| Problem Details | |||
| Title | Argue this as Advocate from respective sides | ||
| Problem By | Gurvinder sidhu | ||
| Content | STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT PROBLEM Gori is the daughter of Chottee belonging to a tribal community. She used to attend literacy classes arranged by Gopal, a voluntary worker belonging to a NGO working for tribal development. They fall in love. However, Gori refused to have sexual intercourse with Gopal despite his persistent demands because he told her that he was already married and has a child back home. But Gopal told her that he would marry her after divorcing his first wife. Still Gori refused. On a rainy day after the class they were alone in the tribal school. Gopal persuaded Gori to have sexual intercourse. Though Gori was not initially willing. She did not resist his advances repeating his promise to marry her. Because of fear of her elder brother who received education in town, Gori did not disclose the incident to any one. On the subsequent days Gopal had sexual intercourse with her and she did not object. This relation continued for some months and she became pregnant. She had no other go but to report the fact to her brother who was furious and complained to the police. A case of rape was registered against Gopal. The matter was taken up by the tribal Panchayat and though under their custom they were not to be married, because of the influence of her brother and Panchayat arranged their marriage. The police investigation was however continuing while Gori delivered a baby. After a month Gopal deserted her and the baby. And she filed a petition under S125 Cr. P.C. for maintaince. The Magistrate refused to treat her as Gopal?s legally wedded wife and maintaince to her was refused. At this stage, the criminal case came up for trial. Gopal moves to the High Court under S. 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the case. He argues that Gori is his wife and that since she consented to have intercourse there was no rape.He also argued that she was a major and that her school certificate indicating that she is minor cannot be accepted as the Head Master claims that he recorded the age given by her father without verification. In fact Gori has no record to prove her age except the statement of her father as recorded by the Head Master of the school where she was once admitted. The state argues that: 1. She is a minor as signified in the school certificate. 2.She did not consent to have sexual intercourse. 3.She is not Gopal?s wife . 4. Even if she accepted to be his wife still the criminal case would have to be continued. Gopal counter these arguments saying: 1. She is a major. 2. Her certificate cannot be accepted 3..She did consent 4.She is his wife as he married her according to tribal custom It is not proper to initiate criminal case against the husband for having sexual intercourse with his wife | ||
|
|||
|
|||||
| Causelist Websites | A.P High Court Daily Causelist | Central Administrative Tribunal | A.P State Administrative Tribunal | Supreme Court of India | Causelists for all Courts | | ||||
|
Terms and conditions - Disclaimer - Website Map | Copyright © 2009 - 10 www.goforthelaw.com. All rights reserved |