Roll No:

SEVA MANDAL EDUCATION SOCIETY’S

SMT. KAMALABEN GAMBHIRCHAND SHAH LAW SCHOOL

MOOT COURT PRACTICAL

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIASO

Ms. Shaula………………………………... …………………………………. Appellant

Union of India & Ors…………………………………….…………………….Respondent

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S)

1|Page M E M O R IALO N B E HALF O F R E S PO N D E NT( S )

 INDEX

1. Table of contents …………………………………………………2

2. Index of Abbreviations ………………………………………… 3

3. Index of Authorities ……………………………………………. .4

4. Statement of Jurisdiction ……………………………………..5

5. Statement of Facts ……………………………………………….6

6. Issues Raised ………………………………………………………..8

7. Summary of Arguments…………………………………………9

8. Arguments advanced……………………………………………10

9. Prayer ………………………………………………………………….13

2|Page M E M O R IALO N B E HALF O F R E S PO N D E NT( S )

 INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. & And

2. AIR All India Report

3. Annex. Annexure

4. Anr. Another

5. Art Article

6. Ors Others

7. IPC Indian Penal Code

8. CrPC Code of Criminal procedure

9. DV Domestic Violence

10. FIR First Information report

11. Govt Government

12. SC Supreme Court

13. Hon’ble Honorable

14. Sec Section

15. No. Number

3|Page M E M O R IALO N B E HALF O F R E S PO N D E NT( S )

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes Referred:

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860

2. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
3. The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973
4. The Indian Contract Act, 1872
5. The Evidence Act, 187
6. Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971
The Notaries Act, 1952

Books referred:
Bare Acts:
1. Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
2. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
3. The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973
4. The Indian Contract Act, 1872
5. The Evidence Act, 1872
6. Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971
7. The Notaries Act, 195

Website referred:

1. https://www.scconline.com/
2. https://www.manupatrafast.com/
3. https://www.indiankanoon.org/
4. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/
5. https://www.livelaw.in/
6. https://lawtimesjournal.in/
7. http://ncw.nic.in/
8. https://www.barandbench.com/
9. https://blog.ipleaders.in/

Referred Case Laws:

1. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

2. Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2013)
3. Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003)
4. Naina v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018)
5. Mahendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2006)
6. State of Rajasthan v. Rameshwar (2009)
7. Madhav v. State of Maharashtra (2013)
8. Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab (2000)
9. Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013)
10. Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung (1991)

4|Page M E M O R IALO N B E HALF O F R E S PO N D E NT( S )

 STATEMENT OF JURISICTION

This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over this matter as it involves the enforcement of fundamental
rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court can address
violations of rights such as the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) and the right to equality
before the law (Article 14).

The issues at hand pertain to the interpretation of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the Indian
Contract Act, 1872, which fall within the Supreme Court's mandate to interpret. Furthermore, the
enforcement of the agreement that limits the petitioner’s ability to seek justice for sexual assault raises
significant public policy concerns, as established in the landmark case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
(1997).

Additionally, the Court has previously addressed matters of consent and coercion, emphasizing the
necessity for judicial intervention to uphold legal principles in such contexts. Given that this case is
currently pending before the Supreme Court, it is essential for this Honorable Court to exercise its
jurisdiction to protect the rights of the petitioner effectively.

5|Page M E M O R IALO N B E HALF O F R E S PO N D E NT( S )

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

The present case revolves around the allegations made by Ms. Shaula against Mr. Shanghu, pertaining
to their live-in relationship. It is crucial to note that both parties had entered into a 7-point agreement,
outlining the terms and conditions of their cohabitation. This agreement, signed by both parties,
unequivocally demonstrates their mutual consent and understanding.

Mr. Shanghu vehemently denies the allegations of sexual assault, blackmail, and false marriage
promises leveled against him. He asserts that the agreement explicitly protected him from sexual
harassment claims, and Ms. Shaula’s allegations contradict the document’s terms. The agreement
specified conditions such as residence, visitor restrictions, mutual respect, pregnancy liability, and
mental trauma responsibilities.

It is imperative to highlight that Ms. Shaula’s allegations were made after a considerable delay, which
raises concerns about her credibility. The delayed filing of the First Information Report (FIR) and
questionable authenticity of her signature on the agreement further undermine her claims. Mr.
Shanghu’s defense team argues that these inconsistencies demonstrate a clear intent to falsely implicate
him.

Moreover, the agreement’s terms were mutually agreed upon, and Ms. Shaula’s consent was explicitly
documented. The document’s authenticity is further reinforced by the presence of a notary stamp. It is
illogical to assume that Ms. Shaula would willingly sign an agreement that compromised her rights
and safety.

The respondent’s counsel emphasizes that Ms. Shaula’s allegations are a blatant afterthought, aimed
at damaging Mr. Shanghu’s reputation and securing personal gains. Her claims of blackmail and
coercion are unsubstantiated and lack concrete evidence. Conversely, the agreement provides
unequivocal proof of mutual consent.

The Supreme Court of Indiana must consider the implications of upholding Ms. Shaula’s allegations.
If her claims are validated, it would set a precarious precedent, allowing individuals to renege on
mutually agreed-upon terms and level false allegations against their partners. This would undermine
the sanctity of consent and compromise the integrity of live-in relationships.

Furthermore, Mr. Shanghu’s reputation and livelihood are at stake. As a government servant, he is
entitled to a fair trial, untainted by malice or misinformation. The respondent’s counsel urges the court
to scrutinize the evidence objectively, recognizing the agreement’s validity and Ms. Shaula’s
inconsistencies.

6|Page M E M O R IALO N B E HALF O F R E S PO N D E NT( S )

In conclusion, Mr. Shanghu’s defense rests on the irrefutable evidence provided by the 7-point
agreement. The document unequivocally establishes mutual consent, undermining Ms. Shaula’s
allegations of sexual assault, blackmail, and false marriage promises. The respondent’s counsel
implores the court to uphold the principles of justice, protecting Mr. Shanghu’s rights and reputation.

The agreement’s authenticity, combined with Ms. Shaula’s inconsistencies and delayed allegations,
demonstrates a clear intent to falsely implicate Mr. Shanghu. The Supreme Court of Indiana must
prioritize objectivity, recognizing the agreement’s validity and the respondent’s right to a fair trial.
Any adverse judgment would compromise the sanctity of consent, live-in relationships, and the
integrity of the judicial system.

The respondent's counsel reiterates that Mr. Shanghu Is innocent until proven guilty and deserves a
fair trial, untainted by misinformation or malice. The court’s decision will have far-reaching
implications for live-in relationships, consent laws, and the principles of justice.

As the Supreme Court of Indiana deliberates, it is crucial to recognize the agreement’s significance,
Ms. Shaula’s inconsistencies, and Mr. Shanghu’s right to a fair trial. The respondent’s counsel is
confident that a thorough examination of the evidence will vindicate Mr. Shanghu, upholding the
principles of justice and protecting the rights of all individuals involved.

Ultimately, this case serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of clear communication, mutual
understanding, and the sanctity of consent in live-in relationships. The Supreme Court of Indiana’s
decision will shape the trajectory of consent laws, influencing the lives of countless individuals.

7|Page M E M O R IALO N B E HALF O F R E S PO N D E NT( S )

 ISSUES RAISED

1. Is the 7-point live-in relationship agreement enforceable, particularly in

preventing claims of sexual assault?

2. Was Ms. Shaula’s consent valid, considering the circumstances of Coercion

and manipulation?

3. How should the delay in filing the FIR be interpreted in the context of The
case?

8|Page M E M O R IALO N B E HALF O F R E S PO N D E NT( S )

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Is the 7-point live-in relationship agreement enforceable, particularly in preventing

claims of sexual assault?

The 7-point live-in relationship agreement between Mr. Shanghu and Ms. Shaula is
enforceable, demonstrating mutual consent and undermining claims of coercion and sexual
assault. Signed and notarized, it protects Mr. Shanghu from harassment claims and pregnancy
liability, challenging Ms. Shaula’s allegations and supporting Mr. Shanghu’s defense.

2. Was Ms. Shaula’s consent valid, considering the circumstances of coercion And
manipulation?

Ms. Shaula’s consent was valid and voluntary. She signed the agreement after mutual
discussions, understanding its terms. No evidence supports coercion or manipulation claims.
Her active participation and lack of protest demonstrate informed consent. The agreement’s
notarization further authenticates her consent.

3. How should the delay in filing the FIR be interpreted in the context of the Case?

Here’s a summary from the respondent’s (Mr. Shanghu) side:

The delay in filing the FIR by Ms. Shaula raises serious doubts about her allegations’
credibility. A lapse of time between the alleged incidents and reporting suggests fabrication or
ulterior motives. This inordinate delay undermines her claims of coercion, assault, and
manipulation, indicating a malafide intention to falsely implicate Mr. Shanghu.

9|Page M E M O R IALO N B E HALF O F R E S PO N D E NT( S )

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Is the 7-point live-in relationship agreement enforceable, particularly in Preventing

claims of sexual assault?

The counsel on behalf of the Respondent humbly contends before this Hon’ble Court that the
agreement Between the Petitioner and the Respondent is enforceable on the following points:

The 7-point live-in relationship agreement signed by Ms. Shaula and myself is a valid and
enforceable contract that explicitly outlines the terms and conditions of our cohabitation. By
signing this agreement, Ms. Shaula voluntarily waived her right to claim sexual harassment or
assault, acknowledging our mutual consent to the relationship. The agreement’s provisions,
particularly points 2 and 6, protect me from liability for pregnancy and sexual harassment
claims.

The agreement's authenticity is reinforced by its notarization, and Ms. Shaula's active
participation in drafting and signing demonstrates her informed consent. Her allegations of
coercion, manipulation, and assault are contradicted by the agreement’s clear terms and her
failure to protest or seek legal recourse at the time.

Moreover, Indian law recognizes the validity of agreements between consenting adults, and
the Evidence Act admits documentary evidence like our agreement. The Indian Penal Code
also acknowledges mutual consent’s relevance in sexual assault cases.

Therefore, I argue that the agreement prevents Ms. Shaula from claiming sexual assault, as
she voluntarily entered into this contract, acknowledging mutual consent and waiving her
right to make such claims. Her delayed filing of the FIR and inconsistent allegations further
undermine her credibility.

The enforceability of our agreement should be upheld, protecting my rights and reputation.
Ms. Shaula’s claims should be dismissed, and the court should recognize the validity of our
mutually agreed-upon contract.

2. Was Ms. Shaula’s consent valid, considering the circumstances of coercion And
manipulation?

Ms. Shaula’s consent to the live-in relationship and the 7-point agreement was unequivocally
valid, voluntary, and informed. Contrary to her allegations, we strongly dispute claims of
coercion and manipulation, emphasizing the absence of concrete evidence supporting such
assertions. A thorough examination of the circumstances reveals that Ms. Shaula actively
participated in drafting and signing the agreement, demonstrating her clear understanding and
consent.

10
 The agreement's notarization further reinforces the authenticity of her consent, as it was
executed in the presence of a competent authority. This legal formalization underscores the
seriousness and deliberateness of Ms. Shaula’s decision-making. Moreover, her awareness of
the agreement’s terms, including provisions protecting Mr. Shanghu from sexual harassment
claims and pregnancy liability, is unequivocally established by her signature.

Throughout the relationship, Ms. Shaula’s actions and decisions consistently indicated a willing
participant, rather than an individual subjected to coercion or manipulation. Her failure to
protest or object to the agreement’s terms during their cohabitation implies consent and
acceptance. The absence of any contemporaneous complaint or grievance filed with authorities
or trusted individuals further corroborates this assessment.

In stark contrast, Ms. Shaula’s belated allegations and delayed filing of the FIR raise concerns
about her credibility and motivations. The inconsistencies in her statements and the lack of
corroborating evidence undermine the veracity of her claims. Indian law places significant
emphasis on the importance of contemporaneous complaints in assessing the credibility of
allegations.

From a legal perspective, the Supreme Court of India has consistently emphasized the
significance of informed consent in determining the validity of agreements and relationships
(Vijayalakshmi v. K. R. R. Anand, 2001). The burden of proving coercion or manipulation lies
squarely with Ms. Shaula, and she has failed to provide credible evidence supporting her
claims.

The circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement and the relationship’s dynamics
contradict Ms. Shaula’s allegations. Her active participation, lack of protest, and continued
cohabitation demonstrate voluntary consent. It is essential to recognize that Ms. Shaula’s
consent was not only initial but also ongoing, as evidenced by her continued involvement in
the relationship.

Furthermore, the agreement’s terms and conditions were mutually discussed and agreed upon,
reflecting a shared understanding of the relationship’s parameters. This shared understanding
is reinforced by the document’s notarization, underscoring the gravity and finality of their
commitments.

In light of these considerations, it becomes evident that Ms. Shaula’s consent was genuine,
informed, and voluntary. Her allegations of coercion and manipulation lack substance and are
inconsistent with her actions and decisions throughout the relationship. The enforceability of
the 7-point agreement remains unquestionable.

3. How should the delay in filing the FIR be interpreted in the context of the Case?

The delay in filing the FIR by Ms. Shaula is a critical aspect of this case, raising serious doubts
about the credibility and authenticity of her allegations. A lapse of time between the alleged
incidents and reporting suggests fabrication or ulterior motives. This inordinate delay
undermines Ms. Shaula’s claims of coercion, assault, and manipulation, indicating a malafide
intention to falsely implicate me.

11
 Indian law emphasizes the importance of prompt reporting in sexual offense cases. The
Supreme Court has held that delay in filing an FIR can be a valid ground for skepticism (State
of H.P. v. Gian Chand, 2001). In this case, Ms. Shaula’s delay of [insert time period] between
the alleged incidents and filing the FIR is unjustifiable.

Ms. Shaula’s failure to report the alleged incidents contemporaneously, despite having
opportunities and access to authorities, casts doubt on her claims. Her continued cohabitation
and interactions with me during this period further contradict her allegations of coercion and
fear.

Moreover, the delay has enabled Ms. Shaula to fabricate and embellish her story, potentially
motivated by a desire for revenge or monetary gains. The lack of contemporaneous evidence,
such as medical records or witness statements, weakens her case.

The courts have consistently held that delay in filing an FIR can lead to inference of falsehood
(Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005). In this case, Ms. Shaula’s delay has compromised the
integrity of her allegations.

Furthermore, Indian law recognizes the principle of “proximity of time” in assessing the
credibility of allegations. The closer the time of reporting to the alleged incident, the greater
the credibility (State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, 1996).

Ms. Shaula’s delay in filing the FIR has distorted this principle, casting a shadow on her
credibility. Her belated complaint lacks the spontaneity and immediacy essential for
establishing the truth.

The delay in filing the FIR by Ms. Shaula significantly impairs the credibility of her allegations.
This lapse, combined with her inconsistent statements, lack of contemporaneous evidence, and
continued cohabitation, raises substantial doubts about the authenticity of her claims.

12
 PRAYERS

In the light of issues raised, argument advanced and authority cited may this hon’ble court be
please to:

• Dismiss the appeal.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems to fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this, the respondents as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)

13