1

TEAM CODE: T16

IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER OF THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT OF

GOVT. OF MADHYA

(UNDER ART.226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA )

SHRI MADHUKAR VATS

(PETITIONER)

V.

GOVT. OF MADHYA BHARAT & KARAN SHARMA

(RESPONDENT)

Memorial submitted to:

The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Bharat

Memorial filed on behalf of:

The Petitioner

Counsel appearing on behalf of:

The Petitioner

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS - - - - - - 04

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES - - - - - -

 DECISIONS OF COURTS - - - - - - 05
 BOOKS AND DIGESTS - - - - - - 06

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION - - - - - - 07

STATEMENT OF FACTS - - - - - - 08

ISSUES PRESENTED - - - - - - - 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS - - - - - - 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED - - - - - - 13

PRAYER - - - - - - - - 30

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. & : And
2. AIR : All India Reporter
3. Art. : Article
4. No. : Number
5. p. : Page
6. para : Paragraph
7. SC : Supreme Court
8. SCC : Supreme Court Cases
9. SCC : Supreme Court of Canada
10. SCR : Supreme Court Reports
11. v. : Versus
12. Vol. : Volume
13. Hon’ble : Honorable
14. Govt : Government
15. M.D. : Managing Director
16. HC : High Court
17. CAG : Comptroller and Auditor General
18. Ors. : Others
19. WP : Writ Petition
20. IA : Interim Application
21. SEBS : Securities Exchange Board of Sarvia
22. U/A : Under Article
23. I&B : Information & Broadcasting
24. Sec : Section
25. R/W : Read With
26. F.I.R : First Information Report
27. Cri LJ : Criminal Law Journal

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

[DECISIONS OF MUNICIPAL COURTS]

1. M.C. Mehta v. U.O.I [(1987) 1 SCC 395]

2. Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. U.O.I [(1995) 1 SCC 14,21]
3. M.C. Mehta v. U.O.I [(1992) 1 SCC 358]
4. K.K. Kochunnimoopil Nayar v. The State of Madras & Ors. [AIR (1959) SC 725]

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 4

5. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1994) 6 SCC 632]

6. Rajendra Sail v. MP High Court Bar Assn [AIR 2005 SC 2473]
7. Surya Prakash Khatri v. Madhu Trehan [2001 Cri LJ 3476]
8. E.S.P. Rajasthan v. Union of India [1977 AIR 1361]
9. Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Teja Singh [AIR 1954 SC 186]
10. Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham Case [(2012) 1 SCC 333]
11. A.K. Gopalan v. Noordeen [1970 AIR SC 1694]
12. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1967 SC 1]
13. Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India [1997 (4) SCC 306]
14. Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India [1996 (2) SCC 199]
15. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal [AIR 2010 SC 3196]
16. Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2010 6 SCC 1]
17. Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspaper
[AIR 1989 SC 190]
18. Aniruddha Bahal v. State [2010 172 DLT 269]
19. Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan [(1987) 3 SCC 367]
20. Antulay’s case [1988 (2) SCC 602]

[BOOKS AND DIGESTS]

1. Facets of Media Law, by Madhavi Garadia Divan

(First Edition, 2006)

2. Telecom, Media & Press Laws

(Second Edition, 2012)

3. Law of the Press, Durga Das Basu

(Fifth Edition, 2010)

4. V.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India, by Mahendra P. Singh

(Eleventh Edition, 2010)

5. Introduction to Constitution of India, by Dr. D.D. Basu

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 5

(Nineteenth Edition Reprint 2007)

6. Indian Penal Code, by B.M. Gandhi

(Third Edition, 2010)

7. Supreme Court Cases

8. All India Reporter

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout
the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto
and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III
and for any other purpose

(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any
Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part,
arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or
authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or
in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1),
without

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea
for such interim order; and

(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court
for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose
favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of
the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the
date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the
High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day
afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the
interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid
next day, stand vacated

(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the
power conferred on the Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 32

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. In the State of Indiana, there is a statute governing the contractual relations of the
parties and is known as The Indiana Contract Act, 1872. The laws of Indiana are pari
materia to the laws of India.

2. Mr. Karan Sharma, who is an Asst. Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School and
has acquired a citizenship of United Kingdom, executes a pre-nuptial agreement with
Ms. Divya Sharma, who is an Asst. Professor of Law at the Dharmraj National Law
University and a citizen of Indiana, thereby stating certain terms and conditions
relating to their marriage and also governing their mutual rights and liabilities.

3. The parties solemnised a marriage according to the Hindu Law governing both the
parties, though the marriage was not registered.

4. Soon after the marriage Mr. Sharma through a notice informed to Mrs. Sharma that he
wants to repudiate their marriage which has been solemnised as per the terms of their
agreement which says that any party to the marriage may repudiate the marriage after
giving a notice to the other party. The agreement interalia stated that neither party
should have any mutual right of inheritance or succession.

5. The marriage is being solemnised for a period of 1 year after which it shall be
automatically repudiated and no right of maintenance to either party after such
repudiation shall be available.

6. After receiving the notice, Mrs. Sharma returned to Indiana from London (her
matrimonial home) and applied before the marriage registrar for the registration of
their marriage which was denied on the ground that the marriage was not solemnised
in India and that the other party is not present for such registration.

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 8

ISSUES PRESENTED

 Whether the petition is maintainable in Indiana?

 Whether the order of registrar is liable to set aside?
 Whether legislation can be superseded by a contract?
 Whether the aforesaid marriage shall be governed by the agreement or the said law?

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY MRS. DIVYA SHARMA ARE MAINTANABLE.

1.1. Based on the section 8 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT 1955
1.2.

2. THE ORDER OF REGISTRAR CAN BE SET ASIDE

2.1

3. LEGISLATION CAN NOT BE SUPERSEDED BY A CONTRACT

3.1

4. THE MARRIAGE IS SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF HINDU

MARRIAGE ACT

4.1 .

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY MRS. DIVYA SHARMA IS MAINTANABLE.

In the given fact situation the marriage registrar denied on the ground that the marriage
the marriage was not solemnised in India. But section 7 of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT
1955 states that –
7. Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage.-
(1) A Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary
rites and ceremonies of either party thereto.
(2) Where such rites and ceremonies include the saptapadi (that is, the taking
of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire),
the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken.
In the above mentioned section it is not written anywhere that the solemnization of the place
of the marriage. For instance the marriage of Virat Kohli and Anushka Sharma was performed
in Italy but just because of this reason we cannot say that the marriage cannot be solemnised
in India. The statement of Marriage Registrar to Mrs. Divya Sharma is wrong and narrows
the scope of Hindu Marriage Act Section Aforementioned.
2. THE ORDER OF REGISTRAR CAN BE SET ASIDE

And other party was not present for such registration but there are provision under
registration law which talks about- There is a provision for condonation of delay up to 5
years, by the Registrar, and thereafter by the District Registrar concerned.
So there was a discretion power of registar which he had. he could invite the other party that
is Mr. Karan Sharma for registration but he did not do so. he just denied to register the
marriage. so here my party’s petition should be maintained.

3. LEGISLATION CAN NOT BE SUPERSEDED BY A CONTRACT

In the Kotamreddi Seetamma vs Vannelakanti Krishnaswamy Row ... on 18 April,

1916

PRAYER

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 11

Wherefore, in light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, the Hon’ble HIGH COURT may be pleased:

1. Adjudge and declare that the petition is allowed; and

2.

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER THAT IT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY, AND

GOOD CONSCIENCE. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Place: S/d_________________

Date: (Counsel on behalf of the Defence)

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-