MOOT PROBLEM

1) Validity of Marriage under The Special Marriage Act, 1954:

The Special Marriage Act, 1954, serves as a comprehensive legislation allowing individuals to
solemnize and register marriages irrespective of their religion, caste, or creed. It provides a secular
framework for marriage, ensuring the recognition and legality of unions that transcend traditional
boundaries.

Section 4 of The Special Marriage Act, 1954, lays down the essential conditions for the validity of a
marriage under the Act. These conditions include the competency of both parties to marry, absence of
a living spouse at the time of marriage, and avoidance of prohibited relationships.

In the case of Tamanna and Abhiram, their marriage was solemnized in accordance with The Special
Marriage Act, 1954, as evidenced by their registration under the Act. This choice reflects their
intention to marry outside the constraints of religious customs and traditions, emphasizing the Act’s
inclusive nature.

The issuance of a marriage certificate by the authorities further confirms the validity of their union
under the Act. This document serves as legal evidence of their marriage, ensuring its recognition and
protection under Indian law.

Case law such as Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1995)
reinforces the importance of upholding marriages solemnized under The Special Marriage Act, 1954.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case emphasizes the Act’s role in promoting secularism and
individual autonomy in matters of marriage.

Moreover, a comprehensive review of legal commentaries, scholarly articles, and legislative debates
surrounding The Special Marriage Act, 1954, can provide valuable insights into the Act’s
interpretation and application in various contexts.

2) Consequences of Non-contestation in a Foreign Court:

The implications of Tamanna’s non-contestation of Abhiram’s divorce petition in a foreign court must
be analyzed within the framework of international law and principles governing jurisdiction and
recognition of foreign judgments.

Under international law, a foreign judgment may be recognized and enforced in another jurisdiction if
certain conditions are met, including jurisdictional competence, due process, and absence of fraud.

In Tamanna’s case, her failure to contest the divorce petition filed by Abhiram in the French court
may imply her acceptance of that court’s jurisdiction. This could impact legal proceedings in both
India and France, as her acquiescence may render the French court’s judgment valid and enforceable.

Case law such as Y. Narsimha Rao v. Venkata Lakshmi (1991) elucidates the criteria for the
recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the
importance of jurisdictional competence and adherence to due process in determining the validity of
foreign judgments.

Furthermore, an examination of relevant international conventions, treaties, and bilateral agreements

governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments can provide additional insights into
the legal principles guiding such matters.

3) Application of Res judicata in District Court, Jalgoan:

The doctrine of res judicata, embodied in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, serves to
prevent the re-litigation of matters already adjudicated upon by a competent court. This doctrine
promotes finality in legal proceedings and prevents parties from re-litigating the same issues
repeatedly.

In Tamanna’s case, if the French court’s judgment satisfies the elements of res judicata, it may
preclude her from raising the same issues in the District Court, Jalgoan. This would apply if the
French court had jurisdiction, the judgment was rendered on merits, and it was not obtained by fraud.

Case law such as Biswanath Agarwalla v. Sabitri Biswal (2002) illustrates the application of res
judicata to foreign judgments. The judgment emphasizes the importance of recognizing foreign
judgments meeting certain criteria, including jurisdictional competence and adherence to due process.

Additionally, an exploration of legal treatises, scholarly articles, and judicial pronouncements on the
doctrine of res judicata can provide valuable insights into its evolution and application in Indian
jurisprudence.

4) Legality of Relationship with Evelyn:

The legality of Abhiram’s subsequent relationship with Evelyn must be evaluated within the legal
framework of France, where the civil solidarity pact was entered into. Each jurisdiction has its own
laws governing relationships and partnerships, and it is essential to ascertain whether France
recognizes civil solidarity pacts and their legal implications.

In India, subsequent relationships following divorce are generally not illegal unless they violate
specific laws, such as those related to bigamy or adultery. However, moral and societal implications
may vary depending on cultural norms and personal beliefs.

Case law specific to France, or the relevant jurisdiction, would be pertinent in determining the legality
and consequences of Abhiram’s relationship with Evelyn. This would involve an analysis of French
family law and partnership laws governing civil solidarity pacts.

5) Entitlement to Restitution of Conjugal Rights:

Restitution of Conjugal Rights, provided under Section 22 of The Special Marriage Act, 1954, allows
a spouse to seek court intervention for the resumption of marital cohabitation if the other spouse
withdraws without reasonable excuse.

In Tamanna’s case, her petition for restitution of conjugal rights asserts her right to resume marital
cohabitation with Abhiram under the Act. However, the success of her petition hinges on various
factors, including the circumstances leading to the breakdown of the marriage and the legality of the
divorce obtained by Abhiram.

Case law such as Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) underscores the significance of the
remedy of restitution of conjugal rights as a substantial right for the aggrieved spouse. The judgment
emphasizes the court’s discretion in granting such relief, considering the welfare of the parties and the
feasibility of reconciliation.