SRI VENKATESWARA COLLEGE OF LAW :: TIRUPATHI

MOOT COURT PROBLEM NO:1

For Academic Year 2012-13

KAVITHA ..APPELLANT
Vs
RAMESH ..RESPONDENT

The Marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent was solemnized on
31-01-2000 as per the Hindu Religious Rites and Customs. Out of the said wedlock a son,
namely Rahul was born and he is 12 years old now. At the time of marriage the
Respondent was Business Man at U.S.A. After marriage the Appellant and the
Respondent lived together for 3 months and thereafter lived separately because of the
misunderstanding between them. Since the harassment and cruelty of the Respondent
crossed the extreme extent, the appellant was compelled to file a petition for divorce on
the ground of cruelty. The Respondent filled an original petition under the Guardians and
Wards Act for the custody of the 11 years old minor child, and a petition under section 9
of Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Right. The main allegation of the
Respondent was that, the Appellant was having illegal intimacy with another person. The
second contention was that, if the child is in the company of the Appellant, it would affect
the education of the child. The Respondent also contended that he is financially better
than the Appellant and hence the custody of the child be given to him. The Appellant
defended the matter and filed a written statement denying all the allegations.

In the meantime, the Subordinate Judge of Tirupathi passed an exparte decree of

divorce infavour of the Appellant and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed
by the Respondent was dismissed for default. After considering the oral evidence
adduced by the parties and examining the documentary evidence and also interviewing
the child the trial court came to the conclusion keeping in view that welfare of the child
the custody should be given to the mother and dismissed the original petition of the father
filed under the Guardians and Wards Act.
 Against the order of the Trial Court, the Respondent filed an appeal before the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The contention of the Respondent was that, contrary to
the deposition made by the Appellant before the trial court that, she would not remarry,
immediately after the judgment of the petition filed under the Guardians and Wards Act,
she remarried. It is, therefore, contended that the continued custody of the child with the
Appellant would be detrimental to the interest, progress and welfare of the child.

The High Court, without giving an opportunity to express the willingness of the
child, allowed the appeal on the ground of remarriage of the Appellant, i.e., Mother of the
child. The High Court also held that the Respondent Father is a Business man in U.S.A
and the father is more apt and suitable to protect the interest of the minor child and also in
imparting education to the required standard of the child.

Aggrieved against the order passed by the High Court, the Appellant has preferred
the Civil Appeal to this Moot Court.

Argue on behalf of either Party.

 SRI VENKATESWARA COLLEGE OF LAW :: TIRUPATHI

MOOT COURT PROBLEM NO:2

For Academic Year 2012-13

PAGADAM RAMBABU .. APPELLANT

Vs
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH RESPONDENT

Criminal Appeal No.9/2011

The CI of Police, Tirupathi Rural arrested the Appellant and his brother Subba
Rao for offences punishable under sections 302 and 109 read with sec34 of IPC, 1860,
for Committing Murder of one of their close relative by name Raju and for Abatement of
Murder his brother on 25-08-1991.

They have been sentenced to imprisonment for Life under sections 302/34 IPC
and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. For offence under section 109/34 IPC, Subba Rao has
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years and to pay fine of
Rs.500/- with default stipulation both the accused brothers respectively.

On Appeal, the High Court of A.P has upheld the conviction of the Appellant and
acquitted another accused Subba Rao.

Hence, the Appellant Rambabu filled an appeal in the Supreme Court against
Judgment dated 6-11-2009 delivered by the High Court of A.P.

The Appellant submitted in the Appeal to the Supreme Court that since at the time
of commission of the said offences, the Appellant had not completed 18 years of age, he
was a Juvenile within the meaning of section 2(K) of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and
Protection of Children Act, 2000). In support of his submission, he submitted the school
leaving certificate dated 2-12-2009.
 The Solicitor- General on behalf of the State argued that, the appellant who was
admittedly not a Juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, when the
offence was committed, but had not completed 18 years of age on that date, will not be
governed by the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Act, of 2000 and
cannot be declared as a Juvenile in relation to the offences alleged to have been
committed.

He further contended that, a claim of juvenility cannot be raised before any Court
at any stage of appeals except if it is claimed in lower Court at the time of starting the
Trial proceedings.

The appellant however prayed the court that, he should be considered as a

juvenile under the Act, of 2000 and he may be released as per the section 15 of the said
Act, Appellant has already undergone an actual period of sentence of 2 years, 4 months
and 4 days and is now aged about 35 years.

Argue on behalf of either Party.

 SRI VENKATESWARA COLLEGE OF LAW :: TIRUPATHI

MOOT COURT PROBLEM NO:3

For Academic Year 2012-13

AYESHA .. APPELLANT
Vs
RIAZ .. RESPONDENT

Mr.Riaz, aged 25 Years working as a clerk in a Commercial Bank at Tirupathi fell

in love with Miss Iswarya, aged 22 years. They desired to marry. But the proposal of
Marriage was not acceptable to the parents of Riaz, as the girl being Hindu. In order to
solemnize the marriage with Riaz, Iswarya converted herself to Islam and changed her
name as Ayesha. Their marriage was solemnized as per Muslim personal law on
2-1-2007.

However, after the marriage, Mr.Riaz began to ill-treat her demanding a huge
amount of dowry from Ayeshas parents. Riazs parents also joined hands with him to ill
treat Ayesha finally, Mr.Riaz on 1-8-2007 left Ayesha at her parents home for want of
dowry, knowing pretty well that she is pregnant.

On 15-2-2008, Smt Ayesha gave birth to a female child at her home. The birth of
child was communicated to Mr.Riaz. But Mr.Riaz refused to receive the child and Ayesha
as his desire for dowry has not been satisfied by her parents owing to their poor financial
position.

Smt.Ayesha filed a petition for maintenance to herself and to her child under
section 125 Cr.P.C in Tirupathi Family Court on 25-12-2009. She claimed maintenance
of Rs.15,000/- per month as her husband Mr.Riaz is earning salary of Rs.30,000/- per
month.

The respondent Mr.Riaz denied all the allegations and asserted that she has been
living with her parents on her own free will and thus deserted him since 1-8-2007.
 While the maintenance petition was pending before the Family Court, Mr.Riaz
pronounced irrevocable Talaq on 2-3-2010 to dissolve his marriage with Ayesha.

Mr.Riaz contended that under the provisions of the Muslim Women ( Protection
of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, he is no more liable to pay any maintenance to Ayesha
and her child after Talaq.

However, the Family Court, Tirupathi directed the respondent Mr.Riaz to pay
Rs.9,000/- per month to wards, maintenance to Ayesha and her child from the date of
petition, till the completion of Iddat Period.

Smt. Ayesha, aggrieved by the decision of the Family Court, preferred an appeal
to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh claiming maintenance beyond Iddat Period.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh also confirmed the decision of the Family
Court. Therefore Smt.Ayesha preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court with special leave
of the Apex Court, challenging the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Argue either for or against the Petitioner.

 GUIDELINES FOR MOOT COURT APPEARENCES

The Students are requested who were interested to participate in model Moot
Court competition should choose any one of the above above three problems they are
interested and prepare their version of case i.e., either Petitioner side or Respondent
side, if it is criminal case on behalf of accused or State Prosecution concern with
relevant documents and evidences needed to satisfaction of the court and submit
written arguments before the moot court offices and argue their version of the case
with following court room manners. More over the students are requested dress code
must be followed at the time of participation and observation of the moot court
competition.

Participation and Observation of the Moot Court competition is compulsory for

all the Sixth Semester and Tenth Semester 3/5 Year LL.B course Final year students.
While participating and observation the students must follow the dress code. The
remaining semester students if they want to participate must get prior permission
from the Principal and may be participate.

The Final Year students were requested should prepare written arguments for the
all the three cases given above either side of the cases for made it record in Practical
Training-I i.e., Moot Court Record along with other contents in that record concern.

For more details and information about the Practical Training Record concern you
should regularly touch with Principal and other concern Teachers in preparing Record
notes without errors.
 NIRBAYA GANGE RAPE CASE 2012

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

The 2012 Delhi Gang Rape Case involves a rape and murder that occurred on 16
December 2012 in Munirka, a neighbourhood located in the southern part of New Delhi,
when a 23-year-old female physiotherapy intern[2] was beaten and gang raped in a bus in
which she was travelling with her male companion. There were only six others in the bus,
including the driver, all of whom raped the woman. The woman died from her injuries
thirteen days later while undergoing emergency treatment in Singapore.[3]

The incident generated widespread national and international coverage and was
condemned by various women's groups, both in India and abroad. Subsequently, public
protests against the Government of India and the Government of Delhi for not providing
adequate security for women took place in New Delhi, where thousands of protesters
clashed with security forces. Similar protests took place in major cities throughout the
country.

All the accused were arrested and charged with sexual assault and murder. The accused
driver, Ram Singh, died in police custody on 11 March 2013 in the Tihar Jail.[4]
According to some published reports, the police say Ram Singh hanged himself, but
defense lawyers and his family suspect he was murdered.[5] The rest of the accused
remain on trial in a fast-track court.