CMR III NMCC Moot Proposition

8/3/2019 CMR III NMCC Moot Proposition

1/5

CMR III National Moot Court Proposition

1. Lalitha is married to Shiva on 17/04/1992 at Bangalore as per Hindu rites. Fromthe said marriage she has two children viz., Rukmini, (girl) born on 18/09/1994

and Rahul, (boy) born on 16/08/2000.

2. Shiva has a father by name Vishnu, mother Ramabai and a younger brothernamed Ganesh, who is married to Shruthi. From the date of marriage, till Lalitha

was thrown out of the house, she lived with her husband, father in law and

brother in law as a Hindu undivided family.

3. Five-six years of marriage were normal. Since 2000 the differences of opinionand disputes developed between Lalitha and Shiva. It is Lalithas allegation that

her husband became a drunkard and started abusing her on petty grounds and

reasons. Being drunkard he became intolerant and started interfering in all that

she engaged in. It is further alleged that gradually he showed his real character

and started treating her as his personal property. She claims that she was

prohibited from moving out of the house without the permission of her husband,

father-in law and brother-in-law.

4. Lalitha is a convent educated person, born and brought up in Bangalore and anoutgoing person. However her husband wanted her to be a housewife and obey

him. Lalitha alleges that her husband became insensitive to the minimum

freedom that she was aspiring for.

5. Lalitha complains that her husband with active assistance, aid and at instance ofher father in law and brother in law has abused her mentally, physically and

economically. The abuse is said to have started somewhere around 2002 andcontinued till she was made to leave the matrimonial home after a violent

physical assault and abuse on 29th March 2006.

6. Lalitha lived with her parents for some time but since October 2007 she is livingwith her two children in a separate house.

7. Aggrieved by the inhuman behavior of Shiva, Lalitha filed a Petition for Divorceunder Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1954, which is pending on the file

of the Principal Family Judge at Bangalore, in M.C. No.7/2007.

8. Lalitha claims that pursuant to the filing of the petition her husband and her inlaws became restless and started playing mind games by spreading rumors in

the community that she has no manners and is of wicked character. She further

alleges that they have sent rowdy elements to threaten and compel her to

surrender to Shiva. She claims that when she did not yield they have resorted

abusing her economically.

9. Lalitha claims that her parents had gifted her 500 grams of gold ornaments, 4diamond sets and 10 Kgs of silver articles during her marriage and her in-laws

and her husband had gifted her 250 grams gold ornaments, during her stay in the

matrimonial home. All these were her Stridhana and were in her custody tillthe day she was thrown out of her matrimonial home. In spite of the repeated

demands through relatives and well wishers, her husband and in laws have not

returned it.


2/5

10.Lalitha along with her husband had purchased one immovable propertymeasuring 3000 Sq.ft, in Koramangala, Bangalore under a sale deed dated

11/02/2000 and another immovable property measuring 4000 Sq.ft, situated at

Indiranagar, Bangalore under an absolute sale deed dated 15/07/2002.

11.Lalitha has filed an Original Suit in O.S. No.8/2008 in the City Civil Court,Bangalore, against her husband seeking partition of the said properties. The said

original suit is pending. Lalitha claims that she had contributed equally towards

the sale consideration. In the Koramangala property, construction of a bungalow

was nearing completion when she was allegedly thrown out of the matrimonial

house. Now the building is complete but is in the occupation of Ganesh. Lalitha

claims that Shiva had taken her signatures on certain blank papers and stamp

papers stating that he requires the same for getting the plans approved and for

other incidental purposes. Lalitha claims that the said blank papers duly signed

by her are misused by her husband and in laws.

12.In the written statement filed in OS 8/2008, it is contended that Shiva s fatherclaiming himself as the power of attorney holder of Lalitha, vide POA dated

11/07/2005 executed a release deed dated 25/01/2008 in favour of Shiva with

respect to the Koramangala and Indiranagar properties and as such, Lalitha has

no rights in them. Furthermore, she had no independent income and any

business in her name was only namesake and all the activities were carried on by

Shiva. It was also contended that Shiva hails from an orthodox family but Laitha

started going out and joined dance classes against the wishes of the family

members. After she joined the Dance class her life style changed. She was

neglecting the children; not performing the duties of a wife; she used to take

away jewelry and pledge it with pawn brokers; she used to make threatening

calls to Shiva, through certain elements. On complaint, the Police traced the callsand those culprits gave a statement that such calls were made at Lalithasinstance. The statements made by those elements showed that Lalitha was

interacting with them in a manner unbecoming of a married woman. Lalithasbrothers had taken financial assistance from Shiva but had not returned and

when he sought to recover the same, they used Lalitha to create problems for

Shiva. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

13.Lalitha and her brother-in-law Ganesh had jointly purchased an immovableproperty in J.P. Nagar, Bangalore measuring 2400 square feet under sale deed

dated 20/12/1995. This property is given on lease on a monthly rent of

Rs.30,000/- and now Ganesh is appropriating all the rents. Lalitha has also filedOriginal Suit in O.S. No.9/2008 against Ganesh for the partition of JP Nagar

property which is pending on the file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore.

14.In the Written Statement filed in OS 9/2008 it is contended that the Shiva sfather claiming to be the power of attorney holder of Lalitha vide POA dated

11/07/2005 executed a release deed dated 25/01/2008 in favour of Shiva with

respect to JP Nagar property and as such Lalitha has no rights. Written Statement

filed was almost on the same lines as was filed in OS 8/2008.

15. Lalithawas the proprietor of M/s Aishwarya Marketing which had its office atChickpet. In place of the said business a new business in the style of a Private

Limited company was started by Shiva and Ganesh without the consent andknowledge of Lalitha. Lalitha claims that they have been concocting and


3/5

fabricating the accounts and are operating bank accounts in her name without

her consent or authority.

16.The respondents jointly and severally being in domestic relation with Lalithahave been concocting and fabricating the income tax documents. They are filing

the income tax returns without the knowledge, consent and authority of Lalitha.

17.Lalitha had a savings bank account in Indian Bank, Avenue Road Branch. Fromthe said Bank account in all, a sum of Rs.36,15,000/- (Rupees thirty six lakhs

fifteen thousand only) had been withdrawn during the period between

14/08/2006 and 6/10/2007. Shocked by this kind of unauthorized withdrawals

without her knowledge, consent and authority, Lalitha issued a legal notice dated

20/08/2008 to the Bank, calling upon the Bank to look into and investigate the

matter. In response to the said legal notice, the Bank has issued a reply by giving

copies of the cheque leaves signed by Lalitha. Lalitha claims that Shiva in active

connivance with the Bank staff has withdrawn such as huge sum of

Rs.36,15,000/- (Rupees thirty six lakhs fifteen thousand only) illegally by forging

her signature.

18.Lalitha filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women fromDomestic Violence Act, 2005 in C Misc 10/2009 before the magistrate Court,

Bangalore complaining that her husband, father in law, brother in law, mother in

law (Ramabai) and her co-sister jointly and severally being in domestic relation

with her have conspired to knock off her valuable properties and thus have

committed acts of domestic violence against her.

19.In the application she stated that Shiva has properties worth more than onehundred crores; various businesses at Bangalore and Mumbai; his income is

more than 25 Lakhs per month. And he is not taking care of his children nor is hegiving any maintenance to Lalitha. Their daughter is studying in 8th Standard at

an International School and the son is studying in 3rd Standard at the same

school. The cost of their monthly school fee, auto fare, school uniforms, books

and stationery comes to around 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only). Taking

in to consideration Shivas life style and the life style and standards adjusted toby Lalitha, she requires a minimum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one Lakh Fifty

thousand only) per month as maintenance. It is the duty of Shiva to provide the

same level of life style, comfort and luxury to his wife and children which he is

enjoying and which he was providing before throwing Lalitha out of matrimonial

home.

20.Lalitha further complains that all her income tax papers, pan card, passport, bankpassbooks and cheque books are in the custody and possession of Shiva and he is

bound to return the same. The withholding of the same amounts to domestic

violence.

21.The following prayers are made1. Pass Orders of Protection under section 18, restraining/prohibiting

the respondents from:

(1)committing any act of domestic violence


4/5

(2)Alienating or otherwise creating any kind of charge or otherwiseencumber the properties at Koramangala, Indiranagar, and J. P.

Nagar.

(3)Misappropriating aggrieved persons Stridhana and to directthe respondents to hand over the same along with income tax

papers, pan card, cheque books, passport, bank account

passbooks to the custody of the aggrieved person.

(4)Representing the aggrieved person before any authority, Bank,government departments and or before any person or

institution.

(5)Operating or otherwise dealing with the bank accounts of theaggrieved person.

(6)Not to spread rumours in the society/community or otherwiseassassinate the character of the aggrieved person.

(7)Directing the 1st respondent to disclose all the affairs of M/sAishwarya Marketing of which the aggrieved person is the

proprietor.

(8)Directing the respondents to stay away from the relatives of theaggrieved person and prohibit violence against them.

2. Pass orders of residence under section 19, directing the respondents:(1)To move out themselves from Koramangala property.(2)Allow the aggrieved person and her children to move into

Koramangala property.(3)An order entitling the aggrieved person to the continued access

to her personal effects.

3. Pass Orders of monetary reliefs under section 20, directing therespondents to pay towards the:

(1)Losses suffered by the acts of domestic violence @Rs.83,15,000/-

(2)Loss of earnings @ Rs.25,00,000/-(3)Monthly maintenance @ Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty

thousand only)

4. Pass orders of compensation under section 22, directing therespondents to a pay compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five

Lakhs only) for the mental torture and agony.

22.The matter was referred to the Protection officer who has filed his report andthereafter the Honble Magistrate issued notice to the respondents, R1 - Shiva;R2 - Vishnu, R3 - Ganesh R4 - Ramabai and R5 - Shruthi.

23.Shiva as P1; Vishnu as P2, Ganesh as P3 Ramabai as P4 and Shruthi as P5 havefiled a petition under Section 482 of the of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973

before the Honble High Court of Karnataka contending that the applicationunder Domestic Violence Act is mala fide, ulterior motive and abuse of the


5/5

process of court as divorce petition and partition suits are already pending

where there is no whisper of domestic violence. The application is filed to arm

twist the petitioners into give her share in their property as the application is

filed 4 years after Lalitha left her matrimonial home. The application against

female relative is not maintainable and such other grounds as may be urged at

the time of final hearing.

The matter is posted for final hearing before the Honble High Court.

The problem has been formulated and drafted by

Shri. Rajeshwar,

Advocate

Bangalore

Disclaimer:

This proposition contains a fictional case intended for the competition and for educational

purposes only. The views and opinions expressed herein are entirely fictional and do not in

any way reflect any view, opinion or personal prejudice of either the author or the

institution.

Documents

CMR III NMCC Moot Proposition