Petitioner AN2 19 216

Team – AN2/19/216

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF SARNATAKA

WRIT PETITION NO. ***/2019

IN THE MATTER OF:
MS. SAIRA …PETITIONER
V S.
THE STATE OF SARNATAKA …RESPONDENT
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CINDIA
UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF CINDIA
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

AMITY UNIVERSITY MUMBAI 2ND EDITIONNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... 3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................... 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................... 6
ISSUES RAISED...................................................................................................................... 8
WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION OF HABEAS CORPUS IS MAINTAINABLE ................................. 8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................. 9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................ 10
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION OF HABEAS CORPUS IS MAINTAINABLE ............... 10
1.1 The arrest made by NIA violates article 14 of the Indian constitution .............. 10
1.2 The arrest of the petitioner violates the article 19 of the Cindian const.............. 11
1.2.1 Burden of Proof lies with the State. ..................................................................... 13
1.3 The arrest and detention of the petitioner is violative of Article 21 of Cindian
Constitution. .................................................................................................................... 13
1.3.1 The arrest of the Petitioner by NIA violates the Right to Privacy .................... 15
1.3.2 The arrest of the petitioner violates the right to reputation of the petitioner .. 15
2.1 Maintenance claim against Husain Mirza is maintainable. .................................. 16
2.2 Compensation for Conversion, Marriage and treating in undignified way is
maintainable. ................................................................................................................... 17
2.3 Maintenance claim against Vishal’s parents is maintainable. .............................. 18
PRAYER ................................................................................................................................. 20
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
&: : &
A.I.R : All India Reporter
Anr. : Another
Art. : Article
Cl. : Clause
EU : European Union
Ed. : Edition
FR : Fundamental rights
Govt. : Government
IT Act : Information Technology Act
J. : Justice
Ltd. : Limited
No. : Number
Ors. : Others
p. : Page
Retd. : Retired
Re. : Refer
SC : Supreme Court
SCC : Supreme Court cases
SCR : Supreme Court Reports
Supra : Latin for Above
USA : United States of America
UAPA : Unlawful Activities (Prevention)Act
UN : United Nations
V. : Versus
Vol. : Volume

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
• B. Banerjee v. Anita Pan, AIR 1975 SC 1146 ............................................................. 13

• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898 (India ......................................... 10
• Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay v. Dilip Kumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and
Ors, 1983 AIR 109, 1983 SCR (1) 828 (Inida) ............................................................ 17
• Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay v. Dilip Kumar RaghavendranathNadkarni and
Ors, 1983 AIR 109, 1983 SCR (1) 828 (Inida) ............................................................ 17
• Haaji Abdool Shakoor And Corporation V. Union of India 2001 (10) SC 438 (India)
...................................................................................................................................... 11
• HaajiAbdoolShakoor And Corporation V. Union of India2001 (10) SC 438 (India) . 11
• Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India 1960 2 SCR 671 (India ................................ 12
• Kartar Singh V. State Of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 (India ......................................... 15
• Laxmi Khandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 873 ................................... 13
• LaxmiKhandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 873.................................... 13
• Maneka Gandhi V. Union Of IndiaAIR 1978 SC 597 (India) ..................................... 11
• Pathumma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771 (India) ............................................. 13
• Saghir Ahmed, M.S. Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC 93 : (1982) 3
SCC 24(India ............................................................................................................... 13
• State of Bihar v. Shailabala 1952 SCR 654 (India....................................................... 12
STATUES/ LEGISLATIONS
1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
4. Information Technology Act, 2000
5. Unlawful Activities ((Prevention)) Act, 1967
6. National Investigation Agency, 2019
7. National Security Act, 1980

8. (Prevention) and Suppression Of Terrorism, 2007

9. Domestic Violence Act ,2005
10. Special Marriage Act,1954
11. Hindu Marriage Act ,1955
12. Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act,1956
13. Dissolutions of Muslim Marriage Act,1939
14. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act,1939
BOOKS
1. India: Commentary on the Constitution of India. By D. D. Basu. 9th Edition, Vol. 2.

(Gurgaon, LexisNexis, 2014)
4. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 8th Edition, 1985
5. M.P. Jain, The Constitution of India, 7th Edition, 2014
6. V.N. Shukla- Constitutional Law,
7. Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th edition
8. Law of Writs Vol.2 By revised by Justice
C.K.Thakker&M.C.ThakkerV.G.Ramachandran ,(2006)
9. 9. Family Law by I.A.Saiyyed3rd Edition ,2010
WEBSITES
1. www.scconline.com
2. www.manupatra.com
3. www.heinonlline.com
4. www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal
5. www.westlawindia.com
6. www.jstor.org

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of
Cindia. The Respondents have been asked to appear to the Hon’ble High Court of Cindia in
response to the petitions filed by the petitioners. The Honourable High Court of Cindia has
the jurisdiction in this matter as under Article 226 of the Constitution of Cindia1.
1
“226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in
relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any
Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by Part III and for any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or
person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which
the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such
Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Cindia is a developing country having states like Vindhya Pradesh which has districts
such as Jorakhpur , Nareilly and Sarnataka which has districts such Kudipicindia is
governed by the constitution of Cindia. In Cindia freedom of speech and expression as
well as freedom of religion are given prime importance.
2. Meenakshi is a a 17 year hindu girl , studying in 12th standard . she had many friends
one of them was Sheikh Sana the president of Rebellious party of Vindhya Pradesh
(RPVP) and she was also her senior . Meenakshi used to admire her a lot .Meenakshi
was impressed by Sheikh Sana’s religious practices and started believing in ideology
and teaching of Islam. Later ob with the desire of learning more about islam she took
admission in Jorakhpur Islam Study Center (JISC) .At JISC she fell in love with a
man named Hussain Mirza.
3. In October 2014 Meenakshi was reported missing by her father Suresh Singh. Who
with the help of police tried to trace her. Meanwhile Meenakshi converted herself to
Islam and changed her name to saira. It was also found out by police that Saira was
staying with Shaikh Sana. Suresh Singh filed a writ petition invoking Article 226 of
the Cindian Constitution in Vindhya Pradesh High Court contending that jisc was
involved in forced and illegal conversations and was recruiting cadre for Islamic
terrorist organizations from foreign. Saira denied all the allegations and testified that
.she was staying with Shaikh Sana out of her own will. The court dismissed the
petition and let Saira continues her study in Islam and live with Shaikh Sana.
4. In December 2014 Suresh Singh filed aother Writ Petition asserting that he got
information of transporting of Saira and out Cindia after getting married her off to
Mohd. Junaid at the instance of JISC. High Court passed an interim order to put Saira
under surveillance. While this time police found out that saira has been to an
undisclosed location with Hussain Mirza. Though Saira denied the plan to travel
abroad. The court decided to pur her in a hostel in nareilly. Saira filed an interim
application against this order and she also testified on oath that she does not hold a
passport and has no plans to travel abroad . hence court accepted her application and
she began to live with Shaikh sana till the writ petition disposed off
5. In March 2015 Saira appeared before the High Court andadmitted that she is married
to Hussain Mirzza according to muslim law. Hussain Mirza who was an active

member of RPVP and Radical Islamic front have 4 criminal cases against him. Saira
plea allowed to preach Islam and live with her husband was accepted and petition was
disposed.
6. In December 2016 Saira was tortured by Hussain Mirza for not conceiving a child.
Vishal who was a neighbour was tyewiness of this mental and physical suffering of
saira. One day Hussain mirza married another women Fatima without informing
Saira. Saira decided to leave the house of Hussain Mirza. Vishal give her space in his
house. On the same night she got to know that she is pregnant . As soon as she called
Hussain Mirza to share this news, he hung up her call and sent Triple Talaq on
whatsapp.
7. Vishal proposed to her and they got married according to Hindu rites and ceremonies
in the presence of some of Vishal close friends and they shifted to Kudipi in the
ancestral house of Vishal. However Saira continued to be Muslim and raise his son
Sameer as a Muslim.
8. In August 2018 Vishal lost his life because of this Saira went into coma.When she
recovered she got to know that the house has been occupied by Vishal’s brothers and
sameer had been admitted to an orphanage. Saira having no means to sustain herself
and her son, filed two cases that are, a case against Vishal’s parents claiming
maintenance for herself to be his legally wedded wife as per Hindu rites and another
case against Husain Mirza claiming maintainence for sameer and herself and seeking
compensation for trapping her into conversion, marriage and treating her in
undignified way. The family court dismissed both the cases as not maintainable , then
she appealed before High Court admitted both the appeal and kept them for joint
hearing.
9. NIA arrested Saira under National Security Act for further investigation on the
suspicion of her involved in the psychological kidnapping racket and accomplice of
Hussain as a trained terrorist and knowledge of whereabouts of Hussain mirza as he
was absconded. Saira file a Writ Petition in Sarnataka High Court challenging ger
arrest and detention and quashing the FIR against her. The NIA opposed her
application and said she being actively involved in terrorist activities and agency
termed her matrimonial dispute and eloping with vishal as camouflage as pre-scripted
by JISC. The NIA also relied upon the discrepancies in the civil appeals filed by
Saira,. High court of Sarnataka admitted the writ petition filed by Ms. Saira.

ISSUES RAISED
I.
WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION OF HABEAS CORPUS IS MAINTAINABLE
II.
WHETHER THERE ARE ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THE CIVIL APPEALS FILED BY
PETITIONER

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION OF HABEAS CORPUS IS MAINTAINABLE.
The Petitioner humbly submits that the arrest and detention of the petitioner does violate
Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of Cindia. The Petitioner contends that the
investigation by NIA does violates the basic fundamental rights of the constitution as these
rights comes with the reasonable restriction and to maintain the peace and order in the State
ofCindia. Hence the writ petition is maintainable.
II. WHETHER THE MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE AND ELOPING WITH VISHAL ETC. IS
CAMOUFLAGE AS PRE-SCRIPTED BY THE ORGANIZATION JISC.
The Petitioner humbly submits that the maintenance claim by the petitioner against Husain
and Vishal’s parents is valid in the sense that as per Muslim Law legitimate Son can claim
maintenance from his father. Also petitioner has right to claim against Vishal’s parents both
Vishal and petitioner were cohabiting together as a husband and wife or in nature of
marriage for more than a year and therefore petitioner can claim under Domestic Violence
Act 2005. Also as a victim of psychological kidnapping she was trapped in conversion to
Islam and marriage with Husain. Petitioner can ask for compensation for this.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION OF HABEAS CORPUS IS
MAINTAINABLE
1. The Petitioner humbly submits that the arrest and detention violates the Article 14, 19 and
21 of the Cindian Constitution. The petitioner also contends that the investigation by NIA
violates basic fundamental rights of the petitioner.
1.1 The arrest made by NIA violates article 14 of the Indian constitution
2. The arrest made by NIA violates article 14 2of the Indian const. Which states that the state
shall not deny any person equality before law and equal protection of law within the territory
of India. It embodies the principal of non-discrimination and it is not a free standing
provision it has to be read by other articles like Article 21 3with relation to the arrest and
detention of the petitioner NIA will give the argument that it is non-arbitrary in nature but
considering the fact that non arbitrary says that the decision must have reasonable relation to
the object of arrest and detention which was referred above clearly proves the fact that how
the arbitrariness of power led to the exploitation of the individual fundamental rights.
The Article says that there must be a substantial basis for making the classification with the
nexus of making the classification and the object of the arrest which is missing in the present
facts of the case here the NIA hasn’t specify any detailed grounds or reasons on which
petitioner can be termed as terrorist and, therefore conferring of such an arbitrary and
unreasonable action amounts to violation of fundamental rights. In bachansingh v. state of
Punjab 4it has been explained bybhagwati Jthat “wherever we find arbitrariness or
unreasonableness there is denial of rule of law.”
3. The contentions that NIA has against the petitioner are wage and have no nexus with the
petitioner linking in the terrorist activities it is arbitrary behaviour against a specific
community that we can see in this case. Their also been some recent case of arresting and
2
INDIA CONST. art. 14.
3
INDIA CONST. art. 21
4
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898 (India)
detention of peoplewhich proves that how badly govt. is bypassing the human rights under
the National Security Act,1980 160 Muslim people were arrested last year in the month of
August 5 activists were arrested from different location under Unlawful Activities Prevention
Act, 1967 by accusing them of being ‘naxals’ operating against them. Among them one of
them was ArunFerrierawho spent almost 4 years in jail and got acquitted from all the
charges in the year 2011 but still with so much of power state police again arrested him under
the act without having any evidence and at last he filed a case against the authority but those
4 years he was kept into custody which violated her fundamental rights as well as human
rights.
4. In Maneka Gandhi 5case when the statute vests unguided and unrestricted power in an
authority affects the right of the person without laying down any policy or procedure which is
to guide the authority in exercise of this power it would be affected by the vice of
discrimination since it would leave it open to the authority to discriminate between the person
and things similarly situated. In the present facts of the case there’s no procedure mentioned
which will help the detained person as there is no such guide to control the excessive power
conferred under the authority. Other than that court has also insisted that to control arbitrary
action on part of administration person affected by administrative action be given the right of
being heard before the administration passes an order. This will minimize the chance of
administration passing an arbitrary order. Thus they have extracted that natural justice is an
integral part of administrative process. 6In Amrik case7it was held that Audi Alter am Partem
rule in essence enforces the equality clause It is not only applicable not only to quasi-judicial
bodies but also administrative orders adversely affecting the party in question. In the present
case there’s no such clause which talks about the procedure or natural justice and due to the
excessive power under the authority there’s clear violation of Article 14.
1.2 The arrest of the petitioner violates the article 19 of the CindianConsitution.
5. The arrest of the petitioner does violates the article 19 of the cindian const. which stat that
every citizen have the right to freedom of speech and expression that shall not affect the
operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law
imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in
5
Maneka Gandhi V. Union Of IndiaAIR 1978 SC 597 (India)
6
HaajiAbdoolShakoor And Corporation V. Union of India2001 (10) SC 438 (India)
7
Union of IndiaV. BakshiAmrikSingh,AIR 1981 P&H 87 (India)
the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly
relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of
court, defamation or incitement to an offence. 8
6. Security of the state means “the absence of serious and aggravated forms of public
disorder’ as distinguished from ordinary breach of ‘public safety’ or public order’ which may
not involve any danger to the state itself. Thus, security of the state is endangered by crimes
of violence intented to overthrow the government9, levying of war and rebellion against the
government, external aggression or war, but not by minor breaches of public order or
tranquility, such as unlawful assembly, riot, affray, rash driving, promoting enmity between
classes and the like.10 But incitement of violent crimes like murder, which is an offence
against ‘public order’, may also undermine the security of state.11 The facts of the case
clearly potrays that petitioner was never involve in any type of serious and aggravated forms
of public disorder that is more from ordinary breach of public safety or public order but she is
a victim of domestic violence by her ex husbandhussain mirza because of him that NIA has
arrested her. From the facts of the case she has broken contacts from her and was leaving a
peaceful life with his son and vishal in the state of sarnataka.
7. Public order is synonymous with ‘public peace and tranquility’. It says that in the interests
of the public the state may impose restrictions on the incitement of feeling of enmity or
hatred between different sections of the community, or insulting their religious feelings. In
the case of Ram Manohar Lohia12, Subba Rao J, on the behalf of the court, pointed out that
the expression “in the interests of public order” though wider than the phrase “for the
maintenance of public order” still could not mean that the existence of any remote or fanciful
connection between the impugned act and public order would be sufficient to sustain the
validity of the law. The connection between the acts prohibited or penalised and public order
should be intimate. In other words, there should be a reasonable and rational relation between
it and the object sought to be achieved, viz, public order. The nexus should thus be
proximate-not far-fetched, problematic or too remote in the chain of its public order. It the
present facts there is no proximity or it is far fetched that petitioner cannot be even suspected
for breaking of public order.
8
9
Santokh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1973 SC 1091(India)
10
HamdardDawakhana v. Union of India 1960 2 SCR 671 (India)
11
State of Bihar v. Shailabala 1952 SCR 654 (India)
12
Supdt Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia1960 AIR 633 (India)
1.2.1 Burden of Proof lies with the State.
8. Under Article 19, the burden is never on the Appellant to prove that the restriction is not
reasonable or that the restriction is not in the interest of matters mentioned in Clause (2). 13 In
spite of there being a general presumption in favour of constitutionality of a legislation, in a
challenge laid to the validity of any legislation, allegedly violating any right of freedom
guaranteed by clause (1) of Article 19, on a prima facie case of such violation having been
made out, the onus would shift upon the respondent State to show that the legislation comes
within the permissible limits of restrictions set out in clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19, and that
the particular restriction is reasonable. Thus, the onus is on the state to justify that the
restriction imposed on any Fundamental Right guaranteed by Articles 19(1)(a) to (g) is
reasonable under clauses 19(2) to (6).14
1.3 The arrest and detention of the petitioner is violative of article 21

of cindian constitution.
9. The arrest of the petitioner does violate the article 21 of the cindian constitution which
states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the
‘procedure established by law’15 the term procedure established by law in this provision is
most important as it enables the curt to see whether the law fulfils the requisite elements of
reasonable procedure which does not mean merely enacted by law but incorporated principles
of natural justice and to deprive a person deprive of life and personal liberty but the
reasonableness of law of preventive detention ought to be judged under article 19.
10. In Vedprakash v. State of Gujarat16the court observed “the high court cannot be a silent
spectator when the fundamental right and liberty of a citizen arebeing eroded by an executive
fiat. May it be under the cloak of preventivedetention or any other law or provision the High
Court has ample power toentertain and save an individual who would otherwise be mauled by
an arbitraryaction. No doubt there are limitations in exercising the powers under Article
226and such limitations are wider and limited according to the legislation underwhich the
executive has exercised its authority. If a preventive detention order is found to be arbitrary
13
B. Banerjee v. Anita Pan, AIR 1975 SC 1146; Pathumma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771 (India)
14
LaxmiKhandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 873; Saghir Ahmed, M.S. Faruk v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC 93 : (1982) 3 SCC 24(India)
15
16
Vedprakash v. State of Gujarat AIR 1987 Guj 253 (India)
and ex facie illegal, the High Court will not hesitate tointerfere in such type of orders for the
purpose of giving necessary relief to theaffected. The Court which has derived its power
under the Constitution cannot lie dormant as if its hands are fettered by promulgation of a
detention order when especially the intended detention order is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and
shocks the moral conscience of the Court In such rarest of rare cases it is the duty of the court
to interfere with ex facie illegal and arbitrary detention order inorder to save and protect the
liberty of the individual against the executive fiat.”
11. In Rameshwar Lal v. State of Bihar17 speaking for the Court, Hidayatullah,J. (as he
then was) observed: "The detention of a person without a trial merely on the subjective
satisfaction of an authority however high, is a serious matter. It must require the closest
scrutiny of the material on which the decision is formed leaving no room for errors or at least
avoidable errors. The very reason that the courts do not consider the reasonableness of the
opinion formed or the sufficiency of the material on which it is based, indicates the need for
the greatest circumspection on the part of those who wield this power over others. "
12. In Motilal v. State of Bihar18, holding the detention of the petitioner as illegal, Hedge, J.
made the following pertinent observations. "Individual liberty is a cherished right, one of the
most valuable fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution to the citizens of this
country. If that right is invaded, excepting strictly in accordance with law, the aggrieved party
is entitled to appeal to the judicial power of the State for relief. We are not unaware of the
fact that the interest of the society is no less important than that of the individual. Our
Constitution has made provision for safeguarding the interests of the society. Its provision
harmonise the liberty of the individual with social interests. The authorities have to act solely
on the basis of those provisions. They cannot deal with the liberty of the individual in a
casual manner, as has been done in this case. Such an approach does not advance the true
social interest. Continued indifference to individual liberty is bound to erode the structure of
our democratic society”
13. Other than that in the case of Kartar Singh19that procedure must be right just and fair it
must confirm to natural justice and not arbitrary but in the present set of facts the petitioner
gets detain without any solid evidence and there’s no such grounds to control the excessive
power under the administration and the long pre-trial confinement leads to the violation as
law commission in its 77th and 78th reported that there’s a great injustice on the accused
17
Rameshwar Lal v. State of Bihar1968 AIR 1303 (India)
18
Motilal v. State of Bihar1968 AIR 1509 (India)
19
Kartar Singh V. State Of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 (India)
person as it jeopardizes his personal liberty as thousands of them awaiting trial for their
offence and in the present law the police administration was given power to hold individual
under the custody even for a period of 180 days and if no evidence to be found that person
gets acquitted or otherwise that case will go on and on there are many examples where
individual were held under jail waiting for their trial to come which infringes their right to
life and personal liberty with dignity.
14. What will at last happened is there’ll be hundreds of questionable arrest with prolonged
decision with at last no formal charges as it will get unnoticed as its been in the past as
minorities lacks voice in cases of mistreatment. It is just a political agenda where government
just want to portray those people to be terrorists who are against them as they haven’t
specified any such procedure or guidelines which at last leads to infringement of fundamental
rights of a person residing in Cindia.
1.3.1 The arrest of the Petitioner by NIA violates the Right to Privacy
15. It is humbly submits that in the present suit petitioners right to privacy has been infringed
by NIA by digging into her life and marriage. The right to privacy, recognized as an intrinsic
part of the right to life and liberty, and freedoms embodied in Part III is subject to the same
restraints which apply to those freedoms. According to Black’s Law dictionary word Privacy
means right to be let alone, the right of a person to be free from unwarranted publicity 20. In
Justice K S Puttaswamyv Union of India21“The autonomy of the individual is the ability to
makedecisions on vital matters of concern to life… The intersectionbetween one’s mental
integrity and privacy entitles theindividual to freedom of thought, the freedom to believe
inwhat is right, and the freedom of self-determination… Thefamily, marriage, procreation
and sexual orientation are allintegral to the dignity of the individual.”
1.3.2 The arrest of the petitioner violates the right to reputation of the
petitioner
16. The Respond submits in the Hon’able Court that the arrest and detention of the petitioner
also strikes the person’s right to reputation. Right to reputation being an intrinsic part under
Privacy, Black’s Law Dictionary

20
21
KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2018) 1 SCC 80 (India)
Article 21 of the Constitution of India22 and terming an individual a terrorist even before the
commencement of the trial or any application of the judicial mind over it does not amount to
following the procedure established by law and thus on a mere suspicion calling and
detaining a person under the National Security Act as a terrorist is infringing his reputation
for the life time. These laws even give the authority to arrest the person even before the crime
has been committed and thus making a person arrested even under a false allegation or false
suspicion. The person therefore has to live with this tagthroughout his life. This makes it very
difficult for a person acquitted to get bail and on the other side gives a police the sweeping
power that makes corruption and tyranny easy.
17. In case of Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay23 Wherein the Supreme Court held that
it is very reasonably said that one is entitled to have and preserve one’s reputation and one
also has a right to protect it. In the case of any authority in discharge of his duties fastened
upon it under the law, traverses into the realm of personal reputation adversely affecting him,
must provide a chance to him to have his say in this matter.
ISSUE 2: Whether the matrimonial dispute and eloping with Vishal etc. is camouflage
as pre-scripted by the Organization JISC ?
18. The petitioner humbly submits that the matrimonial dispute and eloping with Vishal etc.
Is not compuflage as pre scripted by the organisation JISC. Also their is no discrepancies in
the civil appeals filed by Petitioner in High court.
2.1 Maintenance claim against Husain Mirza is maintainable.
19. The Counsel would like to submit that the Maintenance claim against Husain Mirza in
maintainable. In case of Child, Muslim Father is under the obligation to maintain his
legitimate child until he attains the puberty age. Under Muslim Law, the father has
to maintain his son only until he attains majority. As per the present case the sameer was a
child of Husain Mirza and a legitimate child of father he is entitled for maintenance as per
now.
22
M. P. Jain, Constitution of India
23
Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay v. Dilip Kumar RaghavendranathNadkarni and Ors, 1983 AIR 109, 1983
SCR (1) 828 (Inida)

20. This section provides for maintenance not only to the wife but also to child and parents.
Court may order a husband who has sufficient means but neglects or refuses to maintain his
wife who is unable to maintain herself to provide monthly maintenance to her24.
21. As per the present case, when petitioner left the house of Husain she made a mind to end
her life.25 Reason for such step was Husain married to another woman without asking
petitioner. As per the Muslim Personal Law if a Man want to marry another woman he should
ask to her present wife. Vishal Stop her to take such extreme step and then she came to know
about her pregnancy she called Husain but he hung up and sent Triple – Talaq on WhatsApp.
22. She was in mental agony and Vishal was a person who support her emotionally helped
her even he took the responsibility of petitioner and her child. Now she being single mother
with a child having no means of survival she should be provide with maintenance since she
has no house to live and even no body is accepting her. We live in a welfare state where
everyone should get justice with due process of law.
2.2 Compensation for Conversion, Marriage and treating in undignified way is

maintainable.
23. The Counsel would like to submit that compensation for trapping her into conversion,
marriage and treating her in undignified way is maintainable.Husain Mirza was active
member of the organization which involved in psychological kidnapping where organized
groups attempt to recruit Hindu Women as terrorists by getting converted and marrying them
off to Muslim men. And petitioner is victim of such psychological kidnapping.
24. As per the Moot proposition, if we see then it all started when petitioner took admission
in JISC, though she was impressed with the practice of Islam and also believes in teaching of
Islam, she met Husain and then within 6 month she converted into Muslim and in next 6
month she also married to Husain. It seems like a planned script. Husain used to inflict
tremendous amount of torture petitioner. This circumstances proves that she was forced to
convert, marry and was not treated in dignified way.
25. As per Domestic Violence Act, 200526 provide for a remedy under the civil law which is
intended to protect the women from being victims of domestic violence occurring within the
family and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society. It makes provision
24
Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C.
25
Para 9, Moot Prop.
26
DV Act 2005
for a protection order27, residence order28, monetary relief29, custody order30,

compensation31and interim relief.32
2.3 Maintenance claim against Vishal’s parents is maintainable.
26. The claim for maintenance from Vishal’s parent is maintainable. As per the Sec 2(f) of
Domestic Violence Act 2005, stated- “Domestic relationship” means a relationship between
two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household,
when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of
marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.” 33 The petitioner
and Vishal were living together for more than a year. Though there marriage is not
considered to be valid but they both were living as a Husband and a Wife or a relationship in
the nature of marriage which fall under the ambit of Domestic Relationship defined under DV
Act 2005.
27. In the case of S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal&Anr.34, the Supreme Court has held that
living together is a right to life. The Court held that how can it be illegal if two adults live
together cannot be illegal.In 2003, the MalimathCommitee report on Reforms in the Criminal
Justice System, suggested amendment of the word “wife” in Section 125, Cr.P.C to include a
woman who is living in with a man for a “reasonable period.”
28. In the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court, in one of the case, Katju J. and Mishra J. state that,
“In our opinion, a man and a woman, even without getting married, can live together if they
wish to. This may be regarded as immoral by society, but is not illegal. There is a difference
between law and morality.”
29. As per the facts of case in December 2016 when petitioner left Husain’s house, Vishal
took the responsibility of the petitioner and her child, shifted to Kudipi, and married as per
Hindu traditions in front of Vishal’s close friends and they considered themselves as husband
27
Section 18 DV act 2005
28
29
30
31
32
33
Section 2(f), DV act 2005
34
Abhijit Auti v. State of Maharashtra 2009 CriLJ 889 (India)
and wife though the marriage was not valid, leading a happy life but they were in relationship
in nature of marriage, which is defined under DV Act 2005.
30. Since their relation fall under the ambit of DV act 2005, also as per the The National
Centre for Women recommendations to the Ministry of Women and Child Development to
include female live-in partners within the ambit of section 125 of Cr.PC in order to establish
their rights and make them entitled to right to maintenance support in case of Abhijit Auti v.
State of Maharashtra35.
31. As per Supreme Court stated ‘wife’ to include even those cases where a man and woman
have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict
proof of marriage should not be a pre-condition for maintenance under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C, so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance
under Section 125.36
32. Therefore the Petitioner humbly submits that the claim for maintenance against Vishal’s
parents is maintainable as per the DV Act 2005 and section 125 of Cr.P.C. Hence it is proved
that there were no discrepancies in civil appeals upon which NIA has relied on to substantiate
their claim which also nullify the allegation raised by NIA in regards to the matrimonial
dispute and eloping with Vishal etc. as camouflage as pre-scripted by the Organization JISC.
35
Section 125, Cr.P.C
36
Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha,(2011) 1 SCC 141.(India)
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the legal precedents and principles cited;and in light of the
provisions of the Constitution applied and arguments advanced; it is most humbly pleaded
before the Hon’ble Court that this Court adjudges and declare that:
1. That The Arrest And Detention By NIA Violates Article 14,19 And 21 Of The
Constitution Of Cindiaand Petitioner Should Be Released .
2. That The Investigation Of The Petitioner By NIA Should Be Stopped.
3. That The Petitioner Civil Appeals should Not Be Quashed.
And pass any other order, direction, or relief that it may deem fit in the best interests of
justice, fairness, equity and good conscience.
ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

Petitioner AN2 19 216

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioner AN2 19 216

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioner AN2 19 216

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team – AN2/19/216

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF SARNATAKA

WRIT PETITION NO. ***/2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

MS. SAIRA …PETITIONER

THE STATE OF SARNATAKA …RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CINDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF CINDIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. 2

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 1

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 2

• B. Banerjee v. Anita Pan, AIR 1975 SC 1146 ............................................................. 13

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 3

8. (Prevention) and Suppression Of Terrorism, 2007

1. India: Commentary on the Constitution of India. By D. D. Basu. 9th Edition, Vol. 2.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 4

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 5

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 6

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 7

WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION OF HABEAS CORPUS IS MAINTAINABLE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 8

I. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION OF HABEAS CORPUS IS MAINTAINABLE.

CAMOUFLAGE AS PRE-SCRIPTED BY THE ORGANIZATION JISC.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 9

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION OF HABEAS CORPUS IS

1.2.1 Burden of Proof lies with the State.

1.3 The arrest and detention of the petitioner is violative of article 21

Privacy, Black’s Law Dictionary

2.1 Maintenance claim against Husain Mirza is maintainable.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 16

2.2 Compensation for Conversion, Marriage and treating in undignified way is

for a protection order27, residence order28, monetary relief29, custody order30,

2.3 Maintenance claim against Vishal’s parents is maintainable.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 20

You might also like