastan Bi & Ors (2006)38, Bhupendra Nath Hazarika
vs.
 Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors (2009)39, reiterated the requirement of
a valid
marriage for inheritance under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The woman's
claim to
inheritance rights was dismissed due to the absence of a valid marriage
between her and
the deceased.

32
AIR 1975 SC 1534
33
(2006) 5 SCC 475
34
(2000) 2 SCC 402
35
(2014) 1 SCC 188
36
(2003) 9 SCC 156
37
AIR 2007 SC 2894
38
(2006) 8 SCC 260
39
(2009) 3 SCC 465

21
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

5H. The inheritance laws in India recognize only legally solemnized marriages
for the
purpose of inheritance. Live-in-relationships that lack the formalities and
legal recognitions
of marriage do not qualify as a legal spouse under any law in India. Under
section 39 of
the Special Marriage Act40, which deals with the interstate succession of a
Hindu,
Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh, or Jain. Specifies that the property of a male
dying intestate
shall be distributed among his heirs following the provisions of the Act,
including his
lawfully wedded wife. Also, as per section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1956,
the
property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the
provisions of the
Act, including upon his lawfully wedded wife.
5I. In this case, Maria, the live-in-partner of Mr. Sanat was not lawfully
married and
therefore not entitled to the claim in the property of Mr. Sanat Kumar.

5J. In the light of the above arguments, the counsel humbly submits that Maria
is not
entitled to the property of her partner Mr. Sanat Kumar (Deceased).

40
39. [ Appeals from decrees and orders [Substituted by Act 68 of 1976, Section
37, for section 39 (w.e.f.
27.5.1976).]
(1)All decrees made by the Court in any proceeding under Chapter V or Chapter VI
shall, subject to the provisions
of sub-section (3), be appealable as decrees of the Court made in the exercise of
its original civil jurisdiction, and
such appeal shall lie to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the
decisions of the Court given in the
exercise of its original civil jurisdiction.
(2)Orders made by the Court in any proceeding under this Act under section 37 or
section 38 shall, subject to the
provisions of sub-section (3), be appealable if they are not interim orders, and
every such appeal shall lie to the
Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of the Court given in the
exercise of its original civil
jurisdiction.
(3)There shall be no appeal under this section on the subject of costs only.
(4)Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of ninety
days from the date of the
decree or order.

22
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2024

PRAYER

Therefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and

authorities cited, may
this Hon’ble court be pleased to Declare that:
1. Maria, on the grounds of a live-in relationship is not entitled to maintenance
with her
father-in-law.
2. The special leave petition under Article 136 of the constitution, brought before
this court
is not maintainable.
3. The child is not legitimate and therefore not entitled to the property of Mr.
Sanat Kumar.
4. Maria is not entitled to the property of the late Mr. Sanat Kumar.

And/or
pass any other order that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant in
justice, equity, and
good conscience. All of which is humbly prayed.

23
Memorial on the behalf of the respondent.