MOOT COURT EXERCISES

 Total there are three Moot Court Exercises

 You are required to choose any two of the Moot Court

Exercises for your practical work.

 For each Moot Court Exercise only one Memorial is required to

be prepared for one party only, one Memorial for each Moot Court

Exercise i.e. (either in favour of the Plaintiff / Petitioner /

Appellant Or the Defendant / Respondent).

MOOT COURT EXERCISE- 1

Mr. Ashok, a Hindu by religion married Miss. Sanjana on 17th November, 2011 as
per Hindu rituals. Thereafter they resided in the matrimonial home with the parents of
Mr. Ashok. Mr. Ashok’s mother was an orthodox female and had high belief in
mythology and in Hindu God. She had firm belief that to attain Moksha, a man needs
a son, therefore she always insisted on Sanjana to conceive and give the privilege to
them of being grandparents to a grandson. 2) Miss. Sanjana delivered a baby girl on
9th April, 2013 and thereafter differences arose between them. Ashok’s mother
continuously passed insulting remarks upon Sanjana and her baby girl. She often
remarked that if Sanjana does not give their family a boy, she will ask Ashok to
marry another girl. Several times Ashok fought with his own mother, telling her that
he is satisfied with his wife and has no complaints from her. Sanjana started
persuading Ashok to leave the house of his parents and move to a new house to
which Ashok never agreed. He was adamant that he wants to stay with his family. 3)
Finally on 22ndDecember, 2013 Sanjana, frustrated with the constant bickering and
inability of her husband to change residence, decided to leave the matrimonial house
with her daughter and return to her parent’s house. 4) Ashok visited Sanjana’s house
several times. However never found her at home. He could never even visit his
daughter because Sanjana was never available. Finally, on 2nd January 2016,
Ashok frustrated with Sanjana, filed for divorce u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act
alleging desertion by his wife. The summons was issued to Sanjana at the address
shown but the same were returned by some Ms. Asha marked as ‘refused to accept’.
The family court considering it as good service proceeded with the matter. 5) The
petition was heard ex parte and on the basis of evidence adduced by Ashok, the
family court granted divorce to the husband on 16thSeptember, 2016. The copy of
the order was sent by Ashok to Sanjana on the address provided. 6) On 25th
February, 2017, Ashok married Miss Pooja, a Hindu by religion. Pooja conceived
Ashok’s child and was due for delivery on 13th April, 2018. Meanwhile, Mrs. Sanjana
filed an application on 3rdOctober, 2017 before the High Court, for condonation of
delay for filing appeal against the decree of Family Court granting ex parte decree to
Ashok stating that she was unaware of the proceedings as the summons were
served on the address on which she was not residing. She also stated that her
parents moved to a new house and accordingly, she also went to the new house.
Furthermore, she never had the intention to desert Ashok but only wanted to teach
his mother a lesson. She argued that she was frustrated with the constant remarks
by Ashok’s mother and hence decided to leave the matrimonial house but never
desired to sever the matrimonial bond.

MOOT COURT EXERCISE- 2

Arohi was a middle-class, upper caste Hindu. He married Aruna in the year 1977.
Aruna gave birth to a daughter Mala in 1978, and a son in 1980. They were happy at
the thought that their family was complete. However, in unfortunate turn of events,
their son died in an accident at home when he was two years old. They were very
upset but tried to have another child and with God’s grace, Aruna gave birth to
another son in the year 1983. Looking at his horoscope, the pandit suggested
special ritual to be followed every month for the welfare of this son till the age of five
as there was danger to his life till that time. Despite observance of the ritual with full
reverence by the couple, this son also died in a road accident just as he turned five
years old. The couple was completely devastated. They were apprehensive that
another child may meet the same fate if they tried for another child. However, they
tried and yet another son was born to them third time in the year 1990. On his
naming ceremony, they consulted the astrologers and were advised to give away
that child in adoption to a person of the lower caste if they wanted this child to live.
They named him Kaushal and decided to give him in adoption. Their sweeper, Maina
Devi, a 50 year old widow with no children agreed to take the child in adoption and to
give him back to them for his bringing up as she did not have the means to bring him
up.

In a formal ceremony Kaushal was given to Maina Devi by Arohi and Aruna and was
taken by Maina Devi. Thereafter, she gave him back to the couple for bringing him
up on her behalf. Maina Devi kept visiting them regularly and gave something for
Kaushal every month till he was ten years old when she died. In the meanwhile, in
the year 1994 another son was born to Arohi and Aruna and he was named Balraj.
The fact of adoption of Kaushal was treated by Arohi and Aruna as a formality to
save his life and he was brought up by Arohi and Aruna as their son with Mala and
Balraj. Arohi died intestate in the year 2012. Aruna decided to divide the property in
four equal shares, one each for herself, Mala, Kaushal and Balraj. Mala and Balraj
objected to it and demanded 1/3 share in the property as Kaushal had no right
having been given in adoption to Maina Devi. Aruna’s pleas that the adoption was a
mere ritual carried out on the advise of the astrologer to save Kaushal’s life but
without any intention actually to give him up, had no effect on them. They maintained
that the adoption was legal and complete when Kaushal was given and taken in
adoption with a free will. Unable to resolve their dispute, Mala and Balraj filed a suit
for division of property and declaration that Kaushal was not an heir to any property
of Arohi in the absence of a will.
The lower court decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. Aruna and Kaushal filed an appeal
against the order asking for an equal share to Kaushal in the suit properties being
the natural born son. They pleaded that the adoption was not valid in the absence of
the intention to really give him in adoption. Alternatively, they pleaded that the
adoption was bad as Aruna’s consent was vitiated having been given under the
mistaken belief that it was a religious ceremony aimed at saving the life of her son. In
addition, it was submitted that an adoption that put the child in situation of
deprivation cannot be held valid and binding being contrary to the principle of best
interest of the child.
 MOOT COURT EXERCISE-3

Karim worked as a system operator at a computer Centre in Jajhhar Dist., Haryana

and lived in the town. His village was at a distance of 12 kms. from his workplace
which he ordinarily visited on Saturdays and Sundays.
Sher Shah was a farmer who lived with his family consisting of his wife, Sobti, son
Gajendar Shah and a daughter Naina. Sher Shah’s brother, Suri Shah, also lived in
the same household. He was used to drinking and gambling and owed a debt of Rs.
20,000 to Karim. Whenever Karim demanded his money, Suri Shah showed his
helplessness but never denied to pay off his debt. Karim was in love with Naina and
used to meet Naina on the weekends when her father was not at home on the
pretext that he had come to collect the money. Sher Shah did not like it and told
Karim many a times not to visit his home in his absence. He also scolded his
daughter for meeting Karim but Karim did not stop visiting Naina.
During the day on Monday, 8th August 2010, Karim received a phone call from Suri
Shah inviting him to come that evening to collect his debt. Karim went to their house
around 8.30 P.M. The members of Naina’s family had finished their dinner and were
preparing to go to sleep. On hearing some whispering voices coming from the
backyard of their house, Sher Shah with his brother Suri Shah and son Gajendar
Shah went there to investigate.
They saw Karim talking with Naina. Sher Shah lost his temper and started abusing
Karim. Gajendar Shah brought a lathi from inside and gave a blow to Karim on the
leg. Then Suri Shah grabbed the lathi from Gajendar Shah and started beating Karim
mercilessly giving blows on his head and chest.
On hearing the hue and cry, other villagers came to the scene. They found Suri Shah
giving blows to Karim while the other two were shouting abuses on Karim. Karim was
bleeding from the head and became unconscious. He was taken to the hospital by
the villagers where he died three days later without regaining consciousness. The
post-mortem report confirmed that Karim suffered injuries on the head and fractures
of three ribs. There were many concussions on different parts of his body. There was
much loss of blood. While none of the injuries independently was sufficient to cause
death, the cumulative result was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death.
FIR was registered against Suri Shah, Gajendar Shah and Sher Shah under Section
307 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Three days later when Karim died, it
was changed to Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The session court charged and convicted all
the three accused persons under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC and sentenced them
to life imprisonment for the murder of Karim. The accused persons pleaded grave
and sudden provocation in their defence. They also pleaded that the prosecution had
failed to prove existence of common intention of all the three accused to kill Karim. In
the absence of proof of common intention, they cannot be convicted under Section
302 r/w 34 IPC.
The three accused have filed separate appeals to the High Court against the order of
conviction and sentence.