TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. No. Heading Page No.

1. Index of Authorities ii-iii
2. Abbreviations iv
3. Statement of Jurisdiction v
4. Issues Involved vi
5. Statement of Facts vii
6. Summary of Pleadings viii
7. Pleadings : 1-7
8. Prayer Ix

1 | MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 ___________________________________________________________________________

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

___________________________________________________________________________

CONVENTIONS & STATUTES

Sr. Name
No.

1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Sr.
CASE TITLE
No. CITATION
1. R. Vishwanathan v. Rukn-ul-Mulk Syed AIR 1963 SC 1
Abdul
2. Shiyali Rungia Chetty vs Calve Subraya 37 Ind Cas 404
Chettiar And Ors
3. Kukadap Krishna Murthy v. AIR 1962 A.P. 400
Godmatla Venkata Rao
4. Satya v. Teja Singh 1975 AIR 105

5. Narsimha Rao v. Venkata Lakshmi (1991) 3 SCC 451

6. Gurdayal Singh v. Rajah Faridkote ILR (1895) 22 Cal 222 (PC)

7. Sankaran govindan v. Lakshmi bharti (1975)3 SCC351

8. Sirdar Gurdial Singh v. Maharaja of Faridkot 21 Ind. App. 171

9. A.S. Subramaniam Chettiar v. M.K. Srinivasa AIR 1951 Mad. 289

Ayyar

2 | MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 10 Pashaura Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. AIR 2010 SC 922
.
11. Padi AIR 1963 Him Pra 16
12 Santosh Kumari v. Surjeet Singh, AIR 1990 HP 77
.

BOOKS

Sr. Names
No.
1. Jain M.P., The Code of Civil Procedure, 3rd Edition, 2011

2. Thakker C.K., The Code of Civil Procedure, 7th Edition, 2013

3. Mulla, The Code of Civil Procedure, (Volume 1), 18th Edition, 2011

4. Takwani, Civil Procedure with Limitation Act, 1963, 7th Edition, 2011

5. Sarkar, Code of Civil Procedure, Volume 1, 11th Edition, 2013

WEBSITES
Sr. Name of website
No.
1. www.manupatra.com

ABBREVIATIONS
___________________________________________________________________________

1. & - And
2. Anr. - Another

3 | MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

3. ALD - Andhra Legal Decisions.
4. AIR - All India Reporter
5. Bom LR - Bombay Law Review
6. Ed. - Edited
7. Honble - Honourable
8. Ors. - Others
9. p. - Page
10. para - Paragraph
11. PLR - Punjab Law Review
12. Sec. Section
13. SC - Supreme Court
14. SCC - Supreme Court Cases
15. v. - Versus
16. vol. - Volume

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
___________________________________________________________________________

The Petitioner humbly submits this memorandum under Section 96 1 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1908.

1Appeal from original decree-(1)

(2) Every application under this section shall be made by a motion which shall be supported by an affidavit.
(3) The Court to which such suit, appeal or other proceeding is transferred shall, subject to any special
directions in the order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the stage at which it was transferred to it.

4 | MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 ISSUES INVOLVED

IN THE PRESENT MATTER:

ISSUE I: Whether the decree passed by the Circuit Court Missouri is conclusive?

ISSUE II: - Whether the respondent can be charged with the offence of Bigamy?

(4) In dismissing any application under this section, the Supreme Court may, if it is of opinion that the
application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person
who has opposed the application such sum, not exceeding two thousand rupees, as it considers appropriate in
the circumstances of the case.
(5) The law applicable to any suit, appeal or other proceeding transferred under this section shall be the law
which the Court in which the suit, appeal or other proceeding was originally instituted ought to have applied
to such suit, appeal or proceeding.

5 | MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

___________________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Sanskar and Sanskriti, citizens of India, were married in Ranchi on 27 th February, under Hindu
Law. After marriage, the couple resided in St. Clair Country, Argo, Albama.
2. Latter, Sanskar filed an application for the dissolution of the marriage in the Family Court of
Ranchi. A subsequent petition was filed in the Circuit Court at St. Louis Country Missouri,
where he resided for 90 days, immediately preceding the filing of petition.
3. The respondent wife filed her reply raising her objection to the maintainability of the petition,
without submitting to the jurisdiction of the foreign court.
4. The circuit court Missouri, assuming its jurisdiction, in the absence of the wife, passed a
decree for the dissolution of the marriage.

6 | MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

5. The husband married another girl named Astha, on 2 nd November, 2014. Sanskriti filed a
Criminal Complaint against the husband for the offence of Bigamy.
6. The husband filed an application for their discharge in view of the decree passed by the
Circuit Court Missouri. The magistrate discharged the appellant holding that the wife has
failed to make out a prima facie case against the appellant.
7. Aggrieved by the decision the wife has filed an appeal in the High Court.

Hence the present appeal.

___________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

___________________________________________________________________________

ISSUE I: Whether the decree passed by the Circuit Court Missouri is conclusive?

It is humbly contended before this Honble Court that the decree passed by the Circuit Court
Missouri is not conclusive and is, therefore, not binding. The Court of Missouri has erred in
assuming its jurisdiction in the present case. The Court has passed the decree without competent
jurisdiction. Also, the ground on which the Court passed the decree for dissolution of marriage is
irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which is not a valid ground under Hindu Law, by which the
present marriage is governed. Therefore, the decree cannot be conclusive.

ISSUE II: Whether the respondent can be charged with the offence of Bigamy?

7 | MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

It is humbly contended that the respondent, husband can be charged with the offence of bigamy
under Section 494 of IPC. The magistrate, before whom a complaint was filed by the wife,
discharged the husband on the ground that the wife has failed to make out a prima facie case
against the husband. The magistrate while discharging the husband relied on the photostate copy
of the decree passed by the Circuit Court Missouri. However the concerned copy cannot be an
admissible evidence under the Evidence Act, 1872. Also, the decree itself is not valid as it is
passed by a Court without any jurisdiction. Therefore, the first marriage of the husband is
subsisting during his second marriage. As such, he shall be liable for the offence of bigamy.

______________________________________________________________________
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
______________________________________________________________________

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments
advanced, it is most humbly prayed before this Honble court that it may be pleased to adjudge
and declare that:

The decree passed by the Circuit Court Missouri is not conclusive and should be set aside.
The respondent, husband, is liable for the offence of Bigamy under section 494 of IPC.

And pass any other order that it deems fit, all of which is respectfully submitted.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

Date 26/05/2015

8 | MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER