4THDR. B.R.

AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

ABBREVIATION DEFINITION

& And

U/S Under Section

i.e., That is

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Sec. Section

Hon’ble Honorable

Ld. Learned

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

BNS Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

BNSS Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita

BSA Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

HC High Court

v. Versus

M.P. Moot Proposition

r/w Read With

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................................4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................................................6

1
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

STATEMENT OF FACTS......................................................................................................7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES.....................................................................................................9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...........................................................................................10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED................................................................................................12

ISSUE 1: Whether the marriage of Preesha with Sunil is liable to be annulled?...........12

1.1 Concealment of mental disorder and its impact on consent

1.2 Irretrievable Breakdown of marriage
1.3 Preesha's motive for filing an appeal

ISSUE 2: Whether the Marriage of Sunil with Meenakshi, is legally valid Marriage?. .…
15

2.1 Legality of Sunil’s Marriage to Meenakshi under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955
2.2 Impact of the Pending Appeal on Sunil's Ability to Remarry
2.3 Validity of Sunil’s Marriage to Meenakshi After the Dissolution of His First Marriage

ISSUE 3: Whether Preesha is entitled to recover her proportionate share from the
inherited property of Sunil?.................................................................................................18

3.1 Annulment of first marriage under SMA, 1954 an incident of non-compliance

3.2 Legal annulment of marriage invalidating

3.3 Preesha's entitlement to property inheritance rights

ISSUE 4: Whether the Meenakshi, Ashu and Rashi are entitled to get the respective
share from the property of Sunil, being a legal heirs?.......................................................22

4.1 Legitimacy of second marriage and ulterior motive of Preesha

4.2 Exclusive succession rights of Meenakshi and her offsprings

PRAYER ............................................................................................................ 27

2
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. Case Laws Cited

1. P.J. Moore v. Valsa, AIR 1992 KER 176.
2. Yogesh Puri Goswami v. Pallavi Goswami, 2017.

3
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

3. Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Shrinivasan, [2023] 5 S.C.R. 165.

4. Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, AIR 2006 SC 1675.
5. Vivek Joy v. State of Kerala, CRL.MC No. 8110 of 2022.
6. Roshan Lal v. Veena Rani, 2023: PHHC:034022.
7. Ajay Mehra v. Gauri, 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 9.
8. Sandeep Aggarwal v. Priyanka Aggarwal, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5521.
9. Vijay Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Bhartlal Pandey v. Chameli Bai Wd/o Hiralal Pande, Laws
(CHH) 2022-4-16.
10. Shankar Prasad v. Radheshyam & Others, 2021 Latest Caselaw 1065 Chatt.
11. Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 334.
12. Rajib Kumar Roy v. Sushmita Saha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1221.
13. Amutha v. AR Subramanian, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1030.
14. Meena Pradhan & Ors. v. Kamla Pradhan & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 809.
15. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1.
16. Revanasiddappa & Anr. v. Mallikarjun & Ors., [2023] 14 S.C.R. 320.
17. Raja Gounder & Others v. M. Sengodan & Others, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 48.

B. Statutes
1. The Constitution of India, 1950
2. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023)
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)
4. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023)
5. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974)
6. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023)
7. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872)
8. The General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act 10 of 1897)

C. Books
1. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 59th edn.,
2022).
2. J.K. Basu Commentary on Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (Including Forensic
Procedure) (Whytes & Co., Delhi, 16th edn., 2024).

4
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

3. K.D. Gaur Textbook on Indian Penal Code (Universal Lexis Nexis, Delhi, 7th edn., 2020)
4. T. Bhattacharyya The Interpretation of Statutes (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 11th
edn., 2020)
5. Universal’s Criminal Manual (Universal Lexis Nexis, Delhi, 2024 edn., 2024)

D. Web Resources
1. https://livelaw.in (last visited on March 17, 2024).
2. https://www.scconline.com (last visited on March 20, 2024).
3. https://www.aironline.in (last visited on March 17, 2024).
4. https://www.sci.gov.in (last visited on March 15, 2024).
5. https://www.manupatra.com (last visited on March 15, 2024).
6. https://www.researchgate.net (last visited on March 18, 2024).
7. supreme-today.com (last visited on March 24, 2024).
8. https://www.jstor.org (last visited on March 21, 2024).
9. https://www.casemine.com (last visited on March 16, 2025).

5
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant has herein invoked the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 136 of
the Constitution of Indica.

Article 136 reads as:

“136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Not withstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in
any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces.”

6
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1) The Agarwal family, a well-known business dynasty in New Delhi, has been at the helm
of Agarwal Industries Ltd., a major player in the consumer goods sector, for over five
decades. The family patriarch, Mr. Sunil Agarwal, was the only legal heir of an inherited
ancestral Property by way of natural succession and a visionary leader who expanded the
business significantly. However, his sudden death in 2014 has led to a contentious legal
battle between legal heirs, involving his marital relationships and the future of the family
business.
2) Sunil Agarwal (Hindu) married Preesha Samson (Christian) in 2000 and it was performed
in New Delhi. Preesha, a Post Graduate with aspirations to pursue a career in teaching,
gave up her professional ambitions to support Sunil in his business endeavours. The
couple initially shared a harmonious relationship, marked by mutual respect and
collaboration.
3) By 2003, tensions arose due to differing Perspectives on family life and business
management. Sunil’s increasing involvement in the business led to neglect of personal
relationships and Sunil was having a problem with Preesha that she is suffering from bi
polar disorder due to which she has attacked him physically several times during this
matrimonial relationship. The same fact was not disclosed to the Sunil before his
marriage by Preesha and all her family, while Preesha felt sidelined and unappreciated.
Due to the result of continued separation, Sunil filed the petition for annulment of
marriage before the Family court. Which was decreed in favour of Sunil on 15 Feb 2008.
Meanwhile, Meenakshi Gupta, an MBA graduate from a prestigious university, met Sunil
at a business networking event on Dec 2006. Their relationship blossomed and believing
that his first marriage had ended in practice. Eventually, they got married on 1st March
2008, On the other side, Preesha Samson, feeling aggrieved by this present decision and
by contesting the decree, Filed an Appeal on 8 March 2008 in the High Court of New
Delhi against the decision of the Family Court.
4) Meenakshi has been a dynamic partner, not only in family life but also in business. She
played a pivotal role in modernizing Agarwal Industries Ltd., introducing sustainable
practices, and expanding the company’s market reach. Her active involvement and
dedication have been acknowledged by employees and business associates alike.

7
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

Meenakshi and Sunil had 2 children, The eldest child Ashu aged 3 years born on March
2009 and Rashi born on Nov. 2012. left the room where they lived together. The sister
appeared as a witness in trial court, but the friend did not.
5) On 5th March 2014 The sudden demise of Sunil has led to uncertainty about the
leadership and future direction of the company. But before his death, Sunil was an
executed a will dt. Jan 2014 of his property in favour of Meenakshi.
6) Now, Immediately after the knowledge of the sudden demise of Sunil and being the legal
heir of Sunil, Preesha Samson has approached the appropriate jurisdiction of the Civil
Court at Tis Hazari in New Delhi, against Meenakshi, Ashu and Rashi to preserve her
legal rights.

8
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

~ ISSUE NO. 1 ~

Whether the marriage of Preesha with Sunil is liable to be annulled?

~ ISSUE NO. 2 ~

Whether the Marriage of Sunil with Meenakshi, is legally valid Marriage?

~ ISSUE NO. 3 ~

Whether Preesha is entitled to recover her proportionate share from the inherited
property of Sunil?

~ ISSUE NO. 4 ~

Whether the Meenakshi, Ashu and Rashi are entitled to get the respective share
from the property of Sunil, being a legal heirs?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

9
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

ISSUE 1: Whether the marriage of Preesha with Sunil is liable to be annulled?

The case involves the annulment of Sunil Aggarwal's marriage to Preesha under the Special
Marriage Act, 1954. Preesha's concealment of her bipolar disorder, which led to physical attacks
on Sunil, is considered fraud, rendering the marriage void under Section 4(b) of the Act. The
marriage also faces dissolution due to irretrievable breakdown, as both parties lived separately
for an extended period and Preesha's condition caused cruelty. The Family Court annulled the
marriage in 2008, and even if the High Court rules in Preesha's favor, the Supreme Court may
grant a divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution. The case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli
supports irretrievable breakdown as grounds for divorce. Preesha’s appeal to the High Court,
filed after Sunil remarried, appears motivated by a desire for financial gain rather than to restore
the marriage, as evidenced by her delayed appeal.

ISSUE 2: Whether the Marriage of Sunil with Meenakshi, is legally valid Marriage?

It is humbly submitted by the respondent before this Hon’ble Court that

Sunil's marriage to Meenakshi is legally valid under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Both parties are Hindu, and their marriage was consensual and free from coercion. Sunil's first
marriage to Preesha was legally dissolved by a Family Court decree in 2008, making him free to
marry Meenakshi. Despite Preesha's pending appeal, which has caused an undue delay in the
legal process, Sunil remarried Meenakshi in compliance with the law. Preesha’s concealment of
her bipolar disorder made their first marriage voidable, further affirming Sunil's legal right to
remarry. The delay in Preesha's appeal, which has been pending for several years, violated the
timelines outlined in the Special Marriage Act, causing Sunil to marry Meenakshi. The marriage
has been successful, and Meenakshi has contributed to their family business. Therefore, Sunil’s
marriage to Meenakshi is valid and legitimate.

ISSUE 3: Whether Preesha is entitled to recover her proportionate share from the
inherited property of Sunil?
The respondent contends that Preesha Samson is not entitled to inherit Sunil's property,
Aggarwal Industries Ltd., as their marriage was annulled by the Family Court on 15th February

10
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

2008. Sunil’s marriage to Preesha was invalid from the start under Sections 4 and 24 of the
Special Marriage Act, 1954, as it violated the provisions regarding mental fitness and was based
on concealment of Preesha’s bipolar disorder. This annulment legally separates them, and
Preesha is not a legal heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, nor has she been named in
Sunil’s will.

Furthermore, Preesha cannot claim widowhood or inheritance rights, as her marriage was void
and annulled. The respondent relies on various case precedents, including Ajay Mehra v. Gauri
and Shankar Prasad v. Radheshyam, which support the view that annulled marriages do not
confer inheritance rights. The marriage between Sunil and Meenakshi, which was legally valid,
is the only legitimate union, and as per the will executed by Sunil, Meenakshi and their children
are entitled to the property.

ISSUE 4: Whether the Meenakshi, Ashu and Rashi are entitled to get the respective share
from the property of Sunil, being a legal heirs?

The respondent asserts that Sunil's marriage to Meenakshi was valid and legally recognized,
following the annulment of his first marriage with Preesha. Sunil's will, executed in January
2014, clearly bequeathed his property to Meenakshi and their children, Ashu and Rashi, making
them the rightful heirs. The respondent contends that Preesha's claim is baseless, as her marriage
to Sunil was annulled by the court, and she is not a legal heir. Furthermore, legal precedents and
provisions under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, support the inheritance rights of Meenakshi
and her children, including the entitlement of daughters to inherit equally with sons. Therefore,
the respondent urges the court to reject Preesha’s claim and uphold the will in favor of
Meenakshi and her children.

11
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: Whether the marriage of Preesha with Sunil is liable to be annulled?

1.1 Concealment of Mental Disorder and Its Impact on Consent

It is most respectfully submitted that Preesha Aggarwal’s marriage is not a valid marriage
under the provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954 and is instead a void marriage. Preesha is
suffering from bi-polar disorder due to which she had attacked Sunil physically several times
during this matrimonial relationship. The same fact was not disclosed to Sunil prior his
marriage by Preesha and all her family. It is further submitted that bi-polar disorder is not a
curable disorder, although its symptoms may come and go, but usually requires lifelong
treatment and does not go away on its own 1. Thus, concealment of such an important matter
constitutes fraud on part of Preesha and her family.

The Sec. 4(b) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 when read with Sec. 24 of the Act makes the
present marriage void. The Sec. 4(b) of the Act lays down the essentials for a valid marriage
according to which both the parties must be mentally fit i.e. neither party should be of unsound
mind or suffer from any mental ailment and moreover, the concealment of any matter relating
to marriage the knowledge of which may change the desire of the petitioner to marry is even
considered as fraud2.

Further Sec. 24 of the Act shed lights on Sec. 4 according to which any marriage solemnized
under this Act shall be null and void if any of the conditions specified in clauses (a), (b), (c)
and (d) of section 4 has not been fulfilled. Therefore, the concealment of fact by Preesha and
her family that she was suffering from bi-polar disorder before the marriage makes it a void
marriage Under section 4 of the Act and is thus liable to be annulled.

1
National Institute of Mental Health, Bipolar Disorder (Dec. 2021),
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/bipolardisorder.
2
P.J. Moore v. Valsa, AIR 1992 KER 176.

12
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

In another the case Yogesh Puri Goswami vs. Pallavi Goswami, 2017 3 the Court held the
marriage null and void under Section 12 of the HMA, 1955 as respondent (wife) was suffering
from an incurable mental disorder which amounted to cruelty to the spouse and at the same
time such serious disease was concealed from him at the time of obtaining his consent for
marriage.

1.2 Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

It is humbly submitted that Sunil Aggarwal’s marriage to Preesha is liable to be annulled as
firstly, both the parties were living separately from each other over a prolonged period of time.
Both of them had differing Perspectives on family life and business management and other
than this Preesha has attacked Sunil physically several times due to her bi-polar disorder
during this matrimonial relationship which amounts to cruelty.

All this shows that there was no scope of reconciliation between both Sunil and Preesha and it
depicts an irretrievable breakdown of marriage which is a marriage beyond repair. It’s a
situation in which the husband and wife have been living separately for a considerable period
and there is absolutely no chance of them living together again. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
has evolved grounds to determine irretrievable breakdown of marriage which includes factors
like:

a. The period for which the parties had cohabited after marriage.
b. When the parties had last cohabited.
c. The nature of allegations made by the parties against each other and their family
members.
d. The orders passed in the previous legal proceedings and their impact on the
personal relationship.
e. The period of separation should be sufficiently long etc.

Moreover, in the present case the Family Court already decided to annul Sunil and Preesha’s
marriage on 15th February 2008. This means the marriage was legally cancelled because there
were serious issues in it. Therefore, even in case the High court gives an order in favour of

3
Yogesh Puri Goswami v. Pallavi Goswami, 2017.

13
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

Preesha then also the present matter can be presented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
the court can directly grant a divorce under Article 142 of the constitution which allows the
Court to do “complete justice” in any “cause or matter.”4

The respondents strongly rely on the case of Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli, 2006 5 wherein the
Supreme Court upheld the Family Court’s conclusions that the Appellant had been subjected to
the Respondent’s psychological, physical, and financial abuse to the point where their marriage
was irreparably broken and held Irretrievable

Breakdown of Marriage as a valid ground for granting a divorce and recommend the
Legislature to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to incorporate relevant provisions
according to the judgment.
1.3 Preesha’s Motive for Filing Appeal
It is most respectfully submitted that Preesha’s reason to file an appeal in the High court of
New Delhi against the orders of family court was to protect her marriage from getting
annulled, only because she was interested in the property and money of Sunil rather than Sunil.
He filed the petition for annulment of marriage before the Family court which was decreed in
his favour on 15th Feb, 2008 and thereafter, he got married with Meenakshi Gupta on 1st
March, 2008. It is to be noted that Preesha had enough time to file an appeal against the orders
of family court between 15th Feb to 1st March if she genuinely wanted to protect her marriage
from being annulled but she filed appeal on 8th March, after Sunil married Meenakshi.

KEY SUBMISSIONS
The marriage between Preesha Aggarwal and Sunil is argued to be invalid because Preesha
concealed her bipolar disorder, which is a serious and incurable condition, from Sunil before
their marriage, making it a fraudulent marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Additionally, the marriage has broken down irreparably, as they have been living separately for
a long time, and Preesha's condition led to physical abuse, which is considered cruelty. Further,
Preesha's late appeal after Sunil remarried suggests her primary concern was to protect her
share of property, not to save the marriage. Therefore, the annulment should stand, and her
appeal should be dismissed

4
Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Shrinivasan [2023] 5 S.C.R. 165.
5
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, AIR 2006 SC 1675.

14
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

ISSUE 2: Whether the Marriage of Sunil with Meenakshi, is legally valid Marriage?

2.1 Legality of Sunil’s Marriage to Meenakshi under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955
It is most humbly submitted that marriage of Sunil with Meenakshi is a legally valid marriage
under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Meenakshi fulfils all the necessary conditions of a valid
marriage under the Sec 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

a. Both the parties to the marriage are Hindu and

b. Both had their free consent in marrying each other, as they entered the marriage
with mutual consent and there is no evidence of coercion or fraud in the formation
of their marital relationship.
c. Unlike Preesha, Meenakshi was even not suffering from any mental disorder.

Other than this, the Sec 5 of the Act talks about that neither party should have a spouse living
at the time of the marriage. In the present case, Sunil’s first marriage with Preesha have already
been dissolved by the decree passed by Family court dated on 15 th Feb, 2008 so, practically
Sunil didn’t have a legal wife when he performed marriage with Meenakshi. The annulment of
the first marriage means that, legally,

Sunil was a free individual. It is to be noted that Sunil could have been married Meenakshi
before his dissolution of first marriage as he met her two years before i.e. in 2006, but he
waited for the court’s order to get passed and then only he married Meenakshi. This shows that
Sunil after following the proper legal procedure married Meenakshi and thus, their marriage
was a legally valid.

In the case of Vivek Joy vs State of Kerala, 20246 the Kerela High court discussed that on the
date of the second marriage, there was no legal marriage subsisting in between the 1st accused
and the 2nd respondent, in view of operation of the ex-parte decree of divorce. The court
further held that when there is decree of divorce and one among the parties to the decree
marries during the subsistence of the ex-parte decree, even though the ex-parte decree
happened to be set aside on a subsequent date, no offence of bigamy would attract.

6
Vivek Joy v. State of Kerala, CRL.MC No. 8110 of 2022.

15
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

2.2 Impact of the Pending Appeal on Sunil's Ability to Remarry

It is most respectfully submitted that Preesha Samson, feeling aggrieved by this present
decision of the Family court and by contesting the decree, filed an Appeal on 8 March, 2008 in
the High Court of New Delhi. And it is to be noted that this appeal has been pending before the
Delhi High Court (2014) till now. This shows a very long time period of around 6 years
wherein Sunil being bound per the provisions of Sec 30 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 7 cannot
remarry.

According to the Section 40B(3) of The Special Marriage Act, 1954 “every appeal under this
Act shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the
trial within three months from the date of service of notice of the petition on the respondent.”
In the present case this time period has not been taken care of by the Hon’ble High Court
which ultimately forced Sunil Aggarwal to perform his marriage with Meenakshi so that he can
solemnise his marriage build his family.
Therefore, marriage of Sunil with Meenakshi is legally valid marriage.

The respondent strongly relies on the case of Roshan Lal vs. Veena Rani, 20238 in which the
Punjab and Haryana High court admitted a similar appeal and the same was not been decided
even after 15 years of its admission. The court observed that a spouse cannot be made to wait
for endless period if the Court is not able of deciding the appeal, especially when the same has
been admitted and if there is a restrain liability on one spouse, it is the duty of the Court also to
dispose of the appeal expeditiously within three months.

2.3 Validity of Sunil’s Marriage to Meenakshi After the Dissolution of His First Marriage

It is most humbly submitted that Sunil’s marriage with Preesha was void under the Special
Marriage Act, 1954 as she was suffering from an incurable mental disorder and if for a
moment, we assume it’s not void then even it was a voidable marriage under Sec. 25(3) of the
7
When a marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and either there is no right of appeal against the
decree or, if there is such a right of appeal, the time for appealing has expired without an appeal having been
presented, or an appeal has been presented but has been dismissed, it shall be lawful for either party to the
marriage to marry again.

8
Roshan Lal v. Veena Rani, 2023: PHHC:034022.

16
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

Act because Preesha and her family concealed the fact from Sunil that she was suffering from
bi-polar disorder at the time of marriage. Moreover, the Family court after applying its judicial
mind has finally passed a decree in favour of Sunil which has legally separated both the parties
from the institution of marriage. All of this very clearly shows that Sunil was legally competent
to remarry and he did so. Both Sunil and Meenakshi are living happily with their 2 children
without any conflict of interest and after her marriage Meenakshi played a pivotal role in
modernizing Agarwal Industries Ltd., Her active involvement and dedication have been
acknowledged by employees and business associates alike. Therefore, it is generously
contended that Sunil’s Marriage with Meenakshi is a legally valid marriage.

KEY SUBMISSIONS

Sunil’s marriage to Meenakshi is legally valid under the Sec 5 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
His first marriage with Preesha was legally dissolved by a Family Court decree, making him
free to remarry. Although Preesha filed an appeal against the decree, it has been pending for
several years, which has caused an unreasonable delay in the legal process. According to the
Special Marriage Act, the court is expected to resolve appeals promptly, but the delay
prevented Sunil from remarrying sooner. Furthermore, Preesha’s first marriage with Sunil was
voidable even if not void due to her mental disorder, which was hidden from him. Sunil and
Meenakshi’s marriage is happy and successful, with Meenakshi playing an active role in their
family business, supporting the legitimacy of their union.

ISSUE 3: Whether Preesha is entitled to recover her proportionate share from the
inherited property of Sunil?

It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court on the behalf of respondent that the inherited
property of Sunil i.e. Aggarwal industries Ltd. must be accorded to the Meenakshi and then,
Ashu & Rashi as per the will of Mr. Sunil and even also as per the section 8 of HSA, 1956
instead of Preesha Samson who is now falsely claiming to be Sunil’s Aggarwal wife and is not
entitled to inherit the said property. It is humbly submitted that Mr. Sunil had legally married to
Mrs. Meenakshi on 1st March, 2008. The first marriage of Mr. Sunil with Preesha Samson was

17
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

void and invalid as per section 4 & section 24 of SMA, 1954, from very beginning and even
more the family court have also annulled their marriage.

3.1 Annulment of First Marriage under SMA, 1954- An Incident of Non-compliance

It is humbly submitted that the first marriage of Mr. Sunil was null & void from beginning &
also annulled as it is directly hit by and violates the Section 4 9 of SMA, 1954 which mentions
certain requisites to be fulfilled for the marriage to be legally valid. The instant case as
involves the marriage of two individuals of different religion; Sunil a Hindu male and Preesha
a Christian female, thus provision under Section 4 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 will apply
and under said section the marriage is invalid.

It is humbly submitted that one of the essential conditions for valid marriage either under HMA
or SMA is absence of any mental disorder but in the instant case Preesha was suffering from
the bi-polar disorder and this fact was concealed from Sunil by Preesha as well as by her
family prior to marriage and Sunil came to know about this much later when Preesha
frequently attacked Sunil physically10. It is humbly submitted that all this happened in the
prime age of the Sunil and he was badly suffered owing to such experiences of matrimonial
life. The marriage between the couple was invalid from very beginning owing to the reason of
concealment of fact that Preesha suffered from mental illness and this fact makes the marriage
void-ab-intio as per the section 24 11 of SMA, 1954 and on the same grounds the family court
have annulled the marriage on 15 Feb 2008.

9
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force relating to the solemnization
of marriages, a marriage between any two persons may be solemnized under this Act, if at the time of the
marriage the following conditions are fulfilled, namely: ―
(a) neither party has a spouse living;
[(b) neither party― (i) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or
(ii) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such
an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or
(iii) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity 4 * * *;]
(c) the male has completed the age of twenty-one years and the female the age of eighteen years;
[(d) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship:
10
Moot proposition para-3.
11
(1) Any marriage solemnized under this Act shall be null and void [and may, on a petition presented by either
party thereto against the other party, be so declared] by a decree of nullity if―
(i) any of the conditions specified in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of section 4 has not been fulfilled; or
(ii) the respondent was impotent at the time of the marriage and at the time of the institution of the suit.

18
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

It is humbly submitted that to support its contention counsel relies on the case of Ajay Mehra
v. Gauri12 in which the hon’ble P&H High Court on the issue of mental disorder held that “the
relations between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent that it would be impossible for
them to live together. The act and conduct of the respondent lead to an inference that there is
no guarantee that in future, she would treat the petitioner with affection and respect The
marriage has already become dead between the parties, cannot be revived by court verdict.
Such long separation is bound to create an unbridgeable distance between the parties and
would be a constant source of mental cruelty to the couple. There seems no purpose in
compelling the party to live in matrimony.” [para: 29]

The counsel also relies on the case of Sandeep Aggarwal v. Priyanka Aggarwal13 in which the
hon’ble Delhi High Court held that “in the process, unfortunately, the life of the appellant has
been ruined and he has remained stuck in this relationship for 16 years without any resolution.
In the most important years of his life, when the appellant would have, otherwise, enjoyed
marital and conjugal bliss and satisfaction, he has had to suffer due to the obstinacy displayed
by not only the respondent, but even her father Allowing the appeal, the Court annulled the
marriage on the ground contained in sec. 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.” [para: 50-51]

It is humbly submitted that considering the facts proven and contentions raised, the so-called
marriage of Sunil with Preesha was void as per the section 24 of SMA, 1954 and thus, Preesha
is not entitled to inherit the property of Sunil.

3.2 Legal Annulment of Marriage Invalidating Preesha’s Entitlement to Property

Inheritance Rights

It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the so called first marriage of Sunil had
been legally annulled by the family court on 15 Feb, 2008, which means that now the Preesha
is no more legal heir of Sunil’s property as now she did not fall under the category of Class-I &
II legal heir nor any will have been written in her favour. Thus, either by testamentary
succession or by the intestate succession; Preesha is not legally qualified to inherit the property
of Sunil in any way.

12
Ajay Mehra v. Gauri, 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 9.
13
Sandeep Aggarwal v. Priyanka Aggarwal, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5521.

19
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that claim of Preesha as widow of Sunil is not
tenable because their marriage has been annulled and effect of annulment is that as if the
marriage never existed restoring the unmarried status of the individuals. It is pertinent to note
that the word 'widow' mentioned among Class I heir is lady who was validly married under the
provisions of the HMA, 1955 and who has acquired the status of widow by virtue of death of
her husband. Thus, if Preesha’s marriage with Sunil is void under law, on his death she would
not get status of widow under Class I of the scheduled of HSA,1956 and thus is not entitled to
inherit the property.

It is humbly submitted that to support its contention counsel relies on the case Vijay Kumar
Pandey S/o Shri Bhartlal Pandey v. Chameli Bai Wd/o Hiralal Pande 14 in which the hon’ble
Chhattisgarh High court held that “marriage of Heeralal with Chameli Bai will be null and
void as per section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is quite vivid that the second marriage of
Heeralal with Respondent No.1 is void marriage, therefore, the respondent No.1 is not the
legally wedded wife or lawful wife of Heera Lal. it is held that defendant No.1/respondent
No.1 is not entitled to get any share in the ancestral property of her husband.” [Para- 20,21 &
26]

The counsel also relies on the case of Shankar Prasad v. Radheshyam And Others15 in which
the hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court held that “If her marriage with the person is void under
law, on his death she would not get status of widow under Class I of the Schedule of Hindu
Succession Act, 1956. In the instant case, it has already been held the marriage of Devsharan
with Bhagmaniya Bai was void, therefore, after the death of Devsharan, Bhagmaniya Bai
cannot be conferred with the status of widow and she cannot be declared as Class I heir within
the meaning of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as such, she would not succeed to
the property of Devsharan.” [para: 13]

It is humbly submitted that there is catena of judgements of hon’ble Supreme Court and
various hon’ble High courts which clearly held that a divorced wife does not have the right to
inherit the property of her former husband. It was emphasized that divorce creates a legal
severance of the marital relationship, meaning inheritance rights are terminated.

14
Vijay Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Bhartlal Pandey v. Chameli Bai Wd/o Hiralal Pande, Laws (CHH)-2022-4-16.
15
Shankar Prasad v. Radheshyam and Others. 2021 Latest Caselaw 1065 Chatt.

20
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

It is humbly submitted that hon’ble Supreme Court have time to time reminded and pressured
the importance of the valid marriage as per the proper way of solemnisation. The counsel to
support its contention relies on the case of Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal16 in which
the hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Hindu marriage is a sacrament – Section 7 of the Act
uses the word “solemnised” which means to perform the marriage with ceremonies and unless
the marriage is performed with appropriate ceremonies and in due form, it cannot be said to
be solemnised. For a valid Hindu marriage, the requisite ceremonies must be performed and
there must be proof of performance of the said ceremony.”

It is humbly submitted that the claim of Preesha is very vague and baseless, the counsel on
behalf of respondent strongly contends that Preesha is not only wasting the precious time of
this hon’ble court and is having ulterior motive to grab on the Sunil’s property anyhow.

It is pertinent to note that, if once the marriage is annulled by the court, then how can someone
be made a legal heir. She did not fall under any class of legal heirs as per the Section 8 of
HSA, 1956, thus she cannot inherit the property and deprive the true heirs i.e. Meenakshi,
Ashu, & Rashi. It is humbly submitted that filing of appeal by Preesha contesting the decree of
annulment do not automatically restore her previous status of wife. More over the instant case
is case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

It is also pertinent to note that moreover the Sunil has also executed the will in the favour of
Meenakshi about two months before his death. Thus, the succession being testamentary in
nature clearly clarifies that Preesha is not entitled to inherit the said property.

KEY SUBMISSIONS

It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the marriage between Preesha and Sunil
had been annulled righteously and was never valid invalidating the Preesha’s claim to inherit
property. The marriage of Sunil and Meenakshi was the only valid marriage and as per the
provision of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 there is no right of Preesha to inherit the property
of Sunil.

16
Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 334.

21
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

ISSUE 4: Whether the Meenakshi, Ashu and Rashi are entitled to get the respective share
from the property of Sunil, being a legal heirs?

It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court on the behalf of respondent that Sunil was
legally married to Meenakshi from which the couple had two children name Ashu & Rashi.
The Sunil though having an affectionate bond with Meenakshi since 2006-07 but had married
Meenakshi on 1st March, 2008 after his first marriage got annulled by decree by the court
against Preesha.

It is humbly submitted that Sunil had executed a will of his property in favour of Meenakshi in
January 2014, and even more as per the HSA, 1956 too, Meenakshi, Ashu & Rashi are legally
entitled to get the share from Sunil’s Property being his only legal heirs. The contentions of
petitioner claiming the property of Sunil is completely vague and a sheer abuse of process of
law.

4.1 Legitimacy of Second Marriage and Ulterior Motive of Preesha

It is humbly submitted that the marriage of Sunil with Meenakshi was the valid marriage
within the meaning of Section 5 of HMA, 1955. This marriage of Sunil was the only legal
marriage as the first marriage of Sunil was invalid and have also been annulled by the court i.e.
to say that now the only wife of Sunil was Meenakshi. The couple had the two children out of
wedlock, who are sole successor of the Aggarwal dynasty along with their mother.

It is humbly submitted that the Preesha has ulterior motive to grab the property. The divorce
decree was passed on 15th Feb, 2008 after which the Sunil married Meenakshi on 1st March. It
is pertinent to note that the instant case is of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as the
Preesha was having mental disorder and used to attack Sunil frequently, moreover couple was
living separate from each other and thus, finally decreed divorce by the court.

It is humbly submitted that claim of Preesha after demise of Sunil shows her ulterior motive to
gain undue advantage over Aggarwal industries illegally as she is not the legal heir in any
scenario and making a false claim. It is humbly submitted that the counsel relies on the case of
Rajib Kumar Roy v. Sushmita Saha17, in which hon’ble Supreme Court held that “granted

17
Rajib Kumar Roy v. Sushmita Saha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1221.

22
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

divorce as continued bitterness, dead emotions and long separation in the given facts and
circumstances of the case, tantamount to irretrievable breakdown of marriage.”

It is humbly submitted that the appeal by Preesha against the decree of family court have been
pending in high court since 6 years18 which is to be disposed within 3 months as per the section
40B (3)19 of SMA, 1954. Even if we say that Sunil should have waited since appeal disposed
off is not a valid ground as for such a long time it is not rational for a person to wait that too
when the marriage is annulled by the court. The instant case being of void marriage and then
concealment of fact is irretrievable breakdown of marriage and would surely be annulled by
the hon’ble apex court exercising the power under Article 142 of constitution.

It is humbly submitted that counsel relies on the case of Amutha v. AR Subramanian20 in

which the hon’ble Supreme Court held that “in matrimonial disputes, this Court has
emphasized the need to prioritize welfare and dignity of both parties. Forcing a marriage to
continue when it has become a source of unhappiness and conflict undermines the very
purpose of the institution of marriage. In the present case, the interests of both the parties are
best served by allowing both parties to move on with their lives independently. In view of the
above, this Court upholds the judgment of the High Court granting a decree of divorce to the
respondent” [Para: 34-35]

It is humbly submitted that the claim of Preesha on inheritance of Aggarwal Industries Ltd. is
completely vague and baseless. The respondent strongly contends that this might be due to the
bi-polar disorder that she is believing the superstition as if she is wife of Sunil even now ad
making such claim. It is well versed to all of that person with bi-polar disorder often believes
the things which are not true and then expects and act as believing that fact to be true.

4.2 Exclusive Succession Rights of Meenakshi and Her Offspring

It is humbly submitted that Sunil had executed the will of his property in the favour of
Meenakshi in January 2014 voluntarily. This becomes the crystal case of testamentary
succession as per the section 30 of HSA, 1956 and provision of Indian Succession Act, 1925. It

18
Moot clarification-3.
19
40B. Special provisions relating to trial and disposal of petitions under the Act: (3) Every appeal under this
Act shall be heard as expeditiously as possible, and endeavour shall be made to conclude the hearing within
three months from the date of service of notice of appeal on the respondent.
20
Amutha v. AR Subramanian, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1030.

23
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

is humbly submitted that one thing is clear that the last wish of the Sunil was to give all his
property to his Meenakshi & his children Ashu & Rashi. It was the last will of the Sunil
(testator).

It is humbly submitted that to support its contention the counsel relies on the case of Meena
Pradhan & Ors. V. Kamla Pradhan & Anr21, in which the hon’ble Supreme Court laid down
the certain principle for the testamentary succession and held that “the Court has to consider
two aspects: firstly, that the testator executes the Will, and secondly, that it was the last Will
executed by him. It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy, but the test of
satisfaction of the prudent mind has to be applied.”

It is humbly submitted that moreover as per the provision of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 there
is crystal clear inheritance right of Meenakshi and her children over the Aggarwal Industries
Ltd. property. The section 822 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 clearly mentions the list of heirs
for inheritance of property, and applying the legal provision as enumerated in the section 1023,
according to the Rule 1 & Rule 2:

 Rule 1.―The intestate’s widow, or if there are more widows than one, all the
widows together, shall take one share.
 Rule 2.―The surviving sons and daughters and the mother of the intestate shall
each take one share.
It is clear that the Aggarwal Industries Ltd. will be inherited to Meenakshi, Ashu & Rashi as
they are only person falling under the class-I heirs with Meenakshi taking 1/3 rd, Ashu taking
1/3rd & Rashi also taking 1/3rd share. The fact that Rashi is daughter and cannot inherit the
21
Meena Pradhan & Ors. V. Kamla Pradhan & Anr, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 809.
22
The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter: ―
(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule;
(b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the
Schedule;
(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and (d) lastly, if
there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased.
23
The property of an intestate shall be divided among the heirs in class I of the Schedule in accordance with the
following rules: ―
Rule 1.―The intestate’s widow, or if there are more widows than one, all the widows together, shall take one
share.
Rule 2.―The surviving sons and daughters and the mother of the intestate shall each take one share.
Rule 3.―The heirs in the branch of each pre-deceased son or each pre-deceased daughter of the intestate shall
take between them one share.
Rule 4.―The distribution of the share referred to in Rule 3— (i) among the heirs in the branch of the pre-
deceased son shall be so made that his widow (or widows together) and the surviving sons and daughters get
equal portions; and the branch of his pre-deceased sons gets the same portion; (ii) among the heirs in the
branch of the pre-deceased daughter shall be so made that the surviving sons and daughters get equal portions.

24
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

property would also be immaterial to say, as after the amendment in the HSA, 2005 the women
can also inherit the property like male.

It is humbly submitted that the counsel to support its contention relies on the case of Vineeta
Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma24 in which the hon’ble Supreme Court held that “a
woman/daughter shall also be considered as a joint legal heir as a son and can inherit
ancestral property equally as male heir.”

It is pertinent to note here that even if for a moment we agree with the claim of petitioner that
the Sunil marriage with Meenakshi is void, then too the Ashu & Rashi will get the share in the
property as both are the legitimate son & daughter of Sunil & Meenakshi and have every right
to inherit the property in consonance with the section 16 25 (1) & 16 (3) of HMA, 1955. It is
humbly submitted that the recent judgements of the hon’ble Supreme Court have also made it
clear that children from the void and voidable marriages and even from the live-in relationship
will have the right to inherit the property.

It is humbly submitted that to support its contention counsel strongly relies on the recent
judgement of Revanasiddappa & Anr. v. Mallikarjun & Ors.26 in which the hon’ble Supreme
Court held that “While conferring legitimacy in terms of sub-section (1) on a child born from a
void marriage and under sub-section (2) to a child born from a voidable marriage which has
been annulled, the legislature has stipulated in sub-section (3) of Section 16 that such a child
will have rights to or in the property of the parents and not in the property of any other
person.” [para: 54(iii)]. The same has also been affirmed in the case of Raja Gounder and
Others v. M. Sengodan and Others27 by the hon’ble Supreme Court. [para: 16-17]

24
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1.
25
Legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages.—
(1) Notwithstanding that a marriage is null and void under section 11, any child of such marriage who would
have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate, whether such child is born before or
after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976), and whether or not a
decree of nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage is held to
be void otherwise than on a petition under this Act.
(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be construed as conferring upon any child of a
marriage which is null and void or which is annulled by a decree of nullity under section 12, any rights in or to
the property of any person, other than the parents, in any case where, but for the passing of this Act, such child
would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights by reason of his not being the legitimate
child of his parents.]
26
Revanasiddappa & Anr. v. Mallikarjun & Ors., [2023] 14 S.C.R. 320.
27
Raja Gounder and Others v. M. Sengodan and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 48.

25
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

KEY SUBMISSIONS

Thus, it is humbly submitted that as the Meenakshi was legally married to Sunil and was wife
of Sunil, she is entitled to inherit his property along with her children. The will of Sunil also
suggests and make it rock stone hard that it was his last will that property goes to his family;
Meenakshi, Ashu & Rashi only. The instant case is crystal clear case of simple inheritance
and contentions of the petitioner and claim of property is totally vague and waste of precious
time of this hon’ble court.

PRAYER

26
 4THDR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare and hold that:

1. The Special Leave to Appeal is NOT maintainable,

2. The guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt,

3. The new laws shall apply in the present case,

4. Section 69 of BNS & Sections 43(3) and 187 of BNSS are constitutionally valid.

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity, and Good
Conscience. All of which is respectfully submitted and for such act of kindness the
petitioner shall be duty bound as ever pray.

27