JGU Id. No.

_____________

O.P. Jindal Global University

Jindal Global Law School
End-term Examination – Semester A

Course Name : Family Law I

Course Code : L-CT-0010
Programme : B.A., LL.B. 2017 & LL.B. 2018
Session : 2018 - 2019
Time Allowed : 3 Hours
Maximum Marks : 50

This question paper has six (6) printed pages (including this page).

Instructions to students:

1. DO NOT write your Name and Student Id. No. anywhere on the answer book except on the space
provided.
2. DO NOT write anything on the question paper except Student Id. No. on the space provided.
3. Start each question on a new page.
4. Use of mobile phone or any electronic storage and access system is prohibited.
5. Students undertaking the examination are requested to adhere to the University norms related to
examinations.

__________________________________________________________________________________________
This is a Closed Book examination. However, students are allowed to bring 4 pages (8 sides of A4 size paper) of
notes in the Examination Hall. Unmarked Bare Acts are allowed. They can be highlighted or underlined. Case-
list is annexed with the question paper. Students are not allowed to bring the case-list with them.
Warning: Plagiarism in any form is prohibited. Anyone found using unfair means will be penalized
severely.
JGLS [End-term Examination – Semester A, 2018 - 2019] Page 1
Attempt any 5 questions out of the following. All questions carry equal marks.

1. Irfan, a Sunni Muslim male aged 14 years and Vahida, a Sunni Muslim female aged 13 years were married
in 2012 in a Nikah ceremony. Their fathers were friends, and consented to their marriage at the ceremony.
They decided that Vahida would move to Irfan’s home a year later. In December 2013, Vahida moved-in
with Irfan and his family. The marriage was consummated soon after. As time passed, the couple grew
apart. In 2016, Vahida left town to complete her higher secondary education and wants to end the marriage
with Irfan. She befriends her Christian classmate Charles at her college, and is contemplating Nikah with
him. By this time, Irfan had also joined college, where he fell in love with a Hindu girl, Sushmita and
wants to marry her.

a) Discuss the legal remedies available to Vahida and Irfan related to dissolving their marriage. What
are the possibilities of them marrying their current partners? Refer to relevant case law in your
answer. (6 Marks)
b) What would be their remedies if Vahida and Irfan were married in 2012 by their mothers because
their fathers were against the marriage? Refer to case law. (4 Marks)

2. Roma and Rohit, both Hindus, are co-workers with the internet giant Zoogle at Bengaluru. They have
been married for over two (2) years. Given that they meet at work every day, they seldom like to interact
with each other by the time they are home. Even on the weekends, they prefer hanging out with their
friends rather than spending time with each other. With the passage of time, they become emotional
detached with each other, to the extent that they live in separate rooms in the same matrimonial home.
Realizing they need help to save their marriage, both of them undergo marital counselling sessions but
eventually decide to mutually separate (without a decree of judicial separation), for a period of six (6)
months i.e. they felt that they needed a break, and give each other time to rethink their marriage, while
staying under the same roof, and after the said period, decide if they want to get a divorce. During this
period, Roma finds a new professional assignment with the internet giant ‘Wahoo’ with a higher pay
package than Zoogle. Her new professional role requires her to relocate to Hyderabad. However, right
after Roma relocates to Hyderabad and their pre-decided 6 month period is still ongoing, Rohit realizes
that he has not worked hard enough at his marriage, and he should be more invested in saving his marriage.
He requests Roma to join him at their marital home in Bengaluru. Roma does not relent to his requests.
Instead, she asks Rohit to relocate himself to Hyderabad where there is a sizeable concentration of cyber
companies. Rohit is unwilling to relocate to Hyderabad and decides to file a petition for restitution of
conjugal rights (RCR) in Bengaluru.

(a) Assess whether a decree of restitution of conjugal rights will be granted to Rohit under the relevant
statute using case law. (5 Marks)
(b) Assume the decree of restitution of conjugal rights is granted in favour of Rohit. Can Rohit ask for
divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the basis of an RCR decree granted in his favour?
How can Roma resist the grant of divorce on this basis? Cite legal provisions and case law to
support your answer. (5 Marks)

JGLS [End-term Examination – Semester A, 2018 - 2019] Page 2

 3. (a) Ali, a Muslim male, and Sakina, a Muslim female were married in 1996. They developed differences
over time. On 02.07.1999, Ali and Sakina were arguing on a train journey and in anger, Ali uttered Talaq
three times. Discuss the validity of the Talaq pronounced by Ali with the help of case law. (4 Marks)

(b) Sara and Ibrahim, both Sunni Muslims, were married in 2000. By 2002, they started having frequent
arguments with one another. Troubled by this, Ibrahim started sharing with his friends and family that he
is thinking of dissolving the marriage. He asked his sister and Sara’s sister to intervene in this matter and
help them resolve their differences. This attempt failed, and their relations continued to be tense. In
January 2003, during an argument, he said to Sara: “I give Talaq to you.” Sara left for her parental home
immediately, and 4 months after this incident, she filed for maintenance under Sec 125 Cr.P.C.

What will be the outcome of her maintenance application? Till what period will she be able to get
maintenance and why? (6 Marks)

4. Babua and Pinky, both Hindus, studied together at a school in Lonipat. During the course of their bus rides
from school to home, they grew increasingly fond of each other, and promised to marry each other
someday. One afternoon, after dating each other for a year, they eloped and married according to Hindu
rites including homa and saptpadi. Babua was 17 years old, while Pinky was 15 years old at that relevant
time. For the next few days, both of them managed to take shelter in a local ashram, but eventually, their
families tracked them down. The families were particularly upset, as they were from the same gotra. They
were taken before the local Khap Panchayat which declared their marriage void, as they were considered
brother and sister, and could not marry each other. Babua and Pinky had no choice but to accede to the
diktat of the khap panchayat. Thereafter, both of them did not see each other. Later, Babua went on to
study in a city and secured a lucrative job at a multinational company. At his office, he met Ruhi, his
Hindu colleague and fell in love with her. After a brief period of courtship, they decide to marry. At the
age of 23 years, their marriage was celebrated with great fanfare at Lonipat as per Hindu rites including
homa and saptpadi. Despite all the years of separation, Pinky never lost her love for Babua. The news of
Babua’s marriage with Ruhi enraged her so much that she filed a 494 IPC complaint at Lonipat. Babua
pleads before the Court that his marriage solemnized during his minority was declared void, and therefore
there is no legal impediment to his marriage with Ruhi, and he is not guilty under 494 IPC.

Outline the relevant issues and decide the outcome of the issues with the help of case laws. (10 Marks)

5. Samar, a Hindu was in a relationship with his colleague Reena, a Roman Catholic. Both were permanent
residents of Travancore, Kerala. On an office trip to Melbourne, Australia in 2013, they decided to marry.
On Reena’s insisting, Samar underwent baptism and the couple married each other in a Catholic ceremony
at St. Mary’s Church, Melbourne in 2013. On their return to India, after some resistance, their families
accepted their marriage. Samar, who lived with his family, continued to profess his Hindu faith, including
visiting temples, praying and observing festivals with religious fervor. Overtime, Samar and Reena
developed differences. Reena left for her parental home in December 2015 after a tense argument. In
January 2016, Samar files a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 32 of the Indian
Divorce Act, 1869. Reena, in turn files for nullity of marriage, stating that a Hindu and Catholic could not
have married each other in the first place. Decide how the restitution and nullity petitions will be decided.
(10 Marks)
JGLS [End-term Examination – Semester A, 2018 - 2019] Page 3
 6. Aditya and Aarti, both Hindus, got married in 2013. They were unable to have children. As a result, Aarti
decided to adopt Priya in 2017. Aarti did not get Aditya’s consent for doing so and a dispute broke out
between them about the validity of the adoption. Aarti claimed that she did not need her husband’s consent
because shortly before the adoption he had converted to Christianity.

a. Decide the validity of Aarti’s adoption. (4 Marks)

b. Consider Aditya was a Hindu man married before 1955 to two Hindu women Aarti and Shanti,
and he died in 1999. Aarti adopts Priya in 2000, without the consent of Shanti. Now Priya is 18
years old and wants to claim a share in the property of Aditya as his adopted daughter. Decide
citing case law. (6 Marks)

7. Anil and Seema were married under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) in 2000. Both lived in Mumbai
in the marital home. In time, disputes broke out between them, and they began arguing often. One day
during a very ugly argument, Anil started abusing Seema and also pushed her against the wall, when she
started raising her voice in response. Deeply saddened by Anil’s behavior, Seema left for her parental
home on January 2002. By May 2002, Seema felt she wanted to go back to her marital home, especially
because her 10 year old child, Ram had been held back by Anil at their martial home. Since she did not
hear from Anil all this while, she called him and expressed a desire to return home, if he acknowledged
his mistake. Anil continued to be cold and withdrawn over the phone. In January 2003, Anil sent her a
letter through a friend, Suraj, that she should not return home, and he can also send their son Ram to her
if she wishes. Seema is further dejected, and asks Suraj to intervene, as she wants to return. Nothing comes
of this. In March 2004, Anil files for divorce on the ground of Desertion.

a. Decide the outcome of Anil’s divorce petition on the basis of case law. (5 Marks)

b. Consider his divorce petition was granted. Seema files for maintenance under Section 25 of the
HMA. She submits that Anil, aged 42 years, earns Rs. 2,50,000 per month. She also contends that
she gave up a well-paying job upon marriage at Anil’s request. Anil states that he is only obligated
to maintain Seema to the extent of preventing her from falling into destitution. Given that Seema
has a job as an interior decorator which pays approximately Rs. 20,000 per month, Anil contends
that Seema is not destitute and he is not obligated to pay her any maintenance. Decide Seema’s
Sec 25 HMA application. (5 Marks)

8. The right to maintenance of women in invalid marriages with Hindu bigamous men, or of women
cohabiting with them in non-marital relationships has evolved overtime. Discuss at length, how their right
to claim maintenance has changed with time, citing statute and relevant case law. (10 Marks)

JGLS [End-term Examination – Semester A, 2018 - 2019] Page 4

 Case List

1. Aakansha Roy Rasmussen v Adwait Anil Dixit, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 558
2. Abdul Kadir v. Salima And Anr, (1886) ILR 8 All 149
3. ABC v State, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 609
4. Abdur Rahim Undre v.Vs Padma Addur Rahim Undre, AIR 1982 Bom 341
5. Abdurahiman v. Khairunnessa, Kerala High Court, March 1, 2010
6. Amardeep Singh v Harveen Kaur, CA No. 11158 of 2017, SC. 12 September, 2017
7. Animesh Trivedi v Kiran Bagai, F.A No. 139 of 2010, H.C of Jharkhand. 27 March 2012.
8. Baby Manji Yamada vs Union Of India (Supreme Court of India, Sept 2008)
9. Badshah v Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr, (2014) 1 SCC 188
10. Bhagwan Dutt V Kamla Devi, AIR 1975 SC 83
11. Bipinchandra Jaisinghbai Shah v. Prabhavati, AIR 1957 SC 176 122
12. Chand Dhawan v Jawaharlal Dhawan 1993 SCC (3) 406
13. Chanmuniya v Virendra Kumar Kushwaha, Civil Appeal No. 15071, SC, 2010
14. Chaturbhuj V Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316
15. Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 740
16. Deepak Krishna v. District Registrar And Ors., AIR 2007 Ker 257
17. Dharmendra Kumar v. Usha Kumar, AIR 1977 SC 2213 139
18. Geeta Satish Gokarna V Satish Shankarrao Gokarna, AIR 2004 Bom 345
19. Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (1999) 2 SCC 228
20. Gullipilli Sowria Raj v Bandaru Pavani, AIR 2009 SC 1085
21. Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh AIR 1984 Del 66
22. Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar v. Sunanda, AIR 2001 SC 1285 149
23. Independent Thought v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 382 OF 2013.
24. Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma, 2013 (14) SC 448
25. Itwari v. Asghari and Ors, AIR 1960 All 684
26. Jan Balaz v Anand Municipality, AIR 2010 Guj 21
27. Kailash Vati v Ayodhia Prakash (1977) 79 PLR 216
28. Khursheed Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P., SC, Civil Appeal No.1662 Of 2015
29. Lakshmi Sanyal v. Sachit Kumar Dhar, AIR 1972 SC 2667
30. Leelamma v. Dilip Kumar, AIR 1993 Ker 57
31. Lily Thomas V Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650
32. Mahendra Kumar Gaikwad v. Gulabbhai 2001 Cr LJ 2111 (Bom)
33. Marium v Mohd. Shamsi Alam, AIR 1979 All 257
34. Masroor Ahmed v. State NCT of Delhi, 2008 (103) DRJ 137
35. Minoti Anand & Anr v. Subhash Anand, Civil Revision Application No.113 of 2004, Bombay High Court,
2011.
36. Mohd. Ahmed Khan V Shah Bano Begum, AIR 1985 SC 945
37. Mohd. Nihal v. State, W.P. (CRL.) 591/2008, Delhi High Court, July 8, 2008.
38. Molly Joseph v. George Sebastian, AIR 1997 SC 109
39. Navalkar v Meena Arun Navalkar, AIR 2006 Bom 342
40. Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 3 SCC 491
41. N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534 81
42. Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim, AIR 1997 SC 3280
JGLS [End-term Examination – Semester A, 2018 - 2019] Page 5
43. Priya Bala Ghosh v Suresh Chandra Ghosh, AIR 1971 SC 1153
44. P. Venkataramana v State , AIR 1977 AP 43
45. Ram Prasad v. State of UP, AIR 1961 All 334
46. Ravi Kumar v The State, 124 (2005) DLT 1
47. Sarla Mudgal v Union of India , AIR 1995 SC 1531; 1995 SCC (3) 635
48. Saroj Rani v. Sudershan Kumar AIR 1984 SC 1562
49. Savitaben v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2005 SC 1809
50. Savitri Pandey v.Prem Chandra Pandey, AIR 2002 SC 591
51. Selva Saroja v. Sasinathan (1989) Cr LJ 2032
52. Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India (Supreme Court of India, FEBRUARY 2014)
53. Shamim Ara v. State Of U.P., KLT 2002(3) (SC) 537
54. Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 288
55. Swaraj Garg v. Garg AIR 1978 Delhi 296
56. S. Nagalingam v Sivagami, AIR 2001 SC 3576
57. Sondur Gopal v Sondur Rajini, Civil Appeal No.4629 Of 2005, SC, 2013
58. Sonia Kunwar Singh Bedi v. Kunwar Singh Bedi, Civil Application No. 448 of 2014 in Family Court Appeal
No. 142 of 2014
59. Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash AIR 1992 SC 1904
60. Sujatha v. Jose Augustine (1994) II DMC 442
61. Tara Bano v Iqbal Mohd , Second Appeal No. 434/2007, Rajasthan High Court, 2009.
62. T. Sareetha v. T.Venkata Subbaih AIR 1983 AP 356
63. T. Srinivasan v. T. Varalakshmi, 1 (1991) DMC 20 (Mad.) 142
64. Velusamy v Patchaiammal, Cr. Appeal Nos. 2028 – 2029, SC, 2010
65. Vijayalaxmamma v. B.T. Shankar, (2000) 4 SCC 538
66. Vijaya Manohar Arbat vs Kashi Rao Rajaram AIR 1987 SC 1100
67. Vinay Pathak And His Wife v. Unknown, Bombay High Court, September 2009
68. Vinny Parmar V Paramvir Parmar (2011) 13 SCC 112
69. Vishwa Lochan Madan v Union of India (2014) 7 SCC 707.
70. Vivan Varghese v. The State of Kerala and Ors., High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam Wp(C). No. 16350 Of
2015 (P)
71. Vivek Singh v Romani Singh, CA No. 3962 of 2016, SC. 13 February, 2017
72. Yousuf Rawther v. Sowramma, AIR 1971 Ker 261
73. Zohara Khatoon V. Mohd. Ibrahim, AIR 1981 SC 1243

JGLS [End-term Examination – Semester A, 2018 - 2019] Page 6