Family Law Assignment Moot Memorial on the proposition on IAS

1. IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950
IN THE MATTER OF
……..
erl. APPEAL NO. cr.a. no.
MS. SAINA & MS. PRABHA…………......……… (PETITIONER 1&2)
VERSUS
MR. RAM…………..…………………………………………. (RESPONDENT)
BEFORE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

2. PAGE NO. vi
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, MS. SAINA &
MS. PRABHA has preferred an appeal before this Hon’ble
court by virtue of Article 134 of the Constitution of India,
which provides that:
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.-
(1) Notwithstanding 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, and sentence or order passed or made by
any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law
relating to the Armed Forces.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3. PAGE NO. vii
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Mr. Sunil & Ms. Saina both were belonging to IAS
batch 2000.
2. They were good friends. They decided to convert
that friendship into martial relationship.
Accordingly, with the consent of the parents they
got married under Special Marriage Act, 1954 in
the year 2004.
3. Mr. Sunil was an orthodox person and had high
religious beliefs and he wanted to have male child.
Saina was employed as an IAS officer. She took
matrimonial leave & delivered two babies, one
Geeta in 2006 & one Seeta in 2009.
4. Due to absence of male child there were quarrels
between husband & wife. This resulted to divorce
between them by mutual consent. During this
difficult period Sania was transferred to Delhi. She
met Mr. Ram a smart, handsome & efficient IAS
officer who expressed his wish to marry her. As she
was married they waited for divorce. Immediately
after divorce they got married.
5. Soon after marriage Saina got very busy with
administrative work & she decided not to have
children for 5 years. She was not taking proper care
of her husband. Mr. Ram tried his level best the

4. PAGE NO. viii
balance the relationship. Saina told her children
Geeta & Seeta that Mr. Ram is not their father. She
always avoided Mr. Ram to spend time with Geeta &
Seeta.
6. In 2012 Sania was transferred from Delhi to
Mumbai. She shifted from Delhi to Mumbai. The
behaviour of Saina did not change. She was very
dominant and abusive on phone and in person
whenever she was meeting Mr Ram.
7. Mr. Ram was alone in Delhi and there was no one
to take care of him so he hired a domestic Servant
Ms. Prabha. Maid servant was asked to stay at
home this led to live-in relationship between them.
8. In 2013, when Saina visited Delhi she came to
know about their relationship as Prabha was
pregnant. Being aggrieved with misconduct and
extramarital affair Saina served a notice of divorce.
Sania filed divorce petition in Family court. Delhi
on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of
marriage. Family court dismissed the petition.
Against the decision of the family court wife filed
appeal in Delhi High court claiming the
maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act.
2005. High Court dismissed the appeal as there is
no specific provision under existing laws.

5. PAGE NO. ix
9. The wife filed Special leave petition in Supreme
Court stating that divorce should be granted on
irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
10. Ms Prabha appeal for maintenance under the
domestic violence act 2005, Supreme Court in its
discretion clubbed both matters together and
called for final hearing.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

6. PAGE NO. v
& AND
S. SECTION
v. VERSUS
G.O.I GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
SC SUPREME COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASE
LIST OF ABREVATIONS

7. PAGE NO. x
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE I: WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTABLE OR NOT.
ISSUE II: WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR THE
DECREE OF DISSOLVING THE MARRIAGE OF GROUND OF
IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE.
ISSUE III: WHETHER THE 2nd
PETITONER IS ENTITLED FOR
MAINTENANCE UNDER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

8. PAGE NO. xi
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE OR
NOT.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that in present case the marriage is broken
down in such a way to the point that it cannot be
repaired & there are no prospects of reconciliation.
II. WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR THE
DECREE OF DISSOLVING THE MARRIAGE ON
GROUND OF IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN
OF MARRIAGE.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that in present case an irretrievable breakdown
of marriage has happened between petitioner and
respondent & because the petitioner & respondent
have not lived together for period of time &
respondent has commit adultery during that time.

9. PAGE NO. xii
III. WHETHER THE 2nd
PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR
MAINTENANCE UNDER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
ACT, 2005.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that Ms. Prabha is entitled for maintenance
under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as mentioned
under S. 20 of Domestic Act, 2005.

10. PAGE NO. 1
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINBLE
OR NOT.
[1.1] These is hampered due to any reason say
adultery, insanity, etc. and here is adultery done by
the respondent & if the matrimonial relation
between the spouses reach to such an extent from
where it becomes completely irreparable that is a point
where neither of the spouse can live peacefully with
each other.
[1.2] The breakdown of relationship is presumed de
facto. The fact that parties after marriage are living
separately for reasonably longer period of time, even
without reasonable cause it is presumed that
relationship is dead.
[1.3] SC in the case of “NAVEEN KOHLI v. NEELU
KOHLI” in 2006.
In this case, SC held that in irretrievable breakdown

11. PAGE NO. 2
Of marriage can be a valid ground for divorce even
though it is not expressly mentioned in the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (which governs Hindu marriages
in India). The court observed that when a marriage
has broken down irretrievably & there is no chance
of reconciliation between the parties, it would be in
interest of justice to dissolve the marriage.
The court also held that in cases where one party is
at fault (e.g. Adultery, Cruelty), the court can take
that into consideration while deciding on the issue of
custody of children, maintenance, & property rights.
However, the court clarified that the fault of one
party cannot be a ground for denying the other party
a divorce if the marriage has irretrievably broken
down.
Since this landmark judgment, irretrievable
breakdown of marriage has been recognized as a
valid ground for divorce in India, & many couples
have been granted divorce on this ground.

12. PAGE NO. 3
In SANDHYA RANI v. KALYANRAM NARAYANAN
reported in 1994 Supp. 2 SCC 588, this court
reiterated & took the view that since the parties are
living separately for ur mind that the long period of
time, we have no doubt in mind that the marriage
between the parties has irretrievably broken down.
There is no chance whatsoever of their coming
together. Therefore, the court in such cases, grant
the decree of divorce.

13. PAGE NO. 4
2
1954
3
1978
II. Whether the appellant is entitled for
the decree of dissolving the marriage
on grounds of irretrievable breakdown
of marriage.?
[2.1] The Irretrievable theory of breakdown is the most
controversial theory in legal jurisprudence based on the
principle that marriage is a union of two people based
on love-affection and mutual respect. If all of these are
affected by any of the factors (say cruelty, desertion,
adultery, insanity, etc.), and If the marriage relationship
between the spouses reaches such an extent that it is
absolutely irreparable that it is a point where neither of
the spouses can live in peace with each other and gain
the benefits of marriage relationships, then it is best to
break the marriage, because now there is no point in
continuing such a dead relationship which only exists in
name and not in practice.
[2.2] In India, regarding the Hindu Marriage Act1
and the
Special Marriage Act2
, the Government of India has
attempted to include Irretrievable Breakdown of
Marriage' as a divorce ground, as recommended by the
Law Commission of India's 71st Report3
.
1 1955

14. PAGE NO. 5
 The 7Ist report submitted by the Law Commission
of India in 1978 deals with the concept of an
Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage. The Report is
based on the prima facie issue as to the degree and
conditions under which the Hindu Marriage Act can
provide an Irretrievable Dissolution of Marriage as
a basis for divorce. The Law Commission noted in
its report that the rule of limiting divorce to
matrimonial disability results in discrimination in
cases where no party is to blame or the fault is of
such a nature that no party wishes to reveal it and
yet the marriage has ceased to exist. In other
words, the Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage
refers to a situation where emotional bonds,
respect, etc. have disappeared, which is the very
foundation of a marriage, and there remains only a
facade in the name of marriage. The Law
Commission mentions that where marriage has
ceased to exist in substance as well as in fact,
divorce must be taken as a remedy to avoid a
difficult remedy. The terms of such a divorce
should be mainly concerned with getting the
parties and the children to recognize the new
arrangement and hammer out a suitable
framework for managing relationships in the face
of changing circumstances, rather than finding
faults during the divorce proceedings. In the
current scenario of India, In March 2012. The

15. PAGE NO. 6
parliament passed the Marriage Laws
(Amendment) Bill, 2010 with the introduction of
Section 13C, 13D and 13E. Section 13C (1) allows
for the use of an irretrievable dissolution of
marriage as a new basis for divorce in addition to
Section 13C (2), which requires the parties to have
lived apart for 3 years or more before filing the
petition.
The only validity of the theory as proposed by the
jurists is that a marriage, which is regarded as a
sacramental institution in practice, should be
founded on the basis on which a sound marriage is
founded which is harmony, compromise and
mutual respect. If any of the marriage party isn't
ready to 'live with the other party the relationship
won't be a happy one. Stretching such a
relationship will do no good to each other; rather it
will develop hatred and frustration between the
parties. Therefore it is important to end such a
marriage to preserve the sanctity of marriage, to
reduce the number of unhappy manage & to
prevent the precious years of the life of the
spouses from being wasted. As there is no
reasonable way for a partner to be persuaded to
resume life with the consort, nothing is achieved by
attempting to keep the parties bound to a marriage
that has already ceased to be leaving. Marriage in
the home is a lifelong cohabitation. The legal bond
will be broken until the possibility of future

16. 4
1976
5
AIR 2005 SC 534
6
2019
PAGE NO. 7
cohabitation has ceased. Also, The G.O.I.,
Department of Social Welfare, has stated that
making an irretrievable breakdown of marriage a
ground for granting a divorce decree is redundant
in view of the fact that there are sufficient grounds
for “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” in the
Hindu Marriage Act & the Marriage Laws
Amendment Act4
for divorce seeking. Also
Respondent has committed Extra Martial Affair
with a 17 years old girl Ms. Prabha which is valid
ground for divorce under Special Marriage Act,
1955 keeping in mind these circumstances the
petitioner shall be granted a decree for divorce.
[1.3] In A. JAYACHANDRA v. ANEEL KAUR5
, the S.C.
examined such cases. And after discussing the fact
concluded thus; when the respondent gives priority
to her profession over her husband’s freedom it
points unerringly at disharmony, diffusion &
disintegration of martial unity, from which the
Court can deduce about irretrievable breaking of
marriage.
 In the recent judgement of MUNISH KAKKAR v.
NIDHI KAKKAR,6
THE S.C. recently dissolved a marriage by exercising its

17. 7
Constitution of India
8
4 OCT, 2019
PAGE NO. 8
inherent powers under ARTICLE 1427
, even as it recognised
That there is no statutory law for recognising Irretrievable
breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce in India. The
Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul & KM Joseph passed a
judgment to this effect after taking note that the SC has
earlier invoked its inherent powers under Article 142 to grant
a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of
PAGE NO. 8
marriage. Further, the court took note this was done
“not only in cases where parties ultimately, before this Court,
have agreed to do so but even otherwise.”
It was pointed out that,
“There is, thus, recognition of the futility of a completely
failed marriage being continued only on paper…… In
numerous cases, where a marriage is found to be a dead
letter, the Court has exercised its extraordinary power under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India to bring an end to it.”
Citing the judgment of R. SRINIVAS KUMAR v. R. SHAMETHA8
,
the bench added the caution that such powers are not
exercised routinely. However, the same could be invoked
“in rare cases, in view of the absence of legislation in this
behalf, where it is found that marriage is totally unworkable,
emotionally dead, beyond salvage. The Court proceeded to
award a decree of divorce and dissolved the marriage in the

18. PAGE NO. 9
Instant case, invoking its jurisdiction under Article 142oken
down irretrievably.”
 The Court proceeded to award a decree of divorce and
dissolved the marriage in the instant case, invoking its
jurisdiction under Article 142.
 So therefore it is pleaded before the Hon’ble Supreme
court that court keeping in view its power under Article
142 of constitution grants a decree of divorce on
grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

19. PAGE NO. 23
PRAYER
In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities citied may this Hon’ble court be pleased to:
1. Hold that the petitioner is entitled for a decree of
divorce on grounds on grounds of irretrievable
breakdown of marriage.
2. Hold that the petitioner is entitled for maintenance
under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
AND/ OR
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of
Equity, Justice and Good Conscience.
And for this act of kindness, the counsel for the appellant
shall duty bound forever pray.
(Counsel For The Petitioner).
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

20. TABLE OF CONTENT……………..[i] – [ii]
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………… *iii] – [iv]
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS…………………………………………. (v)
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………….. (vi)
STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………*vii] - [ix)
STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………… (x)
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………(xi) – (xii)
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………. 1
I. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE OR
NOT…………………………………………………………………...
[1.1]EXAMPLES ……………………………………………………. 1
*1.2+……………………………………………………………………… 2
*1.3+ CASES REFERRED …………………………………………. 3
||. WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR THE
DECREE OF DISSOLVING THE MARRIAGE OF GROUND OF
IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE……..
[2.1] IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF
PAGE NO. i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

21. PAGE NO. ii
MARRIAGE…………………………………………………………... 4
[2.2] HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, MARRIAGE LAWS
BILL…………………………………………………………………….5
[2.3+ CASES REFERRED………………………………………..9
|||. WHETHER THE 2nd
PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR
MAINTENANCE UNDER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005.
[3.1] DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005………………...10
[3.2+ RELATIONSHIP IN NATURE………………………….12
[3.3+ CASES REFERRED………………………… .14,17
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………21
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

22. PAGE NO. iii
CASES
 A. DINOHAMY v. W.L. BALAHAMY…… 11
 A. JAYACHANDER v. ANEEL KAUR……… 7
 MUNISH KAKKAR v. NIDHI KAKKAR…. 7
 NAVEEN KOHLI v. NEELU KOHLI……….1
 R. SRINIVAS KUMAR v. R. SHAMETHA. 8
 SANDHYA RANI v. KALYANRAM
NARAYANAN…………………………………… 2
 Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma………..14
 Tulsa v. Durghatiya………………………17
 Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya
Renganathan….17
PAGE NO. iv
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

23. BOOKS AND COMMENTARY
 Dr. Paras Diwan, Family Law ( Reprint edition 2021)
 R.K. Agarwal, Hindu Law
 Dr. Paras Diwan, Modern Hindu Law ( New Edition,
2021)
STATUTES
 The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
ONLINE DATABASE
 https://indiannkanoon.org
 https://purejgu.edu.in
 https://main.sci.gov.in
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

24. PAGE NO. 10
|||. Whether the second petitioner
is entitled for maintenance under
the Domestic Violence Act 2005?
 The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 provides for the protection,
maintenance and right of Palimony (a form of
alimony paid to a former partner in a non-marital
relationship), to the female partner in a live-in-
relationship, on her complaint. [2] Thus, the
female live-in-partners and the children of live-in-
couples have been accorded adequate protection
by the Judicial System. Live-in-relationships may
be immoral for an Indian Society, but no law
makes such relationships illegal.
 India is a very conservative society and the
Institution of marriage has a very special place in
The hearts of Indians .Live-in relationships, also
Known as cohabitation, is a type of romantic
Relationship in which couples live together
Without being married. These types of relations
are usually considered morally wrong by the Indian

25. PAGE NO. 11
Society, as institution of marriage have a very
Important place in their heart as a sacred relation.
But as society progresses and modernization and
Westernization takes place, live in relationships
Are accepted even by the Honorable courts of
India as a valid relation.
 In The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court
of India that held that live-in relationships are
legal is the case of Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma,
decided in 2013. In this case, the Supreme Court
held that live-in relationships between consenting
Adults of heterosexual relationships are not illegal,
and observed that such relationships have become
increasingly common in modern Indian society.
The court further held that the partners in a live-in
relationship are entitled to all the rights and
Protections that are available to partners in a
marital relationship, including the right to
maintenance and the right to inherit property.
In this case, the Supreme Court held that live-in
relationships between consenting adults are not
illegal and are protected under the right to life and

26. PAGE NO. 12
personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution. The Court also observed that a
live-in relationship is a matter of choice between
two adults and should not be subjected to any
moral or social judgments.
“The Court further held that if a man and woman are
living together as husband and wife for a long time,
they would be presumed to be legally married under
the law, even if they have not formally registered
their marriage.”

27. PAGE NO. 13
 Section 3[a] of the [PWDVA]9
Definition of domestic violence.— For the
Purposes of this Act, any act, omission or
commission or conduct of the respondent shall
constitute domestic violence in case it—
(a) harms or injures or endangers the health,
safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or
physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so
and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse,
verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse;
3[d](iv) 10
“economic abuse” includes—
(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial
resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled
under any law or custom whether payable under
an order of a court or otherwise or which the
aggrieved person requires out of necessity
including, but not limited to, house hold
necessities for the aggrieved person and her
children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or
separately owned by the aggrieved person,
9
THE PTOTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT 2005
10
THE PTOTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT 2005

28. PAGE NO. 14
payment of rental related to the shared house
hold and maintenance;
 According to Section 2(f)11
“Domestic
relationship” means a relationship between two
persons who live or have, at any point of time,
lived together in a shared household, when they
are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through
a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption
or are family members living together as a joint
family.
 In the case of Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma Ms.
Indra Sarma, it not only recognized the validity of
Live-in-relationships in India, but it clarified the
legal status of live-in relationships and established
that maintenance can be claimed by an aggrieved
person in a live-in relationship under the Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 an unmarried woman, left her
job and began a "live-in" relationship with Mr.
V.K.V. Sarma for a period as long as 18 years,
despite knowing that he was married. Mr. Sarma
11
THE PTOTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT 2005

29. PAGE NO. 15
abandoned Ms. Sarma in a state where she could
not maintain herself. Under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, failure
to maintain a woman involved in a "domestic
relationship" amounts to "domestic violence.
Two lower courts held that Mr. V.K.V. committed
domestic violence by not maintaining Ms. Sarma,
and directed Mr. Sarma to pay a maintenance
amount of Rs. 18,000 per month. Thereafter, on
appeal, the High Court of Karnataka set aside the
orders of the lower courts on the ground that Ms.
Sarma was aware that Mr. Sarma was married and
thus her relationship with him would fall outside
the protected ambit of "Relationship in the nature
of Marriage”12
under the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act , 2005.
On further appeal, the Supreme Court, while affirming
the High Court's order, created an exception to the
general rule. The Supreme Court clarified that a
woman who begins to live with a man who is already
12
a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared
household, when they are related by marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption,
or are family members living together as a joint family.

30. PAGE NO. 16
married to someone else, without knowing that he is
married, will still be considered to be in a "domestic
relationship" under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005; thus, the man's failure to
maintain her will amount to "domestic violence" within
the meaning of the Act and she will be eligible to claim
reliefs such as maintenance and compensation.
- In the landmark judgment of case, Indra Sarma vs.
V.K.V.Sarma , The Supreme Court illustrated five
categories where the concept of live in relationships
can be considered and proved in the court of law.
Following are the categories:
1. Domestic relationship between an adult male and an
adult female, both unmarried.
2. Domestic relationship between a married man and
an adult unmarried woman, entered nowingly.
3. Domestic relationship between an adult unmarried
man and a married woman, entered knowingly. Such

31. PAGE NO. 17
relationship can lead to a conviction under Indian Penal
Code for the crime of adultery
4. Domestic relationship between an unmarried adult
female and a married male, entered unknowingly
5. Domestic relationship between same sex partners
(gay or lesbian).
The Supreme Court held that a woman who is in a live-
in relationship with a man who is already married to
someone else will still be considered to be during a
“domestic relationship” under the Domestic Violence
Act. And hence the man’s failure to maintain her will
amount to “domestic violence” within the meaning of
the Act and the woman will be eligible to claim reliefs
like maintenance and compensation.
 In the recent case on the legitimacy of children of
such relationships, the Supreme Court in the case
of Tulsa v. Durghatiya has held that a child born
out of a live-in relationship will no longer be
considered an illegitimate child in the eyes of law.

32. PAGE NO. 18
The important precondition for the same should
be that the parents must have lived under one
roof and cohabited for a significantly long time for
the society to recognize the couple as the husband
and the wife and it should not be merely a "walk-
in and walk-out relationship.
 In another case Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya
Renganathan, the Supreme Court held that a child
born out of a relationship that is not of a marriage
like a live-in relationship, the child may be allowed
to inherit the property of the parents and
therefore be given legitimacy in the eyes of law.
 As per this case is concerned , Prabha is a minor
child who is 17 years old and taking care of Mr.
Ram as his maid when Ms. Saina was out of Delhi.
[a] Not only that Mr. Ram is a well-known person
of the fact that the age of consent for sexual
activity in India is 18 years, and engaging in any
form of sexual activity with a minor is a criminal
offense under the Protection of Children from

33. PAGE NO. 19
Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 201213
. .
Additionally, such a relationship could be
considered as child exploitation and may lead to
serious legal consequences for the adult involved.
[b] And there is also a possibility, Mr. Ram even
well aware about the fact that Prabha is a minor
tried to took advantage of her and sexually
exploited her by using her as his sexual pleasure.
 Hence, even though Prabha was working as a maid
in Mr. Ram’s home, He came in a live-in-
relationship with her, ‘Lived in a Domestic
Relationship in a nature of marriage in his home
as a shared household’ and Prabha even got a
teenage pregnancy from Mr. Ram.
 Mostly minors don’t know what is right or wrong
for them and that’s why law assigns them a
13
Section 9 of the POCSO Act states that whoever, with sexual intent, touches the genitals, anus, breast, or
any other part of the body of a child or makes a child touch the genitals, anus, breast, or any other part of the
body of such person or any other person or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical
contact without penetration, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
three years but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
Furthermore, Section 5 of the POCSO Act also includes engaging in sexual activity with a child as aggravated
sexual assault, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to a fine.

34. PAGE NO. 20
 guardian for their protection. And it is possible
that Mr. Ram took the advantage of this very fact.
 Along with it he also committed adultery;
Adultery14
under the Hindu Marriage Act refers to
voluntary sexual intercourse by a married person
with someone who is not their spouse.
Which is a ground for divorce under :-
- The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, adultery is grounds
for divorce under Section 13(1)(i).
- Under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, adultery is
grounds for divorce under Section 27(1)(a).
 Not Only It’s a under the ground of Irretrievable
Breakdown of Marriage Mr. Ram also committed
adultery, and irretrievable breakdown of marriage
happened due to these actions of Mr. Ram.
14
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT 1955 13[1] (i).

35. PAGE NO. 21
Therefore it is humbly prayed before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court to grant for maintenance to Ms.
Prabha on account of Domestic Violence Act,
2005.