TC-BLLSECA-

INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF LUCKNOW

APPEAL NO. XXXX/2025

IN THE MATTER OF

MRS. NIYATI SHARMA ….APPELLANT

V.
MR. ARVIND SHARMA ….RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 LIST OF ABBREVIATION
TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
LIST OF ABBREVIATION 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4-5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS 7-8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES 9-10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 11-12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 13-20
PRAYER 21

A.C – Appellate Cases

ACC – According
AIR – All India Report
ANR. – Another
CRI.L.J – Criminal Law Journal
FIR – First Information Report
GAWA – Guardian and Wards Act
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
HMA – Hindu Marriage Act
HC- High Court
HMGA – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act
INR – Indian Rupee
NO. – Number
ORS. – Others
POWFDVA – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
SC- Supream Court
SCC- Supream Court Cases
V. – Versus
VOL. – Volume

STATUES:
1. GUARDIAN AND WARD ACT, 1890
2. HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955
3. HINDU ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956
4. HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT,1956
5. PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005

TABLE OF CASES:
1. Ajay Kumar v. Lata @ Sharuti, (2019) 15 SCC 615
2. Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan Kushwaha, (2018) 9 SCC 280
3. Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati, AIR 1957 SC 176
4. Dipakbhai Gopubhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 248
5. Githa Hariharan v. RBI, (1999) 2 SCC 228
6. Hema Reddy v. Rakesh Reddy, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1372
7. Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, (2016) 10 SCC 165
8. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605
9. K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226
10. Kusum Lata v. Kampta Prasad, AIR 2004 MP 40
11. Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad, (2007) 7 SCC 308
12. Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558
13. Neelakanta v. Laxmi Narayan, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 500
14. Neelu Kohli v. Naveen Kohli, AIR 2004 All 1
15. Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu, (2008) 9 SCC 413
16. Prateek Gupta v. Shilpi Gupta, (2018) 2 SCC 309
17. R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha, (2019) 9 SCC 409
18. Raj Kumar v. Suman Kumari, AIR 2004 SC 1453
19. Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja, (2017) 14 SCC 194
20. Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, (1973) 1 SCC 840
21. Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma, (2015) 8 SCC 318
22. Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511
23. Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414
24. Satish Sitole v. Ganga, (2008) 7 SCC 734
25. Shemoli Hati v. Somnath Das, (2019) 7 SCC 490
26. Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy, (1988) 1 SCC 105
27. Smt. Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde, (1998) 1 SCC 112
28. Sudha Mishra v. Surya Chandra Mishra, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5962
29. S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169
30. Thammanna v. K. Veera Reddy, AIR 1980 SC 888
31. U. Sree v. U. Srinivas, (2013) 2 SCC 114
32. V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot, (2012) 3 SCC 183
33. V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337
34. Vikram Vir Vohra v. Shalini Bhalla, (2010) 4 SCC 409
35. Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288

WEBSITES:-
WWW.LEXISNEXISACADEMIC.COM
WWW.INDIANKANOON.COM
WWW.BRITANNICA.COM
WWW.VAKILNO.1.COM
WWW.LEGALBENCH.COM
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT, MRS. NIYATI SHARMA, HEREBY HUMBLY
SUBMIT TO THIS HON’BLE COURT’S JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 13 [1][ia],
SECTION 26 OF HMA, 1955, SECTION 12,18,19,20 OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN
FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT,2005.
THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THE FAMILY COURT TO EXERCISE
ITS JURISDICTION AND ADJUDICATES THIS MATTER.
 STATEMENT OF FACT
1. Mrs. Niyati Sharma and Mr. Arvind Sharma got married on 12th February 2011 in an
elaborate Hindu ceremony in Luckynow, Uttam Pradesh, as per Hindu rites and customs.
2. At the time of marriage, Arvind was employed as a Senior Software Engineer in Saathipur,
while Niyati, a postgraduate in English Literature, was pursuing her PhD and teaching at a
private college in Luckynow.
3. Shortly after marriage, Niyati moved to Saathipur to reside with Arvind in his rented
apartment.
4. In 2012, the couple welcomed a son Aarav Sharma.
5. The first few years of their marriage were uneventful. However, tensions began to arise in
2016 when Niyati expressed her desire to resume her teaching career. Arvind objected to her
working, allegedly stating that a “Respectable” wife should focus solely on the household and
raising the child.
6. Over the next few years, arguments over finances, Niyati’s autonomy and her contact with
her natal family became frequent
7. In 2019, Niyati alleged that Arvind began subjecting her to mental cruelty and emotional
abuse, including frequent verbal insults, silent treatment, and manipulation.
8. In February 2020, Arvind allegedly threw a laptop at the wall during a heated argument in
front of their child.
9. According to Niyati, she was also economically abused. Arvind used to control all her
expenses and refused to give her money for her personal needs. He reportedly prohibited her
from having her own bank account.
10. On 4th March 2021, Niyati left the matrimonial home with Aarav, then 9 years old, and
moved to her parents home in Luckynow. She claims this move was precipitated by an
incident where Arvind allegedly threatened to send her back “without the child” if she tried to
work again.Since then, Aarav has been living with Niyati, attending a private school in
Luckynow.
11. Arvind initially did not object but later began demanding that the child to be returned
bach to him in Saathipur, claiming that Niyati had “illegally taken away his son.”
12. Niyati filed a petition for divorce in July 2021 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, citing cruelty. She also filed an application under Section 26 of the Act,
seeking permanent custody of Aarav.
13. Niyati also filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005, seeking residence orders, monetary relief, and protection against harassment. She
alleged that Arvind’s behavior had been detrimental to her emotional and mental well-being.
14. In response to the custody petition filed by Niyati, Arvind Sharma relied on the Guardians
& Wards act to assert his custodial rights. He alleged parental alienation, asserting that Niyati
was poisoning Aarav’s mind against him.
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
15. Arvind also denied allegations of cruelty, claiming they were fabricated to gain leverage
in custody proceedings. He asserted that he had always provided for the family and is willing
to reconcile.
16. Niyati refused reconciliation. She stated that Aarav was closely attached to her and
moving him back to Saathipur would disrupt his emotional stability and schooling.
17. The parties are now before the Family Court, Luckynow.

1. Whether the conduct of Mr. Arvind Sharma amounts to cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, thereby entitling Mrs. Niyati Sharma to a decree of divorce?
2. Whether the permanent custody of the minor child Aarav Sharma should be granted to the
mother or father, considering the welfare and best interests of the child under the Guardians
and Wards Act, 1890?
3. Whether the acts of Arvind Sharma fall within the scope of domestic violence under the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and whether Mrs. Niyati Sharma is
entitled to protection and monetary relief under the Act?

Issue:1: Whether the conduct of Mr. Arvind Sharma amounts to cruelty under Section
13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, thereby entitling Mrs. Niyati Sharma to a
decree of divorce?
Mrs. Niyati Sharma seeks divorce under Sec 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, 1955, citing sustained
mental cruelty inflicted by Mr. Arvind Sharma through verbal insults, silent treatment,
emotional manipulation, and controlling behavior. Her wish to resume her teaching career
was met with strong opposition, regressive remarks that a “respectable” wife should not
work, and psychological threats, including taking away their child. Mr. Arvind also restricted
her interaction with her natal family, leading to emotional neglect and isolation. Mrs. Niyati
submits that the cruelty must be assessed cumulatively, as the continuous emotional,
psychological, and financial abuse has made cohabitation impossible, breaking down the
matrimonial bond irretrievably. These acts fall within the ambit of cruelty under Sec 3 of the
PWDVA, 2005, and establish a clear case for divorce. Attempts at reconciliation have failed,
and the well-being of both Mrs. Niyati and her child necessitates the dissolution of the
marriage.

ISSUE:2: Whether the permanent custody of the minor child Aarav Sharma should be
granted to the mother or father, considering the welfare and best interests of the child
under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
Mrs. Niyati Sharma seeks permanent custody of her minor son, Aarav Sharma, under Sec 26
of the HMA, 1955 and Sec 7 of the GAWA, 1890, legal provisions that prioritize the welfare
and best interests of the child. Since March 2021, Aarav has been residing with his mother in
Lucknow, where he is emotionally secure, attending a reputed private school, and thriving
under her care. Mr. Arvind Sharma has exhibited controlling and emotionally harmful
behavior, as detailed in the main divorce petition and complaint under the PWDVA, 2005,
making his custody unsuitable for the child’s emotional well-being. Any disruption to Aarav’s
stable environment by placing him in Mr. Arvind’s custody would jeopardize his educational
and emotional stability. As the natural and primary caregiver, Mrs. Niyati Sharma has no
allegations or evidence of unfitness against her, and courts typically prefer maternal custody
when it aligns with the child’s best interests. Furthermore, Mr. Arvind’s history of mental
cruelty, emotional abuse, and threats toward Mrs. Niyati creates an unfit and unsafe
environment for Aarav. There is no credible evidence to suggest that the Appellant is unfit;
rather, she has consistently ensured Aarav’s education, health, and overall development,
reinforcing her claim for permanent custody.

Issue:3: Whether the acts of Arvind Sharma fall within the scope of domestic violence
under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and whether Mrs.
Niyati Sharma is entitled to protection and monetary relief under the Act?
Mrs. Niyati has filed a complaint under the PWDVA, 2005, seeking reliefs under S. 18 –
Protection Order, S. 19 – Residence Order, and S. 20 – Monetary Relief. The acts committed
by Mr. Arvind fall squarely within the definition of domestic violence under S. 3 of the Act,
encompassing verbal abuse, emotional abuse, and economic abuse. Mrs. Niyati was
frequently insulted and humiliated, and the Respondent often subjected her to silent
treatment, causing severe mental distress. She also faced emotional manipulation and
controlling behavior. When she expressed her desire to resume work, Mr. Arvind strongly
objected and threatened her with consequences, including taking away their minor child. This
reflects a controlling and oppressive attitude that severely affected her mental well-being.
Further, Mr. Arvind engaged in economic abuse by refusing to provide her money for
personal needs and preventing her from operating a bank account, thereby curtailing her
financial independence. In a specific incident in February 2020, during a heated argument,
Mr. Arvind threw a laptop in anger in the presence of their minor son, causing fear and
trauma. This incident is indicative of his pattern of violent and intimidating conduct. As a
result of ongoing abuse, fear, and psychological harassment, Mrs. Niyati was compelled to
leave the matrimonial home on 4th March 2021. Her departure was not voluntary but
necessitated by an unsafe and hostile environment. Given the above acts of domestic
violence, Mrs. Niyati is entitled to the reliefs sought: a Protection Order under S. 18 to
prevent further harassment, a Residence Order under S. 19 to secure her right to reside in the
shared household, and Monetary Relief under S. 20 for maintenance and necessary expenses.
Issue:1: Whether the conduct of Mr. Arvind Sharma amounts to cruelty under Section
13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, thereby entitling Mrs. Niyati Sharma to a
decree of divorce?
Mental Cruelty and Emotional Abuse: Mrs. Niyati Sharma has suffered sustained mental
cruelty at the hands of Mr. Arvind Sharma through repeated verbal insults, silent treatment,
emotional manipulation, and controlling behavior. This pattern of conduct caused deep
psychological trauma, humiliation, and mental agony, which is recognized by courts as valid
grounds for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.Mental cruelty
is
not confined to physical violence; it includes conduct that inflicts mental pain and makes
continued cohabitation unsafe and unbearable.
ARGUMENT ADVANCED
In the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 3371, SC stated that Mental cruelty
includes emotional and psychological torment which makes marital life impossible.
In the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 5112, SC stated continuous neglect
and emotional humiliation amount to mental cruelty.
In the case of U. Sree v. U. Srinivas, (2013) 2 SCC 114 3, SC stated that Persistent humiliation
and cold behavior by the spouse can be cruelty.
1
AIR 1988 1 SCC 105
2
AIR 2007 4 SCC 511
3
AIR 2013 2 SCC 114
Suppression of Autonomy: Mrs. Niyati’s aspiration to resume her teaching career was met
with strong opposition by Mr. Arvind, who declared that a “respectable wife” should not
work. This statement reflects a regressive and oppressive mindset that violates Mrs. Niyati’s
right to dignity and self-fulfillment. Along with threats, including the threat to take away her
child, this suppression constitutes a grave violation of her personal liberty and autonomy,
amounting to mental cruelty.
In the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy (1988) 1 SCC 105 4 SC stated that Denial of
personal autonomy and repeated humiliation are grounds for cruelty.
In the case of Neelu Kohli v. Naveen Kohli, AIR 2004 All 1 5, district court of Allahabad stated
that denial of career freedom and oppression amounts to cruelty.
In the case of Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja, (2017) 14 SCC 1946, SC stated that restrictions
on a spouses autonomy and freedom can constitute cruelty.
Alienation and Isolation: Mr. Arvind deliberately restricted Mrs. Niyati’s interactions with her
natal family, creating a situation of social isolation and alienation, which is a well-recognized
form of mental cruelty. Such alienation results in emotional distress and is coercive in nature.
This conduct is also covered under Section 3 of the POWFDVA, 2005 which recognizes
emotional and psychological abuse as domestic violence.
In the case of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 7, SC stated that Isolation
from natal family amounts to cruelty.
In the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558 8, SC stated that attempts to
isolate a spouse are acts of cruelty.
In the case of Kusum Lata v. Kampta Prasad, AIR 2004 MP 409, district court of MP stated
that Denial of access to family is cruelty.
Cumulative Effect of Cruelty: Mrs. Niyati submits that cruelty must be evaluated in its
entirety and cumulatively. The continuous emotional, psychological, and financial abuse by
Mr. Arvind has created an intolerable environment, making cohabitation impossible and the
matrimonial bond irretrievably broken. The acts of cruelty individually may not amount to
grounds for divorce but cumulatively they establish a clear pattern. Section 3 of POWFDVA,
2005 reinforces this by recognizing emotional and economic abuse as forms of cruelty.
In the case of Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 28810, SC
stated that Cruelty is to be seen cumulatively, not piecemeal.
In the case of Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad, (2007) 7 SCC 308 11, SC stated that a continuous
course of conduct which causes mental pain is cruelty.

4
AIR 1988 1 SCC 105
5
AIR 2004 All 1
6
AIR (2017) 14 SCC 194
7
AIR 2013 5 SCC 226
8
AIR 2006 4 SCC 558
9
AIR 2004 MP 40
10
AIR 2012 7 SCC 288
11
AIR 2007) 7 SCC 308
In the case Hema Reddy v. Rakesh Reddy, 2020 SCC Online SC 1372 12, SC stated Emotional
abuse under DV Act overlaps with cruelty in matrimonial law.
In the case Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati, AIR 1957 SC 176 13, SC stated
that Sustained mental suffering is cruelty.
Breakdown of Marriage: The marriage between Mrs. Niyati and Mr. Arvind has irretrievably
broken down due to the ongoing cruelty. Attempts at reconciliation have failed or are not
viable given the trauma and mental suffering endured. Under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA,
cruelty—whether physical or mental—is a recognized ground for divorce, and the continued
well-being of Mrs. Niyati and her child necessitates severance of matrimonial ties.
In the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558, SC stated that Irretrievable
breakdown of marriage is a valid ground for divorce in cases of cruelty.
In the case of R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha, (2019) 9 SCC 409 14, SC stated that where
marriage has broken down irretrievably, courts should grant divorce to avoid further cruelty.
In the case of Satish Sitole v. Ganga, (2008) 7 SCC 73415, SC stated that Prolonged cruelty
justifies dissolution of marriage.
In the case of K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605 16, SC stated that
mental cruelty includes acts that produce such mental anguish as to make marital life
impossible.
In the case of Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan Kushwaha, (2018) 9 SCC 28017, SC stated
that
Restriction on social interaction and threats constitute cruelty.
In the case of Raj Kumar v. Suman Kumari, AIR 2004 SC 1453 18, SC stated that Mental
cruelty includes all conduct that causes mental suffering.

12
AIR 2020 SCC Online SC 1372
13
AIR 1957 SC 176
14
AIR 2019 9 SCC 409
15
AIR 2008) 7 SCC 734
16
AIR 1962 SC 605
17
AIR 2018) 9 SCC 280
18
AIR 2004 SC 1453
Issue:2: Whether the permanent custody of the minor child Aarav Sharma should be
granted to the mother or father, considering the welfare and best interests of the child
under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
Legal Framework: Welfare Principle is Paramount: The legal foundation for this application
lies in Section 26 of the HMA, 1955 and Section 7 of the GAWA, 1890, both of which
mandate that custody decisions must be made keeping the best interests and welfare of the
child as the central concern.
In case of Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal [(1973) 1 SCC 840]19, the Supreme Court
held that “the dominant consideration in custody matters is the welfare of the child and not
the rights of the parents.”
Similarly, in Githa Hariharan v. RBI [(1999) 2 SCC 228]20, the Court emphasized that the
child's welfare overrides all parental rights or preferences.
Primary Caregiver and Emotional Bond: Since March 2021, Aarav Sharma has been residing
exclusively with his mother, Mrs. Niyati Sharma, in Lucknow. He is enrolled in a reputed
private school, emotionally stable, and receiving holistic care from the appellant. This
prolonged and consistent caregiving establishes her as the primary caregiver, a status
recognized and favoured by courts in custody determinations.
In Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma [(2015) 8 SCC 318]21, the SC held that when the child is
of tender age and has been consistently looked after by the mother, custody should ordinarily
be granted to her, unless compelling reasons suggest otherwise.
Conduct of the Respondent and its Impact on Welfare: Mr. Arvind Sharma's conduct —
including controlling, emotionally abusive, and threatening behaviour as detailed in the
pending divorce and proceedings under the POWFDVA, 2005 — reflects an unstable and
psychologically damaging environment.
In Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das [(2019) 7 SCC 490]22, the Court reiterated that custody cannot
be given to a parent whose conduct undermines the psychological development of the child.
In Prateek Gupta v. Shilpi Gupta [(2018) 2 SCC 309],23 the Supreme Court emphasized that
“emotional and psychological well-being is as important as physical care” in evaluating a
child's best interests.
Stability, Continuity, and Schooling: Aarav has been residing in a stable environment in
Lucknow with uninterrupted schooling and a routine conducive to his development.
Uprooting him now and placing him in an uncertain environment with a parent accused of
abuse would amount to emotional and psychological harm.
The principle of status quo was upheld in Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu [(2008) 9 SCC
413]24, where the Supreme Court held that continuity and stability in the child’s life are vital
factors in custody cases.
19
AIR 1973 1 SCC 840
20
AIR 1999 2 SCC 228
21
AIR 2015 8 SCC 318
22
AIR 2019 7 SCC 490
23
AIR 2018 2 SCC 309
24
AIR 2008 9 SCC 413
Similarly, in Vikram Vir Vohra v. Shalini Bhalla [(2010) 4 SCC 409]25, the Court cautioned
against removing a child from a familiar environment without cogent justification.
Preference for the Mother and Lack of Allegations Against Her: Mrs. Niyati Sharma is the
natural guardian and has demonstrated consistent care without any record of neglect or harm.
Courts have recognized that custody with the mother is generally preferable, especially when
the child is young and emotionally bonded with her.
In Thammanna v. K. Veera Reddy [AIR 1980 SC 888]26, the Supreme Court held that custody
should ordinarily be granted to the mother unless she is clearly unfit.
In Smt. Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde [(1998) 1 SCC 112]27, the Court reaffirmed that
welfare, not legal ownership, is the touchstone, and mothers often provide the necessary
emotional grounding for children of tender age.
Lack of Evidence Against Appellant’s Fitness: There is no credible evidence on record to
suggest that Mrs. Sharma is unfit to continue as Aarav’s custodian. On the contrary, she has
provided emotional security, quality education, medical care, and psychological stability.
In Neelakanta v. Laxmi Narayan [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 500]28, the Supreme Court
dismissed vague and unproven allegations against the mother and upheld custody in her
favour, reiterating that proof of unfitness must be clear, cogent, and reliable.

Issue:3: Whether the acts of Arvind Sharma fall within the scope of domestic violence
under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and whether Mrs.
Niyati Sharma is entitled to protection and monetary relief under the Act?
Reliefs Sought Under the Act: Mrs. Niyati Sharma has invoked her legal rights under the ,
PWDVA, 2005 by filing a complaint seeking the following remedies:

25
AIR 2010) 4 SCC 409
26
AIR 1980 SC 888
27
AIR 1998 1 SCC 112
28
AIR 2023) SCC OnLine SC 500
Protection Order under Section 18 – to restrain the respondent, Mr. Arvind Sharma, from
committing further acts of domestic violence.
Residence Order under Section 19 – to secure her continued right of residence in the shared
household, ensuring she is not dispossessed or evicted.
Monetary Relief under Section 20 – for maintenance, medical expenses, and other financial
needs arising from the abuse suffered and loss of livelihood.
These reliefs are preventive, protective, and compensatory in nature and are intended to
safeguard the complainant’s right to live with dignity and without fear.
Acts Constituting Domestic Violence (Section 3): Mr. Arvind Sharma has engaged in conduct
that clearly falls within the statutory definition of “domestic violence” under Section 3 of the
Act, which includes:
Verbal and emotional abuse – such as repeated insults, humiliation, silent treatment, and
emotional manipulation.
Economic abuse – including denial of access to financial resources, refusal to provide for
personal expenses, and obstruction from operating a bank account.
Physical and intimidating behaviour – exemplified by a specific incident in February 2020,
where the respondent, in a fit of rage, threw a laptop in the presence of the minor child,
causing fear and mental trauma.
These acts are not isolated but part of a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour,
adversely impacting the appellant's mental health and personal autonomy.
Verbal and Emotional Abuse: The complainant has been subjected to sustained emotional
cruelty, including regular verbal taunts, humiliation, and psychological neglect. The
respondent’s “silent treatment” and emotional manipulation caused mental anguish and a
hostile domestic environment.
In V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot [(2012) 3 SCC 183]29, the Supreme Court held that mental
and emotional abuse, even in the absence of physical violence, is sufficient to invoke
protection under the PWDVA.
In S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra [(2007) 3 SCC 169]30, the Court recognized psychological
violence as falling within the ambit of domestic violence.
Denial of Autonomy and Threats: When Mrs. Niyati expressed her desire to rejoin the
workforce, the respondent objected and threatened to take away the child, demonstrating an
attempt to assert control over her personal and professional life.
Such threats amount to emotional and psychological violence, intended to restrict her
freedom and enforce dependency.

29
AIR 2012 3 SCC 183
30
AIR 2007 3 SCC 169
In Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora [(2016) 10 SCC 165]31, the Court
emphasized the Act’s objective of protecting women from any form of abuse that undermines
their autonomy and security in domestic relationships.
Economic Abuse: Mr. Arvind Sharma refused to provide financial support, denied access to
personal money, and prevented the appellant from operating a bank account – all of which
fall squarely within the definition of economic violence under Section 3(iv) of the Act.
In Dipakbhai Gopubhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat [2020 SCC OnLine Guj 248]32, the
Gujarat High Court held that withholding financial resources and economic dependency are
recognized forms of domestic violence under the Act.
The Delhi High Court in Sudha Mishra v. Surya Chandra Mishra [2011 SCC OnLine Del
5962]33 clarified that economic abuse includes deprivation of financial resources required for
survival.
Specific Incident of Aggression (February 2020): In a particularly traumatic episode, the
respondent threw a laptop during a heated argument, in the presence of the minor child. This
act not only endangered the complainant physically but also instilled fear in the child,
affecting his sense of safety. This incident supports the claim of domestic violence with
elements of physical intimidation and psychological trauma.
In Ajay Kumar v. Lata @ Sharuti [(2019) 15 SCC 615]34, the Supreme Court reiterated that
any act which causes harm or has the potential to cause harm to the mental or physical well-
being of the aggrieved person qualifies as domestic violence.
Forced Departure from Matrimonial Home: On 4th March 2021, due to sustained abuse and
mental harassment, Mrs. Niyati was compelled to leave the matrimonial home. Her departure
was not voluntary, but out of necessity and fear. Such compelled exit from the shared
household entitles her to a Residence Order under Section 19, safeguarding her right to
residence.
In Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja [(2021) 1 SCC 414]35, the Supreme Court upheld a
woman's right to reside in the shared household, even if the property is not jointly owned.
The Court observed that eviction or denial of access to the shared household amounts to
domestic violence and warrants immediate protective relief.
Entitlement to Reliefs: Given the nature, duration, and gravity of the domestic violence
endured by the appellant, she is fully entitled to the following reliefs:
Section 18 (Protection Order) – to restrain the respondent from contacting, harassing, or
threatening her or interfering with her life.
Section 19 (Residence Order) – to ensure her right to reside in the shared household without
fear of dispossession.

31
AIR 2016 10 SCC 165
32
AIR 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 248
33
AIR 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5962
34
AIR 2019 15 SCC 615
35
AIR 2021 1 SCC 414
Section 20 (Monetary Relief) – for maintenance, daily expenses, medical needs, and
compensation for the physical and mental trauma caused by the respondent’s conduct.
These reliefs are remedial in nature, intended to restore the complainant’s right to live a life
of dignity, free from violence and fear.
 PRAYER

In light of the above, the appellant prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

 Grant a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955;

 Award permanent custody of Aarav Sharma to the appellant under Section 26 of the
Hindu Marriage Act;

 Pass protection and residence orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005;

 Direct the respondent to pay monetary relief and maintenance to the appellant;

 Restrain the respondent from harassing or interfering with the appellant and the child;

 Pass any other order deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.

AND/OR

Pass any direction, decree, order or relief that it may deem fit in the best interest of justice,
equity, fairness and good conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed before the Hon’ble Court

Submitted on behalf of Appellants