Scribd
Upload
354 views2 pages

Adultery Case Moot Problem

Mrs. Kavita filed a complaint against her husband Mr. Sujeet, his colleague Mrs. Aishwarya Sein, and Mrs. Aishwarya's husband Mr. Deepak Sein for adultery. She argued her marital life was disturbed by the affair. An NGO also filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which grants immunity to adulteresses. Mrs. Kavita joined this challenge. Both Mrs. Kavita and Mr. Deepak also applied for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The matters are now before the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the relevant laws and resolve the divorce petitions.

Uploaded by

Gcs Preethika
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
354 views2 pages

Adultery Case Moot Problem

Mrs. Kavita filed a complaint against her husband Mr. Sujeet, his colleague Mrs. Aishwarya Sein, and Mrs. Aishwarya's husband Mr. Deepak Sein for adultery. She argued her marital life was disturbed by the affair. An NGO also filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which grants immunity to adulteresses. Mrs. Kavita joined this challenge. Both Mrs. Kavita and Mr. Deepak also applied for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The matters are now before the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the relevant laws and resolve the divorce petitions.

Uploaded by

Gcs Preethika
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

MOOT PROBLEM ON CRIMINAL LAW

In the case of:

Mrs. Kavita V. Mr. Sujeet and Others

Mr. Deepak Sein and Mrs. Aishwarya Sein were married in 2017 and were residents of Kolkata in
the State of West Bengal and they were working there in a JAPAN based Multi-National
company.

After 3 years of their happy marital life, Mrs. Aishwarya Sein became aware that she cannot give
birth to a healthy child. She came to know about this fact by reading medical reports kept secretly
by her husband. As per that report Mr. Deepak suffered from some serious congenital medical
problem that may pass on to their child.

Then they had quite a big fight in this regard that he never told her about his health problem
either prior to her marriage or thereafter but kept the information secret. She remained in her in-
laws home under their care, as her husband went for employment training program to Pune for
two months.
After some time Mr. Deepak learnt that his wife, desirous of having a healthy child, developed an
extra marital relationship with her office colleague, Mr. Sujeet. However, he did not object to the
same.
Mr. Sujeet however, confessed to his wife that he had an illicit relationship with Mrs. Aishwarya.
Mrs. Kavita, wife of Mr. Sujeet, furious about the matter, filed a complaint against her husband as
‘main accused,’ Mrs. Aishwarya Sein as ‘second accused’ and Mr. Deepak Sein as ‘an abettor’ as
he, through his silence and acquiescence facilitated, rather, to put it bluntly, encouraged Mrs.
Aishwarya Sein and Mr. Sujeet to indulge in ‘adultery’ thereby ruining her marital life. She
pleaded that she too shall be recognized as ‘aggrieved person’ as her matrimonial life was
disturbed with these developments.
Meanwhile, an NGO filed a Public Interest Limitation in the Supreme Court with a plea that
Section 497 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 shall be struck down as it violates Articles 14, 15 and 21
of Indian Constitution on the ground that the relevant section of Indian Penal Code, 1860 gives
‘immunity only to adulteress but not to men’ when both are equally guilty. As a matter of
principle of ‘public policy’, gender neutrality shall be observed in criminal law.
Mrs. Kavita also impleaded herself challenging the constitutional validity of sec. 497 in the
Supreme Court as it violates different Articles of Indian Constitution. She also submits that such
‘total immunity cannot be given to Mrs. Aishwarya, the adulteress.
She submits that S. 198 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is also unconstitutional for it
‘discriminates on the basis of sex’ which is prohibited under Article 15 (1) of Indian Constitution.

Mrs. Kavita also filed a petition in the Family Court for ‘divorce’ from her husband under The
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Mr. Deepak also applied for divorce from his wife under The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Mrs.
Aishwarya Sein objected that ‘it is strange that he, instead of she, filed for divorce when ‘in
reality non-disclosure of his serious health problem has brought forth this state of affairs’.

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against all the accused persons ‘declaring that
Sec. 497 does not violate any of the provisions of the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court, after hearing preliminary arguments, admitted and clubbed all the SLPs for
final disposal.

 The matter to be heard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.


 Students shall prepare memorials/arguments for both Petitioner and Respondent.
 Students may frame their own issues

You might also like