MOOT COURT PROBLEM 1
CASE TITLE: Rohan Verma V/s Nisha Kapoor
Jurisdiction: High court of Suryanad
Background:
The Republic of Vedanta is a democratic nation where personal laws govern marriage,
divorce, and inheritance across different religious communities. Over the past few years,
debates surrounding live-in relationships have intensified, leading to legislative discussions
and legal challenges.
Rohan Verma (32) and Nisha Kapoor (29), both financially independent professionals, have
been in a live-in relationship for four years in the capital city of Vedanta called Suryanad .
They had mutually agreed not to marry, prioritizing their careers while sharing financial
responsibilities. However, following a personal dispute, Rohan abruptly moved out of their
shared apartment and ceased all communication with Nisha.
Two months later, Nisha discovered she was pregnant. When she informed Rohan, he refused
responsibility, claiming that he had never consented to having children and that since they
were not legally married, he owed no legal obligation to her or the unborn child.
Feeling abandoned and financially vulnerable, Nisha filed a petition before the Family Court,
seeking recognition of their live-in relationship as equivalent to marriage under the Domestic
Voilence Act, 2005 and also Maintenance from Rohan. A declaration of legitimacy for the
unborn child, ensuring inheritance rights over Rohan’s assets.
Rohan challenged the petition, arguing that A live-in relationship does not create legal
obligations akin to marriage. He never consented to have children and cannot be forced into
parental responsibilities Any recognition of a live-in relationship as a de facto marriage
would violate his right to personal liberty under the Constitution.
Meanwhile, a conservative social group, Sanskriti Morcha, filed a Public Interest Litigation
(PIL) before the High Court of suryanad, demanding:
1. A ban on live-in relationships, arguing that they undermine the institution of marriage.
2. Mandatory registration of live-in relationships to protect women from abandonment.
3. Criminal penalties for men who desert their live-in partners after prolonged
cohabitation.
The Family Court ruled in favour of Nisha, holding that A long-term live-in relationship
should be presumed as a valid marriage under family law. Rohan must pay maintenance to
Nisha and assume responsibility for the child. The unborn child has a right to inheritance as
Rohan’s legal heir.
Rohan appealed to the High Court, arguing that the Family Court’s ruling violates his
fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of Vedanta by imposing marital
obligations without legal consent.
The High Court has admitted the appeal and framed the following issues for consideration:
1. Does a long term live-in relationship create legal presumption of marriage
2. Does a long term live in relationship have a legal obligation to provide maintainance for
the partner and child
3. Should an unborn child from a live-in relationship be entitled to inheritance rights?
4. Does banning or regulating live-in relationships violate personal liberty and privacy
5. Can the State criminalize desertion in live-in relationship without violating individual
rights
Instructions for Student’s:
1. The laws of Vedanta are in pari materia with the laws of India.
2. Students shall prepare memorials for both the Petitioner (Rohan Verma) and
Respondent (Nisha Kapoor).
3. Memorials must include:
o Cover Page
o Table of Contents
o Index of Authorities
o Statement of Jurisdiction
o Statement of Facts
o Issues Raised
o Summary of Arguments
o Arguments Advanced
o Prayer
4. Relevant constitutional provisions, family law statutes, and judicial precedents must
be cited.
5. Memorials must be written in bond paper.
