THE INTRA MOOT, 2018

MOOT PROPOSITION
#HOOTFORMOOT
 SVKM’s NMIMS UNIVERSITY

KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018

Ms. Rosaline Sequira………………………………………………………………..Appellant

Versus

Mr. Piyush Singh Ranawat………………………………………………..Respondent No. 1

Mr. Vikram Singh Ranawat

(Father of Respondent No. 1)……………………………………………...Respondent No. 2

Ms. Asha Ranawat………………………………………………………….Respondent No. 3

(Mother of Respondent No. 1)

1. Ms. Rosaline Sequira, aged 26 years and Mr. Piyush Singh Ranawat, aged 28 years, a
Christian and a Hindu respectively by religion, were working at LegitQuest, a prestigious
law firm in Mumbai. They fell in love with each other and after being in a relationship for
2 year, they decided to get married on 20th November 2016 against the wishes of
Rosaline’s parents and the same was registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
2. After the marriage, they started residing with Piyush’s parents in their house which was
located in Santacruz. They were living comfortably, however, in early 2017; Piyush lost
his job at LegitQuest, fortunately Rosaline could retain her job. The scenario of their
happily married life changed after this as Piyush got indulged in heavy drinking and under
the influence of alcohol started misbehaving and verbally abusing Rosaline.
3. Piyush’s parents belong to the orthodox Hindu mentality and stressed that Rosaline should
give birth to a baby boy at the earliest who could take carry ahead the lineage of their
family. However, due to Piyush remaining under the influence of alcohol day in and night
and with the loss of income of the family on account of Piyush losing his job, she was of
the opinion that it was not the right time to give birth to a child.
4. The above circumstances led to a lot of issues in the family as not only was Rosaline
required to work for longer hours but was also facing difficulties in maintaining the house.
Her in - laws would also not support her in any manner and would verbally abuse her and
blamed her for the worsened situation of the house.
5. On 3rd December 2017, Piyush returned late night around 1:00 am, stinking of alcohol and
was in no condition to process his actions. Rosaline helped him settle down in the room
and took care of him. Eventually, Piyush forced Rosaline to indulge in sexual intercourse
with him to which she started resisting. Piyush suddenly felt insulted by her refusal, in
order to ‘teach her a lesson’ proceeded to assault and coerce her into having intimate
relations with him. This led to Rosaline getting injuries in her private parts and she started
profusely bleeding, during which Piyush ran away.
6. Rosaline called one of her friends, Sandra, who came with an ambulance and took her to
Nanavati Hospital. She was required to undergo a small surgery and was required to be
admitted in the hospital for two days. Enraged by what had transpired, Sandra rushed to
the Santacruz Police Station to file an FIR under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. Upon detailing the facts and circumstances of the case, the SHO informed them that
no crime was made out under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 since a man was
legally permitted to have intercourse with his wife, unless they were judicially separated.
7. After two days, Rosaline was discharged from the Hospital but she did not go back to
Piyush’s house and instead decided to stay with Sandra. Piyush and her family started
looking for her and eventually, they received information about Rosaline staying at
Sandra’s place in Andheri. They went to Sandra’s place when Rosaline was all alone
where Piyush and her in-laws attempted to drag her out of the house at gunpoint.
However, Sandra arrived at the house in time, driving away Piyush and his parents.
8. Shocked by the event, Rosaline and Sandra again rushed to the Andheri Police Station,
within the jurisdiction of which they resided, to file an FIR under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. Upon detailing the events, including the treatment meted out to
her at her marital home, the SHO pointed out that since she had suffered no physical
violence, no action could be taken against Piyush and his parents under Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
9. After around 15 days from the occurrence of said events, on 2nd January 2018, Piyush filed
a petition before the Principal Judge at Family Court at Bandra seeking a decree for
restitution of conjugal rights alleging that the behavior of the wife is improper. The court
granted a decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights in favour of the husband.
10. Aggrieved by the Order of the Court, Rosaline filed an appeal before High Court of
Mumbai.
 ISSUES RAISED

I. WHETHER THE ORDER OF RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS DELIEVERED

BY THE FAMILY COURT IS MAINTENABLE AND IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE BY
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT.
II. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER THE
OFFENCE OF MARITAL RAPE UNDER THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 OR ANY
OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE.
III. WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS HAVE COMMITTED ANY ACT OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE UPON THE APPELLANTS UNDER THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 OR
ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE.
IV. WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO ANY MAINTENANCE THAN ANY
OF THE LAWS FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE.