Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

03FL23BLL049

Intra Moot Court

Competition, 2025

Sanjana
(Petitioner)
V
Ramesh
(Respondent)

Before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India

Writ Petition No.: / 2025

Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India

Memorial for the Petitioner

1|Pag e
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

TABLE OF CONTENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................ 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................... 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................... 7
ISSUES RAISED .................................................................................................................. 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ......................................................................................... 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………………..11
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE REMARRIAGE OF THE RESPONDENT-HUSBAND AFFECTS
THE RIGHTS OF THE APPELLANT-WIFE IN CLAIMING MAINTENANCE?.................11
1.1 THAT THE OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN A FORMER WIFE PERSISTS DESPITE
THE REMARRIAGE OF THE HUSBAND UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE BNSS AND
SECTION 25 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT……………………………………....11
1.2 THAT THE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES ARISING FROM THE HUSBAND'S
REMARRIAGE DO NOT OVERRIDE HIS PRE-EXISTING DUTY TO PROVIDE
MAINTENANCE TO THE APPELLANT-WIFE………………………………………..12
ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE LOWER COURTS HAVE CORRECTLY INTERPRETED THE
CONCEPT OF ‘MENTAL CRUELTY’ UNDER SECTION 13(1) (IA) OF THE HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT?..................................................................................................................15

2.1 THAT THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT-WIFE DID NOT AMOUNT
TO MENTAL CRUELTY AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 13(1) (IA) OF THE HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT……………………………………………………………………………15

2.2 THAT THE LOWER COURTS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE CONTEXT AND
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE ALLEGATIONS WERE MADE, LEADING TO AN
INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF MENTAL CRUELTY……………………………...17
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE QUANTUM OF MAINTENANCE AWARDED TO THE
APPELLANT-WIFE IS JUST AND EQUITABLE, CONSIDERING THE FINANCIAL
STATUS OF BOTH PARTIES?................................................................................................18

3.1 THAT THE LOWER COURTS DID NOT APPROPRIATELY ASSESS THE
RESPONDENT-HUSBAND'S ACTUAL INCOME, INCLUDING RENTAL EARNINGS,
WHILE DETERMINING THE MAINTENANCE AMOUNT………………………………19

3.2 THAT THE FINANCIAL NEEDS AND STANDARD OF LIVING OF THE

APPELLANT-WIFE WERE INADEQUATELY CONSIDERED IN THE DETERMINATION
OF MAINTENANCE………………………………………………………………………...20
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………...22

2|Pag e
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Full Form

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
SCC Supreme Court Cases
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
v. Versus
Ors. Others
A Article
i.e. That is
Sec. Section
BNSS Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
HC High Court
Pg Page
SC Supreme Court
u/s Under Section
UOI Union of India
edn. Edition

3|Pag e
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

INDEX OF AUTHORITTIES

STATUTES

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974
3. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
4. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
5. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956

BOOKS

1. M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 7th edition, 2014, Lexis Nexis.

2. Mulla – HINDU LAW (24th edn. LexisNexis)
3. Dr. Paras Diwan - Modern Hindu Law, (26th edn. Allahabad Law Agency, 2023)

SOURCES

1. SCC ONLINE [www.scconline.co.in]

2. LIVE LAW [www.livelaw.in]

3. LEXIS NEXIS [www.lexisnexis.com]

4. MANUPATRA [www.manupatra.com]

5. EBC READER [https://www.ebcwebstore.com/ebcreader.php]

6. SUPREME COURT OBSERVER [www.scobserver.com]

4|Pag e
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

CASES

Name of the Cases Citation

1. Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain (2009) 10 SCC 415
2. Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2014) 6 SCC 353
3. Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan (1993) 3 SCC 406
4. Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury AIR 2017 SC 2383
5. Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC 479
6. K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226
7. Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma AIR 2015 DELH 53
8. Kusum v. Hukam Chand (2000) 9 SCC 320
9. Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017) 15 SCC 801
10. Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558
11. N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326
12. Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324
13. Ramchander v. Ananta (2015) 11 SCC 539
14. Ramesh Chandra Daga v. Rameshwari Chandra Daga (2005) 2 SCC 33
15. Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi (2010) 4 SCC 476
16. Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh AIR 2007 SC 347
17. Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705
18. Shyam Sunder Kohli v. Sushma Kohli (2004) 7 SCC 747
19. Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh (2017) 4 SCC 85
20. Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar (2011) 13 SCC 112
21. Vijay Kumar Prasad v. State of Bihar (2004) 5 SCC 196
22. Vijay Kumar v. Neela Vijay Kumar AIR 2003 SC 2462
23. Vishwanath Sitaram Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal (2012) 7 SCC 288

5|Pag e
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP), challenging the judgment and
order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the Hon’ble High Court, which upheld the decree of divorce
granted by the Family Court. The Petitioner humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Court.

Article 136 in Constitution of India

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Not withstanding 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.

6|Pag e
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Sanjana and Ramesh got married on 27.06.2012 at Nagpur according to Hindu rites
and customs after a four-year courtship. Following the marriage, Sanjana resided with
Ramesh at their matrimonial home for about two months.
2. During this period, Ramesh's father was hospitalized due to heart issues, requiring his
constant attention. Sanjana allegedly became displeased with Ramesh's divided focus
and left for her maternal home. Despite Ramesh’s repeated efforts to reconcile and
bring her back, Sanjana refused to return.
3. Ramesh subsequently filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, citing cruelty and desertion as grounds for seeking dissolution of the
marriage.
4. Prior to this, Sanjana had filed a petition seeking annulment of the marriage, alleging
fraud by Ramesh and his family. She claimed that the marriage was orchestrated as a
scheme to extract money from her parents. This petition was dismissed by the Family
Court on 01.08.2014 due to lack of evidence, and Sanjana did not appeal against this
order.
5. Ramesh alleged that Sanjana threatened to file false criminal cases against him and
his family, exerted pressure on him to live separately from his parents, and falsely
accused him of having an illicit relationship with his friend’s wife. He argued that
these actions amounted to mental cruelty.
6. The Family Court accepted Ramesh’s contentions and granted a decree of divorce on
31.07.2017. Additionally, the court ordered Ramesh to pay monthly maintenance of
Rs. 25,000/- to Sanjana.
7. Sanjana challenged the divorce decree before the High Court, arguing that the findings
of cruelty were unjust and that the maintenance amount was insufficient. However,
the High Court dismissed her appeal on 25.04.2018, upholding the Family Court's
decision.
8. The High Court observed that Sanjana’s allegations of fraud, dowry demands, and
accusations of character assassination against Ramesh were false and constituted
mental cruelty.
9. In 2019, Ramesh remarried. In 2024, a mediation attempts to resolve financial claims
failed.

7|Pag e
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

10. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, Sanjana sought an increment in
the maintenance amount, arguing that Rs. 25,000/- was inadequate given Ramesh’s
income of Rs. 1,30,000/- per month.
11. Ramesh countered, claiming his monthly income was only Rs. 50,000/- and that the
remaining Rs. 80,000/- was rental income from properties registered in his father’s
name, which should not be considered as his personal income.
12. He also contended that after his remarriage, he was no longer liable to pay
maintenance to Sanjana due to his new family obligations.
13. Sanjana, as the petitioner, now seeks relief from the Supreme Court, challenging the
findings of cruelty, the quantum of maintenance awarded, and Ramesh's claim of
exemption from maintenance due to his remarriage.

8|Pag e
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

ISSUES RAISED

Issues:

1. Whether the remarriage of the respondent-husband affects the rights of the appellant-wife
in claiming maintenance?

2. Whether the lower Courts have correctly interpreted the concept of ‘mental cruelty’ under
Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act?

3. Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded to the appellant-wife is just and equitable,
considering the financial status of both parties?

9|Pag e
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Issue I

Whether the remarriage of the respondent-husband affects the rights of the appellant-
wife in claiming maintenance?

It is contended that the remarriage of the respondent-husband does not affect the appellant-
wife's right to claim maintenance. This argument is substantiated on the grounds – (i) the
obligation to maintain a former wife persists despite the remarriage of the husband under
Section 144 of the BNSS and Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and (ii) the financial
responsibilities arising from the husband's remarriage do not override his pre-existing duty to
provide maintenance to the appellant-wife.

Issue II

Whether the lower Courts have correctly interpreted the concept of ‘mental cruelty’
under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act?

It is contended that the allegations made by the appellant-wife do not amount to mental
cruelty as defined under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. This argument is
substantiated on the grounds – (i) the allegations were not substantiated with clear evidence
of mental cruelty, and (ii) the lower Courts failed to consider the context and circumstances
under which the allegations were made, leading to an incorrect interpretation of the concept
of mental cruelty.

Issue III

Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded to the appellant-wife is just and

equitable, considering the financial status of both parties?

It is contended that the quantum of maintenance awarded to the appellant-wife is insufficient

and inequitable, as the lower Courts did not adequately assess the respondent-husband's
actual income, including rental earnings, while determining the maintenance amount. This
argument is substantiated on the grounds – (i) the financial status of the respondent-husband
was misrepresented, and (ii) the financial needs and standard of living of the appellant-wife
were not properly considered in the determination of the maintenance.

10 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I

Whether the remarriage of the respondent-husband affects the rights of the appellant-
wife in claiming maintenance?

It is contended that the remarriage of the respondent-husband does not affect the appellant-
wife's right to claim maintenance. This argument is justified on the basis of the following
grounds:

1.1 That the obligation to maintain a former wife persists despite the remarriage of the
husband under Section 144 of the BNSS and Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The obligation to maintain a former wife under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act persists even after the
remarriage of the husband. This position is rooted in the principles of social justice, equity,
and the statutory intent to prevent destitution of women who have been divorced.

First, the primary objective of Section 144 of the BNSS is to prevent vagrancy and destitution
by providing speedy and summary relief to those who are unable to maintain themselves.
This provision is secular and applies irrespective of personal laws, ensuring that divorced
wives are not left without financial support. In Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat1,
the Supreme Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 125 is to provide immediate relief
to those in need, and the obligation to maintain a former wife is not extinguished by the
husband’s remarriage. The Court held that the husband’s remarriage does not absolve him of
his duty to maintain his former wife, as the provision is designed to protect the weaker party.

Second, Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which deals with permanent alimony and
maintenance, also supports the continuation of maintenance obligations despite the husband’s
remarriage. In Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan2, the Supreme Court clarified that the
remarriage of the husband does not automatically terminate his obligation to pay maintenance
to his former wife. The Court held that the financial capacity of the husband and the needs of
the former wife must be considered, and the remarriage of the husband is only one of the
factors to be taken into account. This judgment focuses on the principle that the obligation to

1
Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC 479
2
Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan (1993) 3 SCC 406

11 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

maintain a former wife is not contingent on the husband’s marital status but is based on the
former wife’s right to live with dignity.

Third, the argument that the husband’s remarriage should absolve him of his obligation to
maintain his former wife is contrary to the legislative intent behind Section 144 of the BNSS
and Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Both provisions are designed to address the
economic disparity that often arises after divorce and to ensure that women are not left
without means of sustenance. In Vijay Kumar Prasad v. State of Bihar3, the Supreme Court
held that the husband’s remarriage does not diminish his responsibility to maintain his former
wife, as the law recognizes the distinct needs of both households. The Court emphasized that
the husband’s obligation is not extinguished but must be balanced with his financial capacity.

Finally, the principle of equity and fairness demands that the husband’s remarriage should
not prejudice the rights of the former wife to receive maintenance. In Shamima Farooqui v.
Shahid Khan4, the Supreme Court held that the obligation to maintain a former wife is a
moral and legal duty that continues irrespective of the husband’s remarriage. The Court
observed that the law must ensure that women are not rendered destitute due to the husband’s
remarriage, as this would defeat the purpose of maintenance laws. This judgment reinforces
the idea that the husband’s remarriage is not a valid ground to deny maintenance to the former
wife.

In conclusion, the obligation to maintain a former wife under Section 144 of the BNSS and
Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act persists despite the husband’s remarriage. This position
is supported by the legislative intent to prevent destitution, judicial interpretations prioritizing
women’s welfare, and the principles of equity and fairness. The cited judgments, provide a
robust legal foundation for this argument. The courts have consistently upheld the view that
the husband’s remarriage does not extinguish his obligation to maintain his former wife,
ensuring that women are not left without financial support.

1.2 That the financial responsibilities arising from the husband's remarriage do not
override his pre-existing duty to provide maintenance to the appellant-wife.

3
Vijay Kumar Prasad v. State of Bihar (2004) 5 SCC 196
4
Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705

12 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

The financial responsibilities arising from the husband’s remarriage do not override his pre-
existing duty to provide maintenance to the appellant-wife under Section 144 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. This principle
is firmly established in Indian jurisprudence, which prioritizes the welfare of the former wife
and ensures that her right to maintenance is not compromised by the husband’s subsequent
marital obligations.

First, the obligation to provide maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) or Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is a continuing duty that
is not extinguished by the husband’s remarriage. In Ramesh Chandra Rampratapji Daga v.
Rameshwari Ramesh Chandra Daga5, the Supreme Court held that the husband’s remarriage
does not terminate his obligation to maintain his former wife. The Court emphasized that the
purpose of maintenance laws is to prevent destitution and ensure that the former wife can live
with dignity. In the present case, Ramesh’s remarriage in 2019 does not absolve him of his
duty to pay maintenance to Sanjana, as the law recognizes that both households must be
supported based on the husband’s financial capacity. The Court in Ramesh Chandra further
clarified that the husband’s remarriage is only one factor to be considered while determining
maintenance, and it does not override the former wife’s right to receive maintenance.

Second, the courts have held that the husband’s financial capacity must be assessed based on
his overall income and assets, including those held in the name of family
members. In Rajnesh v. Neha6, the Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines for
determining maintenance, including the consideration of the husband’s income from all
sources, whether direct or indirect. The Court held that rental income from properties held in
the name of family members can be considered part of the husband’s financial capacity if he
derives benefit from it. Applying this principle to the present case, Ramesh’s rental income
of Rs. 80,000 from properties held in his father’s name can be considered part of his income
for the purpose of determining maintenance, as it contributes to his overall financial
resources.

Third, the courts have emphasized that maintenance is a right of the former wife and not a
charity or discretionary relief. In Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar7, the Supreme
Court held that the husband’s remarriage does not diminish the former wife’s entitlement to

5
Ramesh Chandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Ramesh Chandra Daga (2005) 2 SCC 33
6
Rajnesh v. Neha AIR 2021 SC 569
7
Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar (2011) 13 SCC 112

13 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

maintenance. The Court observed that the purpose of maintenance is to ensure that the former
wife is not left without means of sustenance, and the husband’s remarriage does not alter this
obligation. In the present case, Sanjana’s claim for an increment in maintenance is justified,
as the award of Rs. 25,000 is insufficient given Ramesh’s total income of Rs. 1,30,000. The
Court in Vinny Parmvir Parmar also noted that the husband’s remarriage is irrelevant to the
determination of maintenance, as the former wife’s right to live with dignity is paramount.

Fourth, the courts have consistently held that false allegations or misconduct by the wife do
not automatically disentitle her to maintenance. In Shyam Sunder Kohli v. Sushma Kohli8,
the Supreme Court ruled that even if the wife’s conduct amounts to cruelty, it does not absolve
the husband of his duty to provide maintenance unless the conduct is so egregious that it
would be inequitable to grant maintenance. In the present case, while the Family Court and
High Court found that Sanjana’s allegations amounted to mental cruelty, this does not
automatically disentitle her to maintenance. The Court in Shyam Sunder Kohli emphasized
that maintenance is a statutory right aimed at preventing destitution, and the wife’s
misconduct must be weighed against her financial needs.

In conclusion, the financial responsibilities arising from Ramesh’s remarriage do not override
his pre-existing duty to provide maintenance to Sanjana. These judgments establishes that the
husband’s remarriage is only one factor to be considered while determining maintenance, and
it does not absolve him of his obligation to maintain his former wife. The courts have
consistently prioritized the welfare of the former wife and ensured that she is not left destitute.
In the present case, Ramesh’s remarriage and his new financial obligations do not diminish
Sanjana’s right to receive maintenance, and the rental income from properties held in his
father’s name can be considered part of his financial capacity. The award of Rs. 25,000 is
insufficient, and an increment in maintenance is justified based on Ramesh’s total income
and financial resources.

It is thus contended that the remarriage of the respondent-husband does not affect the rights
of the appellant-wife in claiming maintenance. The obligation to maintain a former wife
persists despite the remarriage of the husband under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Moreover, the financial
responsibilities arising from the husband’s remarriage do not override his pre-existing duty

8
Shyam Sunder Kohli v. Sushma Kohli (2004) 7 SCC 747

14 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

to provide maintenance to the appellant-wife, as her right to sustenance is independent of his

subsequent personal obligations.

ISSUE II

Whether the lower Courts have correctly interpreted the concept of ‘mental cruelty’
under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act?

It is contended that the allegations made by the appellant-wife do not amount to mental
cruelty as defined under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. This argument is
substantiated on the following grounds:

2.1 That the allegations made by the appellant-wife did not amount to mental cruelty as
defined under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

It is contended that the allegations made by the appellant-wife did not amount to mental
cruelty as defined under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Mental cruelty,
as interpreted by courts, refers to conduct that causes such anguish and suffering that it makes
it impossible for the aggrieved spouse to continue living with the other. However, in the
present case, the allegations made by the appellant-wife do not meet this high threshold, and
the lower courts have failed to properly assess the nature and circumstances of these
allegations before concluding that they amount to cruelty.

Any marriage solemnised, 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 has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the
petitioner with cruelty9.

The Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh10, laid down broad guidelines to
determine what constitutes mental cruelty. The Court observed that “mental cruelty must be
of such a degree that it renders the continued cohabitation of the spouses insufferable and
incompatible with the marital relationship”. It was held that ordinary wear and tear of married
life, including disagreements and accusations made in the heat of the moment, cannot be
considered as cruelty unless they cross a certain threshold. In the present case, the appellant-

9
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1) (ia)
10
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh AIRONLINE 2007 SC 347

15 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

wife’s allegations, including claims of fraud and dowry demands, were part of a dispute
between the parties and did not amount to persistent or unbearable mental cruelty. The Family
Court and the High Court failed to consider whether these allegations actually led to such
hardship that the respondent-husband could not reasonably be expected to continue the
marriage.

Further, in Vishwanath Sitaram Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal11, the Supreme Court
emphasized that “false allegations of adultery and extramarital affairs can amount to mental
cruelty if they are baseless and maliciously intended to harm the spouse’s reputation.”
However, in the present case, the appellant-wife’s accusation regarding the respondent-
husband’s alleged illicit relationship was not conclusively proved to be false. The mere fact
that an allegation was made in a matrimonial dispute does not automatically translate into
cruelty unless there is deliberate intent to inflict mental suffering. The lower courts erred in
treating these allegations as cruelty without assessing the context in which they were made.

Similarly, in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa12, the Supreme Court held that filing of criminal
complaints and making allegations do not amount to cruelty unless they are manifestly false
and maliciously filed with an intent to harass the other spouse. In the present case, the
appellant-wife had initially filed for annulment of marriage based on alleged fraud but was
unsuccessful in proving her claims. However, the failure of her petition alone does not
establish that she acted with malice or that her allegations amounted to cruelty. The Family
Court and High Court did not consider whether her claims were made in good faith or out of
a genuine belief, which is crucial in determining whether an act amounts to cruelty.

In Neelu Kohli v. Naveen Kohli13, the Supreme Court held that mental cruelty must be
assessed on the basis of the overall circumstances of the case rather than isolated incidents.
The courts must consider the “intention behind the allegations, the nature of the relationship,
and whether the conduct actually caused severe mental distress.” In the present case, the
lower courts failed to conduct a holistic analysis and instead treated the appellant-wife’s
allegations as per se cruelty, which is contrary to the established jurisprudence.

In conclusion, the allegations made by Sanjana do not amount to mental cruelty under Section
13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. These judgments establish that mental cruelty must be

11
Vishwanath Sitaram Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal (2012) 7 SCC 288
12
K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226
13
Neelu Kohli v. Naveen Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558

16 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

assessed based on the conduct of the parties, the context in which the allegations were made,
and their impact on the petitioner. In the present case, Sanjana’s allegations were made in the
context of her dissatisfaction with the marriage and her belief that Ramesh’s family had
ulterior motives. These allegations were not intended to cause mental harm but were a
reaction to the circumstances, and thus, they do not meet the threshold of mental cruelty.

2.2 That the lower Courts failed to consider the context and circumstances in which the
allegations were made, leading to an incorrect interpretation of mental cruelty.

It is contended that the lower courts erred in their interpretation of mental cruelty under
Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by failing to consider the context and
circumstances in which the allegations were made. Mental cruelty is not to be assessed in
isolation but in the backdrop of the matrimonial relationship, the conduct of both parties, and
the intent behind the statements or allegations.

The Supreme Court in Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh14, held that “mere allegations made in
the heat of a matrimonial dispute do not necessarily amount to mental cruelty unless they are
so grave and weighty that they make cohabitation impossible.” In the present case, the
appellant-wife had alleged fraud and dowry demands in her annulment petition, but these
claims, even if unsubstantiated, were not proven to be made with malice. The courts below
failed to distinguish between false allegations made with a deliberate intent to harm and those
that were the result of misunderstandings or genuine grievances, leading to an incorrect
conclusion.

In Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain15, the Supreme Court ruled that “courts should not interpret
mental cruelty in a vacuum but must consider the overall marital dynamics, financial
pressures, social circumstances, and cultural context.” The lower courts failed to analyze the
circumstances in which the appellant-wife made her allegations, such as the ongoing familial
tensions following the hospitalization of the respondent-husband’s father. Given that
matrimonial conflicts often involve accusations and counter-allegations, the Family Court
and High Court should have assessed whether the statements made by the appellant-wife were
a reaction to distressing circumstances rather than a deliberate act of cruelty.

14
Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh (2017) 4 SCC 85
15
Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain (2009) 10 SCC 415

17 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

In Ramchander v. Ananta16, the Supreme Court held that “Instances of cruelty are not to be
taken in isolation; cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the
evidence on record to be taken and a fair inference is to be drawn as to whether the plaintiff
has been subjected to mental cruelty by the conduct of the other spouse.” In this case, the
appellant-wife's allegations were not continuous or persistent over an extended period but
were limited to legal proceedings. Courts have consistently held that the filing of legal
complaints does not automatically amount to cruelty unless it is proven that they were false
and filed with the intent to harass the other spouse. The lower courts in the present case failed
to evaluate whether the appellant-wife’s claims were made in good faith before categorizing
them as cruelty.

The courts have recognized that misunderstandings and allegations are often a part of marital
discord and do not necessarily amount to mental cruelty. In N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane17,
the Supreme Court held that marital disputes must be examined in the context of the
relationship and the circumstances of the case. The Court emphasized that not every
allegation or act of discord amounts to mental cruelty. In the present case, Sanjana’s
allegations were made in the context of her dissatisfaction with the marriage and her belief
that Ramesh’s family had ulterior motives. The lower courts failed to consider this context
and instead treated the allegations as evidence of mental cruelty.

In conclusion, the lower courts failed to consider the context and circumstances in which
Sanjana’s allegations were made, leading to an incorrect interpretation of mental cruelty
under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The lower courts erred by not considering
the broader context of the marital discord, leading to an incorrect interpretation of mental
cruelty.

ISSUE III

Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded to the appellant-wife is just and

equitable, considering the financial status of both parties?

It is contended that the quantum of maintenance awarded to the appellant-wife is neither just
nor equitable. This argument is substantiated on the following grounds:

16
Ramchander v. Ananta (2015) 11 SCC 539
17
N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326

18 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

3.1 That the lower Courts did not appropriately assess the respondent-husband's actual
income, including rental earnings, while determining the maintenance amount.

Maintenance is intended to ensure that a wife, who is unable to support herself, is provided
with a standard of living similar to what she enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage.
Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Section 144 of the BNSS provide for the
grant of maintenance based on the financial capacity of the husband and the reasonable needs
of the wife. The lower courts erred in determining the maintenance amount by excluding
significant portions of the respondent-husband's income and failing to consider the wife's
financial position adequately.

The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha18, laid down comprehensive guidelines for assessing
maintenance, holding that the financial status of the husband must be determined by
considering all sources of income, including rental income, investments, and assets under his
control. In the present case, the respondent-husband claimed that his rental income of ₹80,000
per month should not be considered as it was from properties in his father’s name. However,
income derived from family assets and properties from which a husband benefits cannot be
disregarded in maintenance proceedings. The lower courts erroneously relied solely on the
respondent-husband’s claimed salary of ₹50,000 per month while ignoring his substantial
rental income, thereby undervaluing his financial capacity to provide fair maintenance.

The courts have emphasized that the husband’s financial capacity must be assessed based on
his ability to pay, rather than his willingness. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena19, the
Supreme Court held that the husband’s income must be assessed based on his actual earnings
and financial resources, including income from properties and other assets. The Court
observed that the husband cannot evade his obligation to pay maintenance by understating
his income or excluding indirect sources of income. In the present case, Ramesh’s claim that
he earns only Rs. 50,000 per month, excluding the rental income of Rs. 80,000, is an attempt
to understate his financial capacity. The lower courts failed to assess his actual income,
leading to an inadequate maintenance award.

Additionally, in Vijay Kumar v. Neela Vijay Kumar20, the Supreme Court held that the
husband's obligation to pay maintenance is not confined only to his salary but extends to all

18
Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324
19
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353
20
Vijay Kumar v. Neela Vijay Kumar AIR 2003 SC 2462

19 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

his financial resources, including rental earnings, business profits, and inherited wealth. The
courts below, by failing to take into account the respondent’s total earnings, wrongly reduced
the maintenance amount, placing an unfair financial burden on the appellant-wife.

3.2 That the financial needs and standard of living of the appellant-wife were
inadequately considered in the determination of maintenance.

First, the courts have consistently held that maintenance must be determined based on the
wife’s financial needs and the standard of living she was accustomed to during the
marriage. Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain21, the Supreme Court held that “It is no answer to
a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must
take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her
or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the Court should mould the
claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it”. The lower courts failed to
adequately analyze the wife's post-divorce financial condition, neglecting her expenses for
housing, medical needs, and general sustenance. Maintenance should not merely be a survival
allowance but should ensure that the wife does not face undue hardship due to the divorce.

The courts have recognized that the wife’s financial needs must be assessed based on her
current circumstances and future requirements. In Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey
Chowdhury22, the Supreme Court held that “maintenance must be determined based on the
wife’s present and future needs, including medical expenses, housing, and other essential
requirements”. The Court emphasized that the maintenance amount must be just and
equitable, taking into account the wife’s financial needs and the husband’s ability to pay. In
the present case, the lower courts failed to consider Sanjana’s current and future financial
needs, leading to an inadequate maintenance award.

The courts have held that the wife’s right to maintenance is a statutory right aimed at
preventing destitution and ensuring her welfare. In Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan23,
the Supreme Court emphasized that the purpose of maintenance is to ensure that the wife is
not left without means of sustenance and can live with dignity. The Court held that the
maintenance amount must be sufficient to cover her basic needs and ensure her welfare. In
the present case, the lower courts failed to consider Sanjana’s right to live with dignity and

21
Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017) 15 SCC 801
22
Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury AIR 2017 SC 2383
23
Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan AIR 2015 SC 2025

20 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

awarded an insufficient maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000, which does not meet her basic
needs.

In Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma24, the Supreme Court emphasized that courts
must conduct a realistic assessment of the wife's financial needs rather than arbitrarily fixing
an amount. The lower courts, in the present case, failed to conduct such an assessment, as
they did not consider factors such as rising living costs, the wife’s lack of independent
income, and her inability to maintain herself at the standard she previously enjoyed.

In conclusion, the lower courts failed to appropriately assess Ramesh’s actual income,
including rental earnings, and inadequately considered Sanjana’s financial needs and
standard of living while determining the maintenance amount. Thus, the maintenance of
₹25,000 per month, as awarded by the lower courts, is inadequate and does not align with the
principles established by the Supreme Court. A just and equitable maintenance amount should
take into account the husband’s total financial capacity, including his rental income, and
ensure that the wife is not left in financial distress post-divorce.

24
Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma AIR 2015 DELHI 53

21 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, the cases cited, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, that it may be graciously pleased to:

1. Set aside the decrees of the lower Courts that erroneously interpreted mental cruelty
under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and hold that the allegations
made by the appellant-wife do not amount to cruelty.
2. Hold that the remarriage of the respondent-husband does not absolve him of his
obligation to provide maintenance to the appellant-wife under Section 144 of the
BNSS and Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
3. Enhance the quantum of maintenance awarded to the appellant-wife, considering the
respondent-husband’s actual financial capacity, including his rental income and
standard of living.

Also, pass any other order that the court may deem fit in the favour of Petitioner to meet the
ends of Equity, Justice and Good Conscience.

For this act of Kindness, the Petitioner shall duty bound forever pray.

Place: Respectfully Submitted,

Date: 27th February 2025 Counsel for the Petitioner

22 | P a g e