Scribd
Upload
872 views3 pages

Criminal

The Supreme Court is hearing a case involving criminal charges and constitutional challenges related to adultery. Mrs. Madhu filed a complaint against her husband, Mrs. Susmita Sen, and Mr. Rahul Sen for adultery. Additionally, an NGO challenged the constitutionality of section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which grants immunity to women for adultery. Mrs. Madhu also challenged sections 497 and 198(2) as unconstitutional. Divorce petitions were also filed. The High Court upheld section 497 but the Supreme Court will make the final determination.

Uploaded by

Manoj Dhumal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
872 views3 pages

Criminal

The Supreme Court is hearing a case involving criminal charges and constitutional challenges related to adultery. Mrs. Madhu filed a complaint against her husband, Mrs. Susmita Sen, and Mr. Rahul Sen for adultery. Additionally, an NGO challenged the constitutionality of section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which grants immunity to women for adultery. Mrs. Madhu also challenged sections 497 and 198(2) as unconstitutional. Divorce petitions were also filed. The High Court upheld section 497 but the Supreme Court will make the final determination.

Uploaded by

Manoj Dhumal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

MOOT PROBLEM ON CRIMINAL LAW

In the case of:

Mrs. Madhu V. Mr. Vaidya and Others

Mr. Rahul Sen and Mrs. Susmita Sen were married in 2017 and were residents of Kolkata in the
State of West Bengal and they were working there in a US based Multi National company.

After 3 years of their happy marital life, Mrs. Susmita Sen became aware that she cannot give
birth to a healthy child. She came to know about this fact by reading medical reports kept
secretly by her husband. As per that report Mr. Rahul suffered from some serious congenital
medical problem that may pass on to their child.

Then they had quite a big fight in this regard that he never told her about his health problem
either prior to her marriage or thereafter but kept the information secret. She remained in her
in-laws house under their care, as her husband went for employment training program to Pune
for two months.

After some time Mr. Rahul learnt that his wife, desirous of having a healthy child, developed an
extra marital relationship with her office colleague, Mr. Vaidya. However, he did not object to
the same.

Mr. Vaidya however, confessed to his wife that he had an illicit relationship with Mrs. Susmita.
Mrs. Madhu, wife of Mr. Vaidya, furious about the matter, filed a complaint against her husband
as ‘main accused,’ Mrs. Susmita Sen as ‘second accused’ and Mr. Rahul Sen as ‘an abettor’ as he,
through his silence and acquiescence facilitated, rather, to put it bluntly, encouraged Mrs.
Susmita Sen and Mr. Vaidya to indulge in ‘adultery’ thereby ruining her marital life. She pleaded
that she too shall be recognized as ‘aggrieved person’ as her matrimonial life was disturbed with
these developments.

Meanwhile, an NGO filed a Public Interest Limitation in the Supreme Court with a plea that
Section 497 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 shall be struck down as it violates Articles 14, 15 and 21
of Indian Constitution on the ground that the relevant section of Indian Penal Code, 1860 gives
‘immunity only to adulteress but not to men’ when both are equally guilty. As a matter of
principle of ‘public policy’, gender neutrality shall be observed in criminal law.

Mrs. Madhu also impleaded herself challenging the constitutional validity of sec. 497 in the
Supreme Court as it violates different Articles of Indian Constitution. She also submits that such
‘total immunity cannot be given to Mrs. Susmita, the adulteress.

She submits that S. 198 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is also unconstitutional for it
‘discriminates on the basis of sex’ which is prohibited under Article 15 (1) of Indian Constitution.
Mrs. Madhu also filed a petition in the Family Court for ‘divorce’ from her husband under The
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Mr. Rahul also applied for divorce from his wife under The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Mrs.
Susmita Sen objected that ‘it is strange that he, instead of she, filed for divorce when ‘in reality
non-disclosure of his serious health problem has brought forth this state of affairs’.

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against all the accused persons ‘declaring that
Sec. 497 does not violate any of the provisions of the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court, after hearing preliminary arguments, admitted and clubbed all the SLPs for
final disposal.

 The matter to be heard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.


 Students shall prepare memorials/arguments for both Petitioner and Respondent.
 Students may frame their own issues

Sheetal age 27 and Akram age 29 were living in a live-in relationship since 2019. Since
Sheetal’s parents rejected the relationship, Sheetal left her parents’ house from March 2020
and was living with Akram in a rented flat in Thane. Since then Sheetal was not in touch with
anyone except her few friends. After three years of relationship, Sheetal proposed to Akram
for marriage and due to this, they had frequent fights. Akram was angry and used to beat
Sheetal all the time. Sheetal had complained about this to her close friends. When Sheetal’s
friend advised her to file a complaint at the police station in this regard, Akram dissuaded
Sheetal from filing a complaint saying that it would never happen again. In May 2022, Akram
convinces Sheetal to shift to Delhi by telling her that he has got a good job in Delhi and also
search for a job there. But even after going there Akram and Sheetal used to have frequent
fights.

On 18 August 2022, around 8 pm, they had a quarrel over marriage, during which Akram beat
Sheetal and strangled her to death. After that, the panicked attackers cut Sheetal’s body into
pieces and kept it in a freezer at home to destroy the evidence of the said murder and tried to
destroy the evidence by slowly dropping it in Delhi and the surrounding area. As Sheetal is not
responding to Sheetal’s phone, when her friends inquired about it, they did not give a
satisfactory answer. After a few days, Sheetal’s parents lodged a complaint in the police
station as Sheetal was not getting any contact. When the police suspected Akram of lying, he
admitted to the police that he had committed the murder and destroyed the evidence.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy