MOOT PREPOSITION

Hari Lal married Vimla Devi in 1983. After marriage Vimla Devi went to her matrimonial house in Bhimpur village of district Sindusthan, which was Hari Lals fathers house. After few months of marriage, Hari Lal began to neglect Vimla Devi. Gradually, Hari Lal and his family members began to demand dowry from Vimla Devi and her parents. There was no warmth in the marriage and physical violence against Vimla Devi at hands of Hari Lal became a routine. Vimla Devi continued to reside with her husband for an year and a half, where after, she got pregnant. During her pregnancy, she was sent to her parents house by her husband and the larger part of the period of pregnancy was spent by her at her parents house in Bhimpur. She gave birth to a girl child Dolly on 22nd March 1986. Neither Hari Lal , nor any of his family members, came to take her away. When the child was two months old,

father and brother of Vimla, brought her to the house of Hari Lal. The fatherinlaw of Vimla,

Ramesh Chand allowed her to stay in his house, however, the incidents of illtreatment, verbal, physical and emotional abuse at the hands of Hari Lal aggravated. After a few days of

stay at her matrimonial house, she was driven out by Hari Lal alleging that Dolly was not his child. Vimla never returned except for attending a marriage in Haris family in 1990. She got employed as an Anganwari worker, in 1991. In 1994 Hari moved the Court under the Guardianship and Wards Act, seeking that the custody of Dolly be handed over to him. The action was contested by Vimla, who was able to substantiate that she was in a better position to take care of Dolly and fulfilling her basic requirements. She admitted in the court

that she did not have enough source of income to support the education of her daughter on her own. The action initiated by Hari Lal failed. In the year 1997 Vimla moved an application before the concerned Gram Panchayat of Bhimpur for provision of maintenance for herself and her daughter. Due notice of the application was given to Hari who contested the same. After hearing both the parties and considering the facts and circumstances the concerned Gram Panchayat, ordered Hari to pay a maintenance of Rs. 500/ per month to the applicant/Vimla for herself and her daughters purposes. Not even a single payment was made by him as per this order. It may be pointed out here that during this entire time, the name of Vimla and her daughter had been struck off from the local registers (family registers, ration cards, etc), pertaining to the family of Hari Lal as they were living separately and their record was being maintained as a separate unit in the place of their residence. After separation from Hari and during this entire period this family unit consisting of Vimla and her daughter Dolly, was in the list of people Below Poverty Line maintained with the local authorities. On the other hand Hari, who was working as a government servant and earning a monthly salary of about Rs. 30,000, had moved out of the joint family house and constructed a new house in Bhimpur and shifted in this house along with his brother. In the year 2010 when Dolly had already completed her education at the college level, Vimla

initiated an action against Hari under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, praying that she was aggrieved person within the definition of this expression under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and since, she had suffered verbal, physical and emotional abuse at the hands of Hari, where after she remained economically deprived for want of any maintenance or economic support by Hari for a period of more than 2 decades and now when her daughter was grownup into the age of marriage, she and her daughter are entitled to different reliefs provided for under the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005. She has also prayed that the respondent be directed to allow Vimla and her daughter to live with him in his present residence, while ordering him not to commit any

further acts of domestic violence against either of them. She has also prayed that the stridhana, that she had left in her matrimonial home in 1985, be restored to her and her daughter should be provided share in property. Monetary relief and compensation has also been prayed for. The petition has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate of Sindusthan. Other than the above discussed, in the course of evidence, the respondent was able to prove that the local authorities, after due consideration and by way of a resolution, had ordered deletion of the name of Vimla from the list of people Below Poverty Line, of the concerned area, the resolution was passed in January 2011. Argue for both the sides, specifically, covering the issues as Limitation, Maintainability, Estoppel etc.