IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

MRS. VIMLADEVI ..................................................................... APPLICANT

VERSUS

MR. HARI LAL ..................................................................... RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF SINDUSTAN

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF MRS. VIMLA DEVI

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT

 3rd RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2014 TC 37

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................................. 1

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................................ 5

ISSUES RAISED ............................................................................................................................. 6

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 7

PLEADINGS

ISSUE A ............................................................................................................................ 8
ISSUE A.1… ........................................................................................................ 8
ISSUE A.2 ............................................................................................................ 8
ISSUE A.3 ............................................................................................................ 9
ISSUE A.4 .......................................................................................................... 10

ISSUE B ......................................................................................................................... 11
ISSUE B.1… ...................................................................................................... 11
ISSUE B.2 .......................................................................................................... 11
ISSUE C .......................................................................................................................... 13
ISSUE C.1 .......................................................................................................... 14
ISSUE C.2 .......................................................................................................... 14

ISSUE D .......................................................................................................................... 16
ISSUE D.1… ...................................................................................................... 16
ISSUE D.2 .......................................................................................................... 17
ISSUE D.3 .......................................................................................................... 19
ISSUE D.4 .......................................................................................................... 23
ISSUE D.5 .......................................................................................................... 24

ISSUE D.6 .......................................................................................................... 25

PRAYER..................................................................................................................................... 27

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT

 3rd RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2014 TC 37

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES CITED

S.NO Case Citation

1. Adil & Ors. v. State & Anr. II(2010)DMC861
2. Air India Etc. Etc vs. Nergesh Meerza & Ors. 1981 AIR 1829
3. Ashpital v. Byron 3B and S. 474(489)
4. Balaji Bhaurao Kalbanadevs Parubai BhagujiWarhade 1984 (1) BomCR 61
&Anr
5. Bennett Coleman & Co. (P) Ltd vs Punya Priya Das 1970 AIR 426,
Gupta
6. Bhai Sher Jang Singh vs Virinder Kaur 1979CriLJ493
7. C. Beepathumma And Ors. vs V.S. Kadambolithaya AIR 1965 SC 241
And Ors.
8. C.I.T. vs. Mr. P. Firm Maur AIR 1965 SC 1216
9. C.I.T. vs. Mr. P. Firm Maur, AIR 1965 SC 1216
10. Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka ... vs Jasjit Singh And Ors 1993 SCR (2) 454
11. Delhi University vs. Ashok Kumar AIR 1968 Del 131.
12. Dennison Paulraj and others V. Mrs.Mayawinola (2008) 2 MLJ (Crl) 389
13. Faqir Chand vs Shri Ram Rattan Bhanot 1973 AIR 921
14. Indira Bai vs Nand Kishore 1991 AIR 1055
15. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V.Sarma 2013(14)SCALE448
16. Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs Sampuran Singh AIR 1999 SC 1347
17. Kailash Vati v. Ayodhia Parkash ILR (1977) 1 Punj. & Har.
642
18. Kale & Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation 1976 AIR 807
19. Kirtikant D. Vadodaria vs. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC 479.
20. Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation 11 1986 AIR 180;
21. Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr 1988WLN(UC)494
22. Prashant Ramachandra Deshpande vs Maruti Balaram 1995 (2) CTC 32
Haibatti
23. Pratibha Rani vs Suraj Kumar AIR 1985, SC.
24. Pratibha Rani vs Suraj Kumar & Anr 1985 AIR 628
25. Rajendra Jha vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court 1984 AIR 1696
26. Rajesh Kurre vs Safurabai 2009(1)MPHT37(CG)
27. Ramesh ChanderKaushal v. Mrs.VeenaKaushal [1978] A.I.R. S.C. 1807.
28. Shri Mahender Singh vs Shri Hukam Singh And AIR 1993 P H 172
Others
29. Simon v. Anglo American Telegraph Co. (1879) 5 Q.B.D.
30. Sitarama Chetty and Anr. vs. Krishnaswami Chetty (1915) I.L.R. Mad., 38, 374.
31. Smt. Manju Gupta vs Sh. Sanjay Garg CS (OS) No.444/2007.
32. State of Bihar and others v. Project Uchcha Vidya, (2006) 2 SCC 545
Sikshak Sangh and others
33. Surender Kumar And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And AIR 1983 P H 422.
Ors.
34. The Jullundur Improvement Trust ... vs Baldev Raj AIR 2002 P H 350

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT 1 | P age

 3rd RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2014 TC 37

Verma
35. UnnamalaiAmmal vs. F.W. Wilson AIR 1921 Madras 1187
36. VimalbenAjitbhai Patel vs VatslabeenAshokbhai AIR2008SC2675.
Patel
37. Vipul Rai Sharma And Others vs The Ludhiana AIR 1992 P H 42
Improvement Trust
38. Workmen Of M/S Hindustan Lever ... vs 1984 AIR 516
Management Of M/S Hindusian Lever
39. Zubedabi's case 1978 Cri LJ 1555 (Kant).

BOOKS REFERRED
S.No. NAME
1. Mulla, D.F, Mulla Hindu Law, 15th ed.
2. Hindu Law of Marriage and Stridhan, Banerjee
3. Hindu Law, Sastri, G.S.
4. MULLA, Principles of Hindu Law, Vol. I, 18th Ed. 2001
5. The Modern Hindu Law, Paras Diwan
6. Shorter Constitution of India, D.D. Basu, Vol. 2 (14th ed. 2010)
7. Interpretation of Statute, N.S. Bindra, 10th edition
8. Black’s Law Dictionary, Bryan A. Garner, 8th edition
9. Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition
10. Sarkar’s Commentary on the Code of Civil Procedure, Sarkar, 2nd edition.

STATUTES REFERRED

S. NO. NAME
1. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
2. The Constitution of India, 1949
3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
4. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
5. The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
6. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
7. The Limitation Act, 1963

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

ABBREVIATION DEFINITION
@ Alias
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Anothers
Art. Article
CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination
Against Women
CrLJ Criminal Law Journal
Ed. Edition
HC The High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
i.e. That is

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT 2 | P age

3rd RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2014 TC 37

ILR Indian Law Reporter

Ltd. Limited
No. Number
Ors. Others
P. Page
Pb. Publication
S. Section
SC The Supreme Court of India
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
ss. Sections
The CrPC The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The IE Act The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The IPC The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The PWD Act The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
u/s Under Section
UK The United Kingdom of Great Britain
UOI The Union of India
V. Versus
Vol. Volume

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT 3 | P age

 3rd RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2014 TC 37

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court Judicial Magistrate of Sindustan is empowered to hear this case by the
virtue of Section 27 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The Section reads as:

(1) The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the
case may be, within the local limits of which-
(a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on
business or is employed; or
(b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or
(c) the cause of action has arisen,
shall be the competent court to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and
to try offences under this Act.

(2) Any order made under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India.
Also, Section- 11 empowers this Hon’ble Court to hear the case and grant relief under the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT 4 | P age

 3rd RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2014 TC 37

STATEMENT OF FACTS

HariLal married Vimla Devi in 1983. After marriage Vimla Devi went to her matrimonial
house in Bhimpur village which was HariLal’s father’s house. Gradually, HariLal began to
neglect Vimla Devi and began to demand dowry. There was no warmth in the marriage and
physical violence against Vimla Devi at hands of HariLal became a routine. During her
pregnancy, she was sent to her parent’s house and gave birth to a girl child “Dolly” on 22nd
March 1986.When the child was two months old, father and brother of Vimla, brought her to
the house of HariLal. The father-­­in-­­law of Vimla, Ramesh Chand allowed her to stay in his
house, however, the incidents of ill-­­treatment, verbal, physical and emotional abuse at the
hands of HariLal aggravated. Soon, she was driven out by HariLal alleging that Dolly was
not his child.In 1994 Hari moved the Court under the Guardianship and Wards Act, seeking
that the custody of Dolly be handed over to him. The action was contested by Vimla, who
was able to substantiate that she was in a better position to take care of Dolly and fulfilling
her basic requirements. She admitted in the court that she did not have enough source of
income to support the education of her daughter on her own. In the year 1997 Vimla moved
an application before the concerned Gram Panchayat of Bhimpur for provision of
maintenance for herself and her daughter. The concerned Gram Panchayat, ordered Hari to
pay a maintenance of Rs. 500/-­­ per month to the Applicant/Vimla. Not even a single payment
was made by him as per this order. Vimla and her daughter had been struck off from the local
registers (family registers, ration cards, etc). Hari, who was working as a government servant
and earning a monthly salary of about Rs. 30,000, had moved out of the joint family house
and constructed a new house in Bhimpur. In the year 2010 when Dolly had already completed
her education at the college level, Vimla initiated an action against Hari under the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, praying that she was ‘aggrieved person’
within the definition of this expression under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She has
prayed that the respondent be directed to allow Vimla and her daughter to live with him in his
present residence, while ordering him not to commit any further acts of domestic violence
against either of them. She has also prayed that the stridhana, that she had left in her
matrimonial home in 1985, be restored to her and her daughter should be provided share in
property. Monetary relief and compensation has also been prayed for. The respondent was
able to prove to the ordered deletion of the name of Vimla from the list of people Below
Poverty Line, of the concerned area.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT 5 | P age

 3rd RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2014 TC 37

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE A: WHETHER THE INSTANT CASE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION?

1. THAT THE PWD ACT DOES NOT STIPULATE ANY OFFENCE

2. THAT THE PWD ACT SILENT ON LIMITATION
3. THAT THE PWD ACT IS A PIECE OF BENEFICIAL LEGISLATION
4. THAT THE PWD ACT APPLIES RETROSPECTIVELY

ISSUE B: WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS BOUND BY THE RULE OF

ESTOPPEL?

1. THAT THE APPLICANT IS AN ‘AGGRIEVED PERSON’

2. THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL CANNOT DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF LAW

ISSUE C: WHETHER A PRIMA FACIE CASE IS MADE OUT AGAINST THE

RESPONDENT?

1. THAT THE ACTS OF THE RESPONDENT HAVE RESULTED IN HARM AND INJURY TO
THE HEALTH OF THE APPLICANT.
2. THAT THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO CONTINUAL ‘ECONOMIC ABUSE’

ISSUE D: WHETHER THE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR ARE MAINTAINABLE?

1. THAT A PROTECTION ORDER BE GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT

2. THAT A RESIDENCE ORDER BE PASSED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANT
3. THAT MONETARY RELIEF BE GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT
4. THAT COMPENSATION BE GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT
5. THAT STRIDHAN BE RETURNED TO THE APPLICANT
6. THAT THE DAUGHTER OF THE APPLICANT BE SECURED A SHARE IN PROPERTY

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT 6 | P age

3rd RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2014 TC 37

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT 7 | P age

 3rd RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2014 TC 37

PRAYER

In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and cases cited it is most humbly prayed
before this Hon’ble court—

A. That the Applicant is not barred by limitation.

B. That the Applicant is not estopped from filing an application.
C. That a prima face case has been made out against the Respondent.
D. That an order for protection u/s 18, an order for residence u/s 19 and relevant orders
ensuring its proper enforcement, an order for monetary relief u/s 20 and an order for
compensation u/s 22 providing a fair and reasonable amount be granted.
E. That an order for return of stridhan and an order for share in property of the
Respondent are further granted.

Or grant such other relief as the court may deem fit in the light of justice, equity and good
conscience.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT SHALL DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY

COUNSELS FOR THE APPLICANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT 8 | P age