31ST ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2015

TC-18

Before
THE HONORABLE FAMILY COURT
DELHI
2016

PROCEEDING UNDER GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, 1890

IN THE MATTER OF:

MR. Y (GENETIC FATHER) - - - - - - - PLAINTIFF

V.

MS. Z (GENETIC MOTHER) - - - - - - - DEFENDANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT-

 31ST ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS - - - - - - - II
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES - - - - - - - - IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION - - - - - - - VII
STATEMENT OF FACTS - - - - - - - - VIII
QUESTIONS PRESENTED - - - - - - - - X
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS - - - - - - - XI
PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES - - - - - - - 1
I. WHETHER THERE IS ANY EXISTENCE OF SURROGACY AGREEMENTIN THE PRESENT CASE?
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1
A. SURROGACY AGREEMENT WAS NOT SIGNED BETWEEN MS. Z AND SAME SEX COUPLE.
B. AGREEMENT WITHOUT SURROGATE MOTHER, MS. Z, IS NOT ENFORCEABLE. - - 2
II. WHETHER MS. Z VOLUNTARILY RELINQUISHED THE CUSTODY OF CHILD?
III. WHETHER MS. Z IS AN ABLE GUARDIANFOR THE SURROGATE CHILD? - - - 2
A. MS. Z IS NOT INCLINED TOWARDS MONETARY CONSIDERATIONS.
B. Z IS HAVING TRUE AFFECTION TOWARDS THE CHILD.
C. BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD LIES WITH MS. Z.

PRAYER - - - - - - - - - - XII

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT - Page I

 31ST ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2015

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶ Paragraph

& And

AIR All India Reporter

AWC Allahabad Weekly Cases

All. Allahabad

Anr. Another

APLJ Andhra Pradesh Law Journal

Bom. Bombay

BOMLR Bombay Law Reporter

Cal Calcutta

Co. Company

Cha. Chapter

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

A./App. Appeal

DMC Divorce and Matrimonial Cases

DLT Delhi Law Times

Edn. / Ed. Edition

Govt. Government

H.P. Himachal Pradesh

Hon`ble Honorable

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT - Page II

 31ST ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2015

L.J. Law Journal

Ltd. Limited

Mr. Mister

Mad. Madras

MLJ Madras Law Journal

MP Madhya Pradesh

MPLJ Madhya Pradesh Law Journal

No. Number

HC High Court

Ors. Others

Pg. Page

Re. Reference

Pvt. Private

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SC Supreme Court

Sd/ Signed

UOI Union Of India

V. Versus

Vol. Volume

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT - Page III

 31ST ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2015

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED:

SUPREME COURT CASES

1. Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India, AIR 2009 SC 84.
2. Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde, (1998)1 SCC 112.
3. Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, App. (Civil) No. 5099 OF 2007 (SC).
4. Lekha v. P. Anil Kumar, App. (Civil) 5131 of 2006 (SC).
5. Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli, (2008) 7 SCC 673.
6. Nil rattan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu, (2008) 9 SCC 413.
7. Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma, App. (Civil) No. 1966 of 2015 (SC).
8. Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka v. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka, AIR 1982 SC 1276.
HIGH COURT CASES
1. Ashok Samjibhai Dharod v. Neeta Ashok Dharod, II (2001) DMC 48 Bom.
2. C. Meena v. C. Suresh Kumar, 1993 (1) APLJ (HC) 113.
3. Harnam Singh v. Purbi Devi, AIR 2000 HP 108.
4. J. Selvan v. N. Punidha, (2007) 4 CTC 566.
5. Minocher Dinshaw Irani v. Keki Rustomji Irani., II (1998) DMC 298.
6. Narayani Devi v Tagore Commercial Corp. Ltd, AIR 1973 Cal 401.
7. Navin Singh v. Smt. Jyoti Parashar., AIR 2004 All 441.
8. Raj Rani v. Subhash Chander, 23 (1983) DLT 240.
9. Rajiv Chouksey v. Kirti Chouksey, (2006) 43 AIC 629 (MP).
10. Ram Kishore Singh v. Nirmala Devi Kuhwaha, (2006) 3 MPLJ 194.
11. Ramakrishna Balasubramanian v. Ms. Priya Ganesan, H.C.P.NO.108 OF 2007 (Mad HC).
12. Smt. Veena Agrawal v. Shri Prahlad Das Agarwal, AIR 1976 MP 92.
13. Syyad Sabdarali Nyajali v. Shahista Begum, 2007 (109) BOMLR 1633.

FOREIGN MATERIAL
1. Convention on the Rights of the Child, General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 1989 (enter
into force 2 September 1990).
2. USA. Lindley, L.J. in Re. v. McGrath (Infants), 1893(1) Ch. 143 (148).

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT - Page IV

 31ST ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2015

STATUTES AND OTHER AUTHORITIES

1. Circular No.: 5/10/8/2008-RHN, Indian Council of Medical Research, dated:
27/10/2015.
2. Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890.
3. Indian Contract Act, 1972.
4. Information Technology Act, 2000.
5. Law Commission Of India, Report No.228, Need For Legislation To Regulate
Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinics As Well As Rights And Obligations Of
Parties To A Surrogacy, (August 2009).
6. Law Commission Of India, Report No.257, Reforms In Guardianship And Custody
Laws In India, (May 2015).
7. National Guidelines for Accreditation, Supervision & Regulation of ART Clinics in
India, Indian Council of Medical Research.

JOURNALS REFERRED:-
1. All India Reporters.
2. Allahabad Weekly Cases.
3. Bombay Law Reporter.
4. Current Tamil Nadu Cases.
5. Indian Law Reporter.
6. Kerala Law Journal.
7. Madhya Pradesh Law Journal.
8. Madras Law Journal.
9. Supreme Court Cases.

BOOKS & ARTICLES REFERRED:-

1. Abigail L. Perdue, “For Love or Money: An Analysis of the Contractual Regulation of

Reproductive Surrogacy”, 27 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol'y 279 (2011). (Available at:
http://scholarship.law.edu/jchlp/vol27/iss2/3).
2. Bach, Kathleen, “Research Guide: Surrogate Motherhood”. 1988. 46p. William S Hein
& Co.
3. Buchanan, Jim, “Regulating the Baby Makers: From Baby M to the Present, a
Bibliography”, 1991. 28p. Vance Biblios.

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT - Page V

 31ST ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2015

4. Chitty On Contracts (Sweet and Maxwell, 25th Edition, Vol.1 & 2) (1983).
5. Field, Martha A, “Surrogate Motherhood”, 1988. 224p. Harvard University Press.
6. Kari Points, “Commercial Surrogacy and Fertility Tourism in India: The Case of Baby
Manji”, Case Studies in Ethics 2 dukeethics.org. (Available at: http://kenan.ethics.duke.)
7. Margaret Wahl, Amy Labbe and Miriam Davidson, “Great Expectations: Pregnancy and
Childbirth with Neuromuscular.” (Available at: athttps://www.mds.org/sites/Pregency)
8. Mukhopadhyay, P., “Surrogacy Law on the Anvil in India”, One World South Asia,
October 18, 2008.
9. Mulla, Indian Contracts and Specific Reliefs Act, (Lexis Nexis Butterworths India, 13th
Edition, 3rd Reprint, New Delhi) (2008).
10. Pretorius, Deiderika, “Surrogate Motherhood: A Worldwide View of the Issues”, 1994.
262p. Charles C Thomas.
11. Rachel H. Farr, Stephen L. Forssell, Charlotte J. Patterson, “Parenting and Child
Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter?” Applied
Developmental Science Journal, 164–178, 2010, Psychology Press.
12. Richardson, Herbert ed., “On the Problem of Surrogate Parenthood: Analyzing the Baby
M Case”, 1987. 144p. Edwin Mellen Press.
13. Shalev, Carmel, Birth Power: “The Case for Surrogacy”. 1989. 224p. Yale University
Press.
14. Shannon, Thomas A, “Surrogate Motherhood: The Ethics of Using Human Beings”,
1988. 212p. Crossroad.
15. Sloan, Irving J, “Law of Adoption & Surrogate Parenting”, 1988. 160p. Oceania.
16. “Surrogate Motherhood- Ethical or Commercial”, Centre for Social Research (CSR),
Delhi.
17. Treitel, G. Law of Contract (Sweet and Maxwell, 8th Edition, India) (2006).

LEGAL DICTIONARIES
1. Aiyer P.R., Advanced Law Lexicon, (3rd ed., 2005).
2. Garner B.A., Black’s Law Dictionary, (9th ed., 2009).
3. Greenberg Daniel, Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, (4th ed.),
Sweet and Maxwell, Vol. 4.
4. Mish F.C., Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, (11th ed. 2003).
5. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, (7th ed., 2008).

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT - Page VI

 31ST ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2015

DATABASE REFERRED

1. http://www.manupatra.com(last visited on 27th January, 2016).

2. http://www.westlaw.org(last visited on 28th January, 2016).

3. http://www.indiankanoon.com(last visited on 25th January, 2016).

4. http://www.lexisnexis.com (last visited on 25th January, 2016).

5. http://www.judis.nic.in (last visited on 24th January, 2016).

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT - Page VII

 31ST ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2015

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsels representing the defendant have endorsed their pleadings before the Hon`ble
Family Court, New Delhi, under Section7 1 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 in which the
Hon`ble Court has the jurisdiction.

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments.

1
S. 7. Jurisdiction. - (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall

(a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district Court or any subordinate Civil Court under
any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the
Explanation; and

(b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a district Court or, as the
case may be such subordinate Civil Court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends.

Explanation -The suits and proceedings referred to in this subsection are suits and proceedings of the following
nature, namely:

(g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor.

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT - Page VIII

 31ST ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon`ble Court the facts of the present case are
summarized as follows:
1. Mr X & Y are a same sex couple who live in the United States of America. Both of
them are Indians by nationality though they have initiated the process of acquiring
U.S. citizenship. They have been together in their relationship since 2005 and live
together in the same house in the U.S.
2. Mr X and Y are desirous of starting a family and for this purpose; both of them started
looking for surrogate mothers based in India. Their plan is to get a child through
surrogacy and when the child is a new born, to bring him/her with them to the U.S. on
a long term visa.
3. In the year 2013, Mr X and Mr Y identified an agency based in New Delhi which
offers surrogacy to foreigners. They commenced negotiations with the agency and
understood the terms of the agreement. They finally agreed to the surrogacy that it
would be traditional surrogacy with Mr Y being the genetic father of the child and the
surrogate mother being the genetic mother of the same. The agreement was signed
while both Mr X and Y were in the U.S. by means of emails exchanged. The couple
deposited the first sum of to the agency amounting to $2,500 in September, 2014.
4. In February 2015, Mr Y travelled to India and an artificial fertilisation was carried out
on the surrogate mother, Ms Z, selected to carry the child. Thereafter, Mr Y returned
to the U.S. The couple made the second instalment of the payment of $2,500 in the
same month.
5. On 20th November, 2015, the child, a healthy baby girl, was born to the surrogate
mother in New Delhi. Mr X and Y both returned to India and were present at the
hospital at the time of the birth of the baby.
6. The final payment of $2500 was made to the agency by the couple on 21st November,
2015 and as a token of their appreciation, they also paid Ms Z $1000. Mr Y made an
application before the appropriate court that he be considered the child’s sole legal
guardian.
7. On the 21st of November itself, Mr Y had to suddenly return to the U.S. on urgent
business which could not be deferred. Mr X stayed in India at this time. On 28th

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT - Page IX

 31ST ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2015

November, formally became a U.S. citizen. He informed the Indian High Commission
and Embassy in the U.S. of the same.
8. The Indian Embassy in the U.S. asked Mr Y to surrender his Indian passport and to
obtain a Person of Indian Origin Card if he so desired. Mr Y realised that this would
mean that he would not be able to go back to India immediately.
9. In the meantime, Ms Z claimed that she did not want to give up custody of the child
as she had become emotionally attached to it. When she went to meet Mr X in order
to see the child, Mr X did not allow her inside the house or to even see the baby. She
claimed that she could decide whether she wanted to give the baby or not as that was
what the surrogacy agency had told her at the time she decided to carry the child. She
is an illiterate woman.
10. Mr X threatened Ms Z that he would call the police and get her arrested and abused
her in filthy language. He called her a cheat and said that she was creating this ruckus
only to extort more money from the couple. Hearing this, Ms Z forcefully returned the
$1000 they had given her at the time of the birth of the baby.
11. Finally, Mr Y obtained a U.S. passport and visited India in December, 2015. He
withdrew the earlier proceedings in view of the change of his citizenship, amended
the same and filed a fresh proceeding under the Guardians and Wards Act in order to
be declared the sole legal guardian of the child.
12. The surrogate mother, who heard from her acquaintances that such a proceeding was
pending before the Courts, filed a PIL challenging the proceedings before the Delhi
High Court on the grounds that she was cheated and her right to life had been
violated.
13. The High Court admitted the petition and stayed the guardianship proceedings that
were pending. On 15th January, 2016, the High Court decided by a short order that
the issues of fact in the matter needed adjudication and therefore directed this court
under the Guardians and Wards Act to adjudicate the matter while impleading the
biological mother as a party in the same.
14. The same matter is pending before this Court as both Mr Y and the biological mother
claim guardianship over the child.

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT - Page X

 31ST ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2015

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

The following questions are presented before this Hon’ble court for adjudication in the
instant matter:

I. WHETHER THERE IS ANY EXISTENCE OF SURROGACY AGREEMENT IN THE PRESENT

CASE?
II. WHETHER MS. Z VOLUNTARILY RELINQUISHED THE CUSTODY OF CHILD?
III. WHETHER MS. Z IS AN ABLE GUARDIAN FOR THE SURROGATE CHILD?

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT - Page XI

 31ST ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2015

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THERE IS NO EXISTENCE OF SURROGACY AGREEMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE.

Firstly, surrogacy agreement was signed between agency and same sex couple and not
between same sex couple and Ms. Z as all the negotiations took place between first two.
Secondly, Ms. Z has no obligation towards anyone as she was never a party to the
surrogacy agreement entered between agency and same sex couple.

II. MS. Z DID NOT RELINQUISH THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD VOLUNTARILY.
Firstly, Ms. Z was in intimidating surroundings at hospital where everybody was
expecting from her to give up the custody of her new born child.
Secondly, on the very next day of the delivery, Ms. Z was not mentally & physically fit to
resist the taking of baby by same sex couple.
Thirdly, when she got physically and mentally fit, she immediately went to the house of
Mr. X, returned his money and asked for the child.

III. MS. Z IS AN ABLE GUARDIAN FOR THE SURROGATE CHILD.

Firstly, Ms. Z has true affection to baby child as she is her genetic mother.
Secondly, Ms. Z is not inclined towards monetary considerations, so that she attempted to
approach Court of law to claim her lawful rights on the child.
Thirdly, Best interest of the child lies with Ms. Z. As she only can fulfil the biological &
emotional needs of newly born girl child.

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT - Page XII

 31ST ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2015

PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES

I. THERE IS NO EXISTENCE OF SURROGACY AGREEMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE.

1. In the present case, there was no surrogacy agreement between Ms. Z and Mr. X & Mr.
Y. Surrogacy agreement was signed between agency and Mr. X & Mr.Y. Thus, Ms. Z
has no obligation towards anyone as she was never a party to the surrogacy agreement.
A. Surrogacy agreement was not signed between Ms. Z and Mr. X & Mr. Y.
2. In the present case, surrogacy agreement was never signed between Ms. Z and intended
parent i.e. Mr. X & Mr. Y which is necessary for any surrogacy arrangement.2 In simple
words, no surrogacy agreement exists between Ms. Z and Mr. X & Mr. Y in the present
matter.
3. In reality, agreement was signed between agency and Mr. X & Mr. Y as it is clearly
given that all the terms and conditions were negotiated with the agency by Mr. X and
Mr. Y, couple paid whole money to the agency and most importantly during the entire
period of the negotiation there was no description of Ms. Z. 3 Thus, agreement was
signed only between agency and Mr. X & Mr. Y, meaning thereby, Ms. Z had no role in
that agreement.
4. Aforesaid mention submission can be affirmed through this fact that the same sex
couple negotiated with the agency for at least one year, which means they were very
cautious towards the process. Thus, no prudent person after negotiating for such a long
time, would be ready to let an anonymous women carry his child. Such a cautious
person would certainly choose the surrogate mother to carry his child by himself.
Therefore, Mr. Y came to India in the month of February to find out the suitable
surrogate mother and then he selected the surrogate mother i.e. Ms. Z to carry the
child.4
5. Hence, in the present matter, agreement was signed between same sex couple and
agency. Ms. Z only came in the picture when Mr. Y came to India to select the
surrogate mother to carry his child.
B. Agreement without surrogate mother, Ms. Z, is not enforceable.
6. It has already been established that Ms. Z was never a party to the agreement signed
between the agency and Mr. X & Mr. Y. Therefore, she has no obligation to adhere to

2
Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India, AIR 2009 SC 84; See also: 228th Law Commission Report.
3
Moot proposition ¶ 3.
4
Moot proposition ¶ 4.

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT - Page 1

 31ST ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2015

the terms of agreement 5 i.e. renunciation of parenthood rights. Thus, she has all the
rights on the new born baby as lawful mother. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention
that Mr. Y does not enjoy any privilege over Ms. Z to have guardianship of the child as
there was no existence of surrogacy agreement between him and Ms. Z.

II. MS. Z DID NOT VOLUNTARILY RELINQUISH THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD.
7. It is humbly submitted that Ms. Z never wanted to give up the custody of the child to
Mr. X & Y. In order to understand this proposition we have to understand the condition
of Ms. Z soon after the birth of the child and her actions later on.
8. In the present case, it is undisputable fact that Mr. X and Mr. Y were present in the
hospital at the time of birth of the child and the arrangements of delivery were made by
agency, meaning thereby, she was in intimidating surroundings where everybody was
expecting from her to give up the custody. Child was taken from her on the very next
day of the delivery. Now, a mother who has recently given the birth to a child cannot
even talk properly and under this critical period no mother can be physically and
mentally fit. 6 Thus, how is it possible if Ms. Z had given the baby voluntarily,
particularly, just a day after birth of the child.
9. In reality she never wanted to give up the custody of the child to Mr. X &Y that is why
when she got physically and mentally fit, she immediately went to the house of Mr. X,
returned his money and asked for the child.

III. MS. Z IS AN ABLE GUARDIAN FOR THE SURROGATE CHILD.

10. It is humbly submitted before this Hon`ble Court that Ms. Z is an able guardian because
she is the genetic mother of the child, she had no desire to keep the money given by the
Mr. X & Y and she is a women of high courage as despite of threats and abuses from
Mr. X, she did not get scared and went to High Court to claim her lawful rights on the
child.

A. Ms. Z is not inclined towards monetary considerations.

11. In the present case, Ms. Z was never a money grabber. It is given that couple paid
Ms. Z $1000, however, nowhere it is given that money was accepted voluntarily. In
5
Harnam Singh v. Purbi Devi, AIR 2000 HP 108; See also: Narayani Devi v Tagore Commerical Corp. Ltd,
AIR 1973 Cal 401.
6
Margaret Wahl, Amy Labbe and Miriam Davidson, “Great Expectations: Pregnancy and Childbirth with
Neuromuscular” (Available at: https://www.mda.org/sitesPregnancy).

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT - Page 2

 31ST ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2015

reality she never wanted money at the first place that is why when she got
physically fit, she immediately went to the home of Mr. X and returned $1000 to
Mr. X. In order to understand this proposition, we have to corroborate the previous
incident with the subsequent incident which is:

12. When Ms. Z went to return the money and see the child, Mr. X abused her and
called her money grabber. However, when Ms. Z tried to return the money, he was
not ready to take it back. It means it in nature of Mr. X that he does not take back
money easily once he gives it. This conduct of Mr. X is helpful to understand the
reality of that incident when he along with Mr. Y gave Ms. Z the money in hospital.
It means, even at the time of giving custody she would have refused to take money
but couple had forced her to keep it because it was their natural behavior and as she
was not physically well, she could not do firm protest against them. Hence, it can
be safely concluded that Ms. Z is not inclined towards monetary considerations.
She, despite of Mr. X`s reluctance, gave back the money to him.

B. Ms. Z is having true affection towards the child.

13. Ms. Z is genetic mother of the child. It means it is natural that she would be having
affection towards her daughter.7This proposition can also be affirmed through the
fact that Ms. Z, despite of being an illiterate woman, approached the High Court to
get the custody of her child. This action of hers’ shows her commitment towards
the child. She is having an innate bond with her child which is making her take all
the remedies within her reach so that she can get the custody of the child.

14. It is also important to note that for a human it is very difficult to let his self-respect
get undermine in front of anyone. Ms. Z was so adamant to meet her child that not
for even once she thought about her self-respect, she went to Mr. X`s home and
kept on hearing the filthy abuses of Mr. X. She was so courageous that she did not
fear even a bit when Mr. X threatened her by saying that he will call the police and
get her arrested. These instances shows what the new born baby means to her i.e.,
nothing but means to live the life.

7
Law Commission Of India, Report No.228, “Need For Legislation To Regulate Assisted Reproductive
Technology Clinics As Well As Rights And Obligations Of Parties To A Surrogacy”(August 2009).

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT - Page 3

 31ST ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2015

C. Best interest of the child lies with Ms. Z.

15. It is humbly submitted that Ms. Z is a rightful & able guardian as she is a genetic
mother and it is in the best interest of the child to live with Ms. Z.8

16. In the present case Mr. Y is an affluent person but this should not be taken into
consideration while determining the custody of the child because Ms. Z may be
illiterate but she is not incapable to cater to the needs of the child. It is a settled
position of law that affluence of the father is not a factor to give the custody of the
child to him. 9 The fact that mother is financially weak cannot be a ground for
giving custody of child to father.10

17. In addition to above, it is a settled position of law that welfare and interest of the
child is paramount in cases of guardianship.11 Now, in order to determine where the
best interest of a minor child lies, certain factors need to be considered which are:
biological and emotional needs of a minor 12 and nature of attachment to the
prospective guardian.13

18. In the present case the minor child is in a feeding state i.e., she needs her mother`s
milk for proper nutrition.14 It is also medically advised to breast-feed the child for
at least six months so that the minor child growth is not affected. 15In addition to
this, a mother has an innate emotional attachment with her minor child because the
child is an integral part of her body. It is a settled position of law that, when both
the parties who are seeking the custody of a minor child are rightful and able
guardians than in that case the custody should be given to the mother.16In such a

8
Lekha v. P. Anil Kumar, App. (Civil) 5131 of 2006 (SC); See also: Navin Singh v. Smt. Jyoti Parashar., AIR
2004 All 441, Ramakrishna Balasubramanian v. Ms. PriyaGanesan, H.C.P.NO.108 OF 2007 (Mad HC).
9
Ashok Samji bhai Dharod v. Neeta Ashok Dharod, II (2001) DMC 48 Bom; See also: Mausami Moitra Ganguli
v. Jayant Ganguli, 2008 (7) SCC 673, Minocher Dinshaw Irani v. Keki Rustomji Irani., II (1998) DMC 298.
10
Rajiv Chouksey v. Kirti Chouksey, 2006 (3) MPLJ 58; See also: Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde, (1998)1
SCC 112, USA. Lindley, L.J. in Re. v. McGrath (Infants), 1893(1) Ch. 143 (148)
11
Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka v. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka, AIR 1982 SC 1276; See also: Roxann Sharma v.
Arun Sharma, App. (Civil)No. 1966 of 2015 (SC), Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli, (2008) 7 SCC
673, Syyad Sabdarali Nyajali v. Shahista begum, 2007 (109) BOMLR 1633.
12
Ram Kishore Singh v. Nirmala Devi Kuhwaha, (2006) 3 MPLJ 194.
13
J. Selvan v. N. Punidha, (2007) 4 CTC 566.
14
Smt. Veena Agrawal v. Shri Prahlad das Agarwal, AIR 1976 MP 92.
15
Article 24, Convention on the Rights of the Child (General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989)
(entry into force 2 September 1990)
16
C. Meena v. C. Suresh Kumar, 1993 (1) APLJ (HC) 113; See also: Nil Rattan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu, (2008)
9 SCC 413

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT - Page 4

 31ST ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2015

situation, the best interest of new born girl child lies with her genetic mother i.e.
Ms. Z.

19. Therefore, considering all the above circumstances of present case, it can be said
that physical and emotional needs of thegirl child will be best taken care if she is
kept with her mother Ms. Z. The same approach was taken by various Indian Courts
for granting custody to mother in cases concerning custody of minor.17

17
Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, App. (Civil) No. 5099 of 2007 (SC); See also: Roxann Sharma v. Arun
Sharma, App. (Civil) No.1966 of 2015., Raj Rani v. Subhash Chander, 23 (1983) DLT 240.

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT - Page 5

 31ST ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2015

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, in light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited &arguments advanced,
Hon`ble Family Court, Delhi may be pleased to adjudge & declare that:
1. There is no existence of surrogacy agreement between Ms. Z and Mr. X & Y.
2. Best interest of the minor child lies with Ms. Z.
3. Ms. Z is the sole legal guardian of the child.
AND
Pass any other order that it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity & good conscience.
All of which is most humbly prayed.
On behalf of
MS. Z (GENETICMOTHER)

Counsels for the Respondent

Sd/

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT - Page XII