STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner approach the Hon`ble supreme court of Antia under Article 137 r/w Article 145 of
Antian constitution against the order suppressing the dignity of women.

ARTICLE 137. Review jurisdiction of supreme court of Antia.

(1). Article 137 of the Constitution of Antia, provides that subject to provisions of any law and
rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court has the power to review any judgment
pronounced or order made by it. Under Supreme Court Rules, 1966 such a petition is to be filed
within thirty days from the date of judgment or order and as far as practicable; it is to be
circulated, without oral arguments, to the same Bench of Judges who delivered the judgment or
order sought to be reviewed.

(2). Review Petition is dealt with under Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC. Any party
aggrieved by an order or judgment may apply for reviewing the said order or judgment to the
same court. It can be filed where no appeal is preferred or in case there is no provision for
appeal. Review Petition is a discretionary right of court.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

 On 13th march 2017 a young girl named Jenny got married to Jack. After one year Jenny
gave birth to a son.
 With the passage of time Jack attracted towards a married woman named Phenny. Jack
developed an intimate relationship with Phenny and even had sexual Intercourse with her
on many occasions. This continued for a period of Virtually six months.
 On 15th September 2018 Jenny saw Jack’s Whatsapp messages and came to know about
this relationship between Jack & Phenny. After that she was heartbroken but she decided
to save her Marriage and to continue her matrimonial relationship with Jack.
 On 16th September 2018 when jenny tried to have a word with Jack then Jack forced
sexual acts upon Jenny against her will and consent. This behavior of Jack forcing sexual
acts upon Jenny became a habitual exercise.
 After these incidents Jenny felt harassed, and helpless she wanted to save her matrimonial
life but not at the cost of herself respect and individual dignity.
 Jenny decided to lodge a complaint against Jack`s adulterous relationship & forcible
sexual acts but there was no legal remedy available as per existing penal laws except
divorce petition but Jenny did not want to destroy her matrimonial relationship and create
a problem for her small child.
 As per section 497 of APC, “the wife has no right to file a complaint in case of adultery
and similarly according to section 375 of APC a husband cannot be punished for marital
rape.
 On 22nd October 2018 Jenny filed a writ petition before supreme court challenging
constitutional validity of sec.497 & 375 of APC. On the ground of it being violative of
Art.14, 15, 21 of constitution of Antia.
 In the absence of any existing laws, Jenny urged the supreme court to direct the Republic
of Antia to bring laws for the protection of those wives whose husbands indulge in
adultery and also bring laws and penal provision for marital rape. No punishment
provision exists for marital rape thus making woman, a commodity.
 Hon’ble Supreme Court of Antia decided to hear the petition as It pertained to the dignity,
justice and equality for women. After hearing the petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Antia struck down Section 497 of APC on the ground that it is violative of Article 14, 15
and 21 of Constitution of Antia and 13 declared adultery only as a civil offence.
  After this decision Jenny still felt victimized and files a review petition before the
Hon’ble supreme court of Antia on the principle of “Natural Justice”, as “justice not only
be done but it must appear to be done”. Hon’ble Supreme Court of Antia decided to hear
the review Petition as it relates to the dignity of women and definitely has a substantial
question of law.

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE NO.1
WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY JENNY UNDER ARTICLE 137 IS
MAINTAINABLE ?

ISSUE NO.2
WHETHER THE OFFENCE OF ADULTERY SHOULD BE PENALIZED?

ISSUE NO.3
WHETHER THE OFFENCE OF MARITAL RAPE SHOULD BE PENALIZED?

ISSUE NO.4
WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT ORDER VOILATES PRNCIPLE OF NATURAL
JUSTICE ‘‘JUSTICE NOT ONLY BE DONE BUT IT MUST APPEAR TO BE DONE ``?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1 : WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY JENNY UNDER
ARTICLE 137 IS MAINTAINABLE ?

It is humbly submitted that the Review Petition filed by Jenny is maintainable under
Article 137of the constitution of Antia (herein after referred as the constitution), The
Supreme Court has the jurisdiction under Article 137 r/w 145 of the Constitution to hear
the matter. The right to access to the Supreme Court under Article 137 is a discreationary
right of the court. There is violation of fundamental right , Supreme court has the
jurisdiction to hear the present case and alternative remedy not a bar to maintainability.

ISSUE 2 : WHETHER THE OFFENCE OF ADULTERY SHOULD BE

PENALIZED?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 ISSUE 1 : WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY JENNY UNDER
ARTICLE 137 IS MAINTAINABLE ?

It is humbly submitted that the present Review Petition filed by Jenny in The Supreme
Court of Antia [ hereinafter referred to as SC ] arising from the order pronounced by this
court in exercise of Inherent & Plenary jurisdiction [1.], is maintainable under Article
137 .The supreme court has jurisdiction under Article 137 to hear the matter [2.], The
impugned judgment violates fundamental right [3.], alternative remedy not a bar to
maintainability.

1. INHERENT AND PLENARY JURISDICTION

1.1
Natural justice has been variously defined. It is another name for common-sense justice. Rules of natural
justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural
justice is the administration of justice in a common-sense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on
natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and
restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic
technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form.
Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the
minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted
by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights.
These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. Rules of “natural justice” are
not embodied rules. The phrase “natural justice” is also not capable of a precise definition. The
underlying principle of natural justice, evolved under the common law, is to check arbitrary exercise of
power by the State or its functionaries. Therefore, the principle implies a duty to act fairly i.e. fair play
in action. The aim of rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent
miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made.
They do not supplant the law but supplement it, Sahara India (1) v. CIT, (2008) 14 SCC 151.

Natural Justice & Legal Justice — The expressions “natural justice” and “legal justice” do not
present a watertight classification. It is the substance of justice which is to be secured by both and
whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal
justice. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or
logical prevarication. It supplies the omissions of a formulated law. No form or procedure should ever
be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant's defence, Canara Bank v. Debasis Das, (2003)
4 SCC 557.