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 RIAZ
….. APPELLANT Vs ….. 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 Ayesha’s parents. Riaz’s 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.
