BASIC OF MOOTING CLASS, 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF USANA

IN THE MATTER

MR. A APPELLANT

V.

MS. P RESPONDENT

DULY SUBMITTED TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF USANA

MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 TABLE OF CONTENT

SL. NO. CONTENTS PG. NO.

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 1
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 2
A. Table of cases 2
B. Statutes 2
C. Books 3
D. Online databases 3
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 4
4. STATEMENT OF FACT 5
5. STATEMENT OF ISSUE 6
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 7
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10
ISSUE I WHETHER A LEGALLY VALID MARRIAGE EXISTS
10
BETWEEN MR. A AND MS. P.
ISSUE II WHETHER THE CHILD IS A LEGITIMATE CHILD
12
OF MR. A.
ISSUE III WHETHER MR. A IS LIABLE TO PAY MAINTENANCE. 13
ISSUE IV WHETHER MS. P IS LIABLE FOR CHEATING. 15
8. PRAYER 17
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

ABBREVIATION MEANING
& And
HC High Court
CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
IPC Indian Penal Code
Vs. Versus
SC Supreme Court
S. Section
Hon’ble Honourable
HMA Hindu Marriage Act

1
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

A) TABLE OF CASES
1. Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra (1965 AIR 1564)

2. S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami (2001) 7 SCC 487

3. Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Ranantrao Shivram Adhav (1988 AIR 644)

4. Gajala v. Mohd. Yasin, 2022 SCC Online SC 185

5. Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005) 3 SCC 636

6. Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2014) 6 SCC 705

7. Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014 2 SCC 576)

8. Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr (AIRONLINE 2020 SC 915)

B) STATUTES
1. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

4. Indian Penal Code, 1860

5. Family Courts Act, 1984

2
C) BOOKS | COMMENTARIES | DICTIONARY
BOOKS AND COMMENTERIES
• R.K. Aggarwal, Hindu Law (25th ed. Central Law Agency 2023)

DICTIONARY
• Wharton's Law Lexicon (16th ed. 2014)

D) ONLINE DATABASE
1. Manupatra (www.manupatra.com)
2. SCC Online (www.scconline.com)
3. Indian Kanoon (www.indiankanoon.org)
4. Bar and Bench (www.barandbench.com)
5. Legal Services India (www.legalservicesindia.com)
6. Indian Case Law (https://indiancaselaw.in/)
7. Casemine (https://www.casemine.com/)
8. Drishti Judiciary (https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/)

3
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Hon’ble Court is vested with the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the present
appeal under the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and the Constitution of India.

Under the Family Courts Act, 1984 –

Section 19(1): Appeal from judgment or order of Family Court

“Save as provided in sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or in any other law,
an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a
Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.”

The impugned judgment dated 25th July 2025 is a final order passed by the Family Court and
is not an interlocutory order. Therefore, an appeal against the said judgment is maintainable
before this Hon’ble Court under Section 19(1).

Section 19(2): No appeal in cases of consent decrees

“No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of
the parties.”

In the present case, the judgment under challenge was rendered without the consent of the
parties. Hence, this statutory bar does not apply.

Section 19(3): Limitation for appeal

“Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the
date of the judgment or order of a Family Court.”

The present appeal has been filed within the statutory period of thirty days and is therefore
within limitation.

Under the Constitution of India –

Article 227: Superintendence over Subordinate Courts

Article 227 vests this Hon’ble Court with the power of superintendence over all courts and
tribunals within its jurisdiction. This includes the authority to correct jurisdictional errors,
prevent abuse of process, and ensure the proper administration of justice.

4
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. 12 March 2024: Mr. A and Ms. P solemnized their symbolic marriage during a college
trip.

2. 1 September 2024: Mr. D visited Mr. A's house, leading to accusations of infidelity by
Mr. A.

3. 10 November 2024: Mr. A publicly accused Mr. D of having an affair with Ms. P at a
party.

4. 14 November 2024: Ms. P's parents attempted to visit her but were denied access by
Mr. A.

5. 1 December 2024: Ms. P discovered she was three months pregnant and informed Mr.
A, who accused her of carrying Mr. D's child.

6. 1 January 2025: Ms. P served a legal notice to Mr. A seeking divorce on grounds of
mental and physical cruelty.

7. 8 January 2025: Mr. A filed an unsatisfactory reply to Ms. P's legal notice.

8. 10 January 2025: Ms. P filed a complaint with the women's cell and a divorce petition
citing cruelty.

9. 25 July 2025: The learned lower court granted divorce and ordered Mr. A to pay
₹25,000 per month as alimony.

5
 ISSUES RAISED

I. WHETHER A LEGALLY VALID MARRIAGE EXISTS BETWEEN MR.

A AND MS. P.

II. WHETHER THE CHILD IS A LEGITIMATE CHILD OF MR. A.

III. WHETHER MR. A IS LIABLE TO PAY MAINTENANCE.

IV. WHETHER MS. P IS LIABLE FOR CHEATING.

6
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER A LEGALLY VALID MARRIAGE EXISTS BETWEEN MR.

A AND MS. P.
It is respectfully submitted that the alleged marriage, as claimed by the parties, was
conducted informally in the presence of certain friends and acquaintances. However,
the said ceremony did not fulfill the mandatory requirements as laid down under the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Crucially, there was no presence of a duly authorized priest,
nor were the essential customary rituals and religious ceremonies performed, which are
sine qua non for a valid Hindu marriage.

Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra, has

categorically held that a mere exchange of garlands and symbolic circumambulation
around a fire, without the performance of the requisite ceremonies, does not constitute
a valid marriage under Hindu law. The Court further emphasized that compliance with
the rites and rituals recognized by the personal law of the parties is essential to confer
legal sanctity upon a marriage.

II. WHETHER THE CHILD IS A LEGITIMATE CHILD OF MR. A.

The Appellant approaches this Hon’ble Court with utmost respect and sincerity, seeking
clarity on a matter that lies at the intersection of legal presumption and scientific truth.
While Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act confers a strong presumption of
legitimacy upon children born during wedlock, such a presumption cannot operate
blindly in the face of compelling and reasonable doubt.

While Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act establishes a presumption of legitimacy,
the Appellant submits that there exist serious, specific, and well-founded doubts
regarding the paternity of the child, warranting judicial intervention. In light of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court’s ruling in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik, where it was held that
conclusive DNA evidence prevails over legal presumptions, the Appellant prays for the
conduct of a DNA test to establish the truth. The presumption under Section 112, though
strong, is not irrebuttable, especially where fidelity is in question and scientific means
can aid the Court in delivering substantive justice.

7
III. WHETHER MR. A IS LIABLE TO PAY MAINTENANCE.
It is respectfully submitted that the Appellant is not liable to pay maintenance to the
Respondent under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as the alleged marriage between the
parties is void ab initio and not legally valid in the eyes of law. The essential ceremonies
required under the Act, including the presence of a priest and performance of customary
rites, were not conducted. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v.
Ranantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC 530, wherein it was held that no maintenance
can be granted under the HMA if the marriage is not legally valid.

Without prejudice to the above, and assuming arguendo that the marriage is found to be
legally valid, it is submitted that the maintenance amount of ₹25,000 per month, as
claimed or granted, is exorbitant and beyond the reasonable financial capacity of the
Appellant, who is still in the early stages of his career and does not possess a stable or
substantial income. As laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2020) 13 SCC 454, maintenance
must be fair, just, and commensurate with the earning capacity of the spouse, and not
punitive in nature. The Appellant prays that the Hon’ble Court take into consideration
his financial constraints while adjudicating the claim for maintenance.

Furthermore, it is pertinent to submit that the Respondent voluntarily left the

matrimonial home without any justifiable reason and has not demonstrated any credible
financial hardship. Hence, in light of the aforementioned facts and prevailing legal
principles, the Appellant humbly prays that the claim for maintenance be dismissed.

IV. WHETHER MS. P IS LIABLE FOR CHEATING.

It is respectfully submitted that the legitimacy of the child born to the Respondent is
disputed, as the Appellant had no intention of having a child at the relevant time, and
had made the same expressly clear. The Respondent’s conception during a period of
emotional and physical estrangement raises serious and legitimate concerns regarding
the paternity of the child. Although Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
creates a presumption of legitimacy where spouses had access to each other during the
period of conception, such presumption is rebuttable where there exists strong reason
to believe that the biological relationship is absent.

8
The Respondent may not be legally liable under Section 415 of IPC, but her conduct
and the circumstances surrounding conception justify legitimate doubts over paternity,
as recognized in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik,
(2014) 2 SCC 576, held that scientific evidence such as DNA testing must prevail over
statutory presumptions where the truth is at stake. In the present case, the conduct of
the Respondent, particularly during the period when the Appellant was away and the
Respondent was frequently in the company of a third party (Mr. D), further adds weight
to the Appellant’s reasonable doubts and calls for the presumption to be re-examined
through appropriate means.

The Appellant, being placed in a deeply emotional and legal quandary, seeks only the
opportunity to ascertain the truth and protect his rights. He submits that, unless a
conclusive determination of paternity is made, he cannot be burdened with the legal
obligations that arise from fatherhood.

9
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER A LEGALLY VALID MARRIAGE EXISTS BETWEEN MR.

A AND MS. P.

The question of whether a valid marriage exists between Mr. A and Ms. P must be
answered strictly in accordance with the requirements of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
and judicial interpretations of what constitutes a legally solemnized Hindu marriage.
While the couple engaged in symbolic acts such as exchanging garlands and walking
around a bonfire, these gestures, though emotionally significant, do not meet the legal
threshold of a valid Hindu marriage. This submission demonstrates that their so-called
marriage lacks both ritual sanctity and legal recognition.

Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act mandates that a marriage must be solemnized in
accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies applicable to the parties. The
Supreme Court in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra interpreted
"solemnization" to mean performing the marriage with proper ceremonies and due
form, especially the saptapadi around a sacred fire (agni), which is central to Hindu
matrimonial tradition.

In this case, although the parties walked around a fire, it was not a ritually consecrated
sacred fire, nor was the act officiated by a priest or religious functionary. No mantras
were recited, and there was no invocation of divine blessings. These missing elements
are not mere formalities but are the core of what makes a Hindu marriage religiously
and legally binding.

Judicial precedents strongly support the position that symbolic acts alone do not
constitute a marriage. The Kerala High Court has held that mere exchange of garlands
or informal declarations do not amount to valid marriages under Hindu law.
Furthermore, in the recent Supreme Court case of Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar
Chanchal (2024), it was categorically held that unless the required religious ceremonies
are performed, there is no valid Hindu marriage. The Court further clarified that even

10
the issuance of a certificate or registration of a relationship is meaningless without
proper solemnization under Section 7.

While Indian courts have recognized that long-term cohabitation may, in some
circumstances, give rise to a presumption of marriage, that principle is inapplicable
here. The cohabitation between Mr. A and Ms. P began immediately after their informal
ceremony, and both parties were fully aware that the essential rituals had not been
performed. Moreover, their cohabitation lasted only a few months, which does not
satisfy the requirement of long-standing, socially recognized living together. Their own
conduct shows that they treated the event as significant, but not equivalent to a legal
marriage.

The social legitimacy of a Hindu marriage is also an important consideration in Indian

matrimonial jurisprudence. In this case, both Mr. A's and Ms. P’s parents explicitly
disapproved of the relationship and refused to acknowledge it. The ceremony was
performed secretly, away from traditional settings and community witnesses. This
secrecy further indicates that the couple themselves may have understood that their
actions lacked formal or legal authority.

Even if the parties had attempted to register their union—which, in this case, they did
not—such registration alone does not validate an invalid marriage. The Supreme Court
in Dolly Rani emphasized that only marriages performed in accordance with Section 7
can be registered under Section 8. Registration is merely a record of an existing valid
marriage—it cannot create one where no lawful marriage exists.

In view of the statutory requirements under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
authoritative judicial pronouncements, and the factual details of this case, it is
respectfully submitted that the marriage between Mr. A and Ms. P is not legally valid.
Their actions, though indicative of mutual affection, fall short of the ceremonial, legal,
and social requirements that Hindu law prescribes for a valid marriage. Accordingly,
the alleged marital status between the parties has no legal sanctity, and the same must
be declared invalid.

11
II. WHETHER THE CHILD IS A LEGITIMATE CHILD OF MR. A.

The issue of the child’s legitimacy arises from the complex intersection of legal
presumption and scientific proof. Under Indian law, particularly Section 112 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a child born during the continuance of a valid marriage is
presumed to be the legitimate child of the husband. This legal provision aims to protect
the rights and dignity of children by avoiding unnecessary challenges to their
legitimacy. However, this presumption, though strong, is not absolute and can be
challenged under specific circumstances.

Section 112 lays down a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for children born during
a valid marriage, unless it can be clearly shown that the husband had no access to the
wife at the time the child could have been conceived. The principle is based on the idea
that the marital relationship provides the context for natural parenthood. It protects
children from social stigma and ensures familial stability. In most cases, this
presumption is sufficient to settle questions of paternity.

In the present case, the Appellant raises serious and specific doubts regarding the
paternity of the child. These doubts arise from alleged incidents of infidelity and the
strained relationship between the parties. The Appellant submits that these
circumstances create sufficient grounds to question the legitimacy of the child and
requests a DNA test to confirm the truth.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik
held that where scientific evidence like a DNA test conclusively proves non-paternity,
such proof must override the legal presumption under Section 112. The Court
acknowledged that while legal presumptions serve an important purpose, they should
not stand in the way of truth, especially when scientific tools are available to confirm
or deny biological facts.

It is important to clarify that the Appellant does not seek to deny the child’s rights
arbitrarily. The request for a DNA test is not made out of malice but is driven by genuine

12
 concerns that affect the Appellant’s emotional and legal responsibilities as a father. The
courts must balance the principle of legal presumption with the need to deliver
substantive justice. When reasonable doubt is raised and can be resolved with
scientific evidence, denying that opportunity would amount to suppressing the truth.

In conclusion, while Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act offers a strong
presumption in favor of legitimacy, the circumstances of this case—coupled with
judicial precedent—justify a more thorough examination. The Appellant respectfully
submits that a DNA test should be allowed to determine the biological truth. This
approach aligns with the evolving legal standards that recognize the value of scientific
evidence in achieving justice, particularly in sensitive family matters.

III. WHETHER MR. A IS LIABLE TO PAY MAINTENANCE.

The issue of whether Mr. A is legally obligated to pay maintenance to Ms. P depends
first on the validity of the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. If the marriage
itself is not legally recognized, then the right to claim maintenance under the Act does
not arise. This submission sets out the reasons why Mr. A should not be held liable for
maintenance and, in the alternative, argues that even if the marriage is held valid, the
amount granted is excessive and should be reconsidered.

It is respectfully submitted that Mr. A is not liable to pay maintenance because the
marriage between him and Ms. P is void ab initio, meaning it is invalid from the very
beginning. According to the Hindu Marriage Act, a marriage must be solemnized
through proper ceremonies, including the presence of a sacred fire, saptapadi, and
other customary rites performed by a priest or religious authority. In this case, those
essential rituals were not performed.

In the landmark case of Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Ranantrao Shivram

Adhav (1988) 1 SCC 530, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the marriage is not
legally valid, then the wife is not entitled to claim maintenance under the Hindu
Marriage Act. Based on this precedent, it is clear that the Respondent cannot claim any

13
legal or financial benefit from a relationship that does not qualify as a valid marriage
under law.

Without prejudice to the above argument, and assuming for the sake of argument that
the marriage is found to be valid, it is submitted that the monthly maintenance amount
of ₹25,000 is excessive and unreasonable. Mr. A is still young and at the beginning
of his professional career, with no stable income or substantial financial resources
to support such a large monthly obligation.

In Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) 13 SCC 454, the Supreme Court laid down detailed
guidelines for determining maintenance. The judgment emphasized that the amount
must be fair, just, and within the paying capacity of the spouse. Maintenance is
meant to ensure basic support, not to act as a punishment or financial burden on the
paying party. Given Mr. A’s current circumstances, the amount ordered does not reflect
his actual financial capacity.

It is also important to note that the Respondent left the matrimonial home on her own,
without any lawful or justifiable reason. She has also not proven that she is financially
incapable of supporting herself. In such cases, where the spouse voluntarily deserts the
home and does not establish genuine hardship, courts are generally cautious in awarding
large sums as maintenance. The Appellant submits that the Respondent has not met the
burden of showing that she is in real need of such financial support.

In conclusion, it is submitted that Mr. A is not liable to pay maintenance under the
Hindu Marriage Act, as the alleged marriage was never legally valid due to the lack of
essential ceremonial requirements. Alternatively, if the Court recognizes the marriage
as valid, it is respectfully prayed that the maintenance amount be reassessed in light of
Mr. A’s limited earning capacity and the Respondent’s conduct in voluntarily
leaving the matrimonial home. A fair and balanced approach must be taken to ensure
justice is served.

14
IV. WHETHER MS. P IS LIABLE FOR CHEATING.

The Appellant respectfully submits that while this issue does not directly fall under a
strict legal definition of cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the
surrounding circumstances raise serious and genuine concerns regarding the paternity
of the child born to the Respondent. These concerns are not based on assumptions alone
but are supported by the Respondent’s conduct, timing of conception, and the strained
nature of the relationship at the relevant time. The Appellant seeks only the opportunity
to clarify the truth and avoid being unfairly burdened with obligations that may not
lawfully belong to him.

It is a fact that the Appellant had clearly expressed his unwillingness to have a child
during the said period, as he was focused on his career and not prepared for fatherhood.
Around the same time, the couple experienced emotional and physical distance,
particularly following incidents involving Mr. D, a mutual friend of the couple who was
present at their informal ceremony and later visited the Respondent in the Appellant’s
absence. The conception occurred during this period of strained relations and
mistrust, raising legitimate doubts about whether the Appellant could be the biological
father of the child.

Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides a strong presumption that a
child born during a valid marriage is legitimate, assuming the spouses had access to
each other at the time of conception. However, this presumption is not absolute. If
there are substantial and credible grounds to question paternity, the law permits the
use of scientific evidence such as DNA testing to seek the truth.

In Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014) 2 SCC 576, the
Supreme Court held that DNA evidence must prevail where legal presumptions are
challenged by reliable scientific proof. The Court recognized that while the law protects
children's legitimacy, it must also protect individuals from being forced into fatherhood
without biological basis.

15
The Appellant is not alleging that the Respondent has committed cheating in the strict
sense under Section 415 of the IPC, as no element of intentional deception to cause
wrongful gain or loss has been clearly established. However, he submits that the
circumstances of the conception, the timing, and the Respondent’s interactions with
a third party raise serious doubts that must be resolved. In a matter as sensitive and
life-altering as paternity, such doubts cannot be dismissed lightly, especially when
science offers a conclusive path forward.

In conclusion, the Appellant seeks only a fair and reasonable opportunity to confirm
the biological truth before assuming lifelong legal and emotional responsibilities of
fatherhood. While the Respondent may not be legally liable for cheating under the IPC,
the Appellant’s doubts are not baseless. They are rooted in the facts, supported by legal
precedent, and deserve to be addressed through appropriate scientific methods like
DNA testing. Until then, the presumption under Section 112 should not be treated as
conclusive in this specific context.

16
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts presented, issue raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it may
graciously be pleased to:

• Declare that the alleged marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent is not
valid in the eyes of law, having not fulfilled the essential conditions prescribed under
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

• Direct that appropriate steps be taken to ascertain the paternity of the child, in view
of the Appellant’s legitimate doubts and in accordance with the principles laid down in
Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Badwaik, (2014) 2 SCC 576;

• Set aside the impugned judgment of the Family Court directing the Appellant to pay
a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month as maintenance to the Respondent, as such direction
is untenable under Section 18 of the HMA and contrary to established precedent

AND/OR

Pass any direction, decree, order or relief that it may deem fit in the best interest of justice,
equity, fairness and good conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed before the Hon’ble Court.

Submitted on behalf of the Appellant

17