 The second council seeks permission to approach the dice

 Your lordship, the 3rd issue is “Whether a married person can stay in a Live-in Relationship
with other partner during the subsistence of marriage when marriage is not broken down?” on
which the counsel would be eastablishing on 10 points.
 And this issue is refer on the Pg no 20 in the memorial.

1. Your lordship, The Appellant submits that a married person can stay in a “live-in-relationship” with
other partner during the subsistence of marriage when marriage is not broken down.
2. Your lordship, it is important to note that the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom and
personal autonomy to every citizen. This includes the right to choose one's own lifestyle and
relationships. As long as the individuals involved are consenting adults, they should have the right to
live together and form relationships of their choice, regardless of their marital status.
3. Your lordship, also It is important to recognize that women's rights in India have historically been
subordinated to those of men. The institution of marriage has often been used as a tool for
patriarchy1 to control women's lives and limit their opportunities for personal growth and self-
expression. Allowing married individuals to form live-in relationships with other partners can
provide women with greater autonomy and agency over their own lives.
Q- jo issue hai us m person ki baat kri haio and apn vha women ki baat kr rhe hai
4. Your lordship, The Petitioner contends that the right to engage in a live-in relationship, even while
being married, should be protected, provided the marriage is not irretrievably2 broken down. He
asserts that individuals have the right to personal autonomy in choosing their living arrangements,
and the law should not infringe upon this right without just cause.
5. Your lordship, He also emphasizes that criminalizing a live-in relationship during the subsistence
of marriage infringes upon the right to personal liberty under Article 21. The right to choose one's
living arrangement, even in a non-conventional setup, is integral to the concept of personal
autonomy.
6. Your lordship, Moreover, he stresses that the law should focus on protecting the institution of
marriage without unnecessarily intruding3 into individuals' personal lives. Criminalizing
consensual relationships, when the marriage is not broken down, is an unwarranted infringement
on personal freedoms.
7. Your lordship, can referred to page no 20 of the memorial in the landmark judgment by Hon'ble
“Supreme Court” in the case “Lata Singh v. State of U.P” in which it was held that while dealing with
the concept of live-in, held that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterosexual 4sex
does not amount to any offence even though it may be perceived as immoral. However, at relevant time
1
a social system that gives power and control to men rather than women
2
in a way that cannot be retrieved or put right.
3
to enter a place or situation without permission or when you are not wanted
4
sexually or romantically attracted to people of the opposite sex.
 497 IPC was in force, so it was only applicable to unmarried couples, when section 497 is struck down it is
applicable.
8. Your lordship, can referred another case on the page no 21 of the memorial in the landmark
judgment by Hon'ble “Supreme Court” in the case “S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal” in which it was
held that legal recognition to live-in relationships by categorizing them as “domestic relationships”
protected under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court held that a live-in
relationship comes within the ambit of the right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. The Court further held that live-in relationships are permissible and that the act of two adults living
together, in any case, cannot be considered illegal or unlawful. However, they have become a developing
area of controversy with respect to the types of live-in relationships that are recognized.
Petitioner cites this case to highlight the court's recognition of the evolving social norms and
acceptance of live-in relationships. The petitioner contends that this case reinforces the idea that
individuals should have the freedom to choose their living arrangements without facing criminal
consequences, provided the marriage is not broken down.
9. Your lordship, can referred another case on the page no 21 of the memorial in the landmark
judgment by Hon'ble “Supreme Court” in the case “Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013)” in
which it was held that the legitimacy of live-in relationships and emphasized the need to protect
individuals' rights to live together even outside the institution of marriage. The petitioner argues that
this precedent supports the notion that consensual relationships should be protected, especially when
the marriage is not irretrievably broken.
The Honourable Supreme Court stated in this case that live-in relationships can be classified into
five types which included domestic cohabitation between an unmarried female and an unmarried
male. It is regarded as the most basic type of relationship. A major unmarried woman and a married
man entered into mutual domestic cohabitation. A major unmarried man and a married woman
entered into mutual domestic cohabitation. In India, these are the most common types of live-in
relationships.
10. Your lordship , in the present matter, sahiba went with her full consent and with intention of
living together. And The court has already struck down the adultery section, then why this question
still discussed A married person can have extra maritial intercourse , then why both person cannot
live together with their full consent , there would be no illegal act done by any party , which itself
means that it is not illegal to live together
  Your lordship, The Council seeks permission to address issue no. 4 i.e. “Whether Section 198(2) of
Cr.P.C. is violative of Article(s) 14 and 15 of the Constitution of Indistan?” on which the counsel
would be establishing on 13 points.
 And this issue is refer on the Peg no 23 in the memorial.

1. Your lordship, It is most humbly submitted that Section 198(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
(Cr.P.C.) violates constitutional provisions related to equality and non-discrimination i.e. Article 14 and
15. The petitioner contends that the gender-specific nature of the provision, restricting the right to file
complaints related to offences against marriage only to husband or their relatives, is discriminatory and
goes against the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution.

2. Your lordship, The Petitioner emphasizes that Article 14 guarantees the right to equality before the law
and equal protection of the laws to all individuals. However, Section 198(2) differentiates between
genders, allowing only husband or their relatives to file complaints. This, according to the petitioner,
creates an arbitrary classification that lacks reasonable justification
3. Your lordship, Also the Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex. Section 198(2), by
restricting the right to file complaints based on gender, fails to align with the constitutional objective of
eliminating gender-based discrimination.
4. Your lordship, Furthermore, The Petitioner contends that the provision perpetuates5 gender
stereotypes6 and assumes a specific role for husband as victims, which is inconsistent with the evolving
norms of gender equality. The petitioner asserts that the law should treat individuals equally, irrespective
of their gender, in matters related to offences against marriage. We also stresses that the gender-specific
restriction in Section 198(2) contradicts the broader constitutional ethos that promotes gender equality
and non-discrimination. The provision, in its current form, unfairly limits the access to legal remedies
based on gender.
5. Your lordship, In the present case, section 497 criminalization had restricted the following rights of
women:-

 Right to equality as provided under Article 14(Right to equality) of the constitution.

 Right against discrimination as provided under Article 15(Right against discrimination) of the
constitution.

 Interference of state in personal matters of an individual. However, this applies for both men as
well as women.

5
to cause something to continue for a long time
6
A gender stereotype is a generalised view or preconception about attributes, or characteristics that are or ought to be possessed by women and men or the roles that
are or should be performed by men and women.
 Thus similarly section 198(2) of CRPC is violative of Article (s) 14 and 15 as it clearly restricts
the rights of a married women alone to the care of her Husband or any person taking care of her
on behalf of that Husband and creates a Dent on indignity Of Woman the emphasis on the consent
of the husband or any person taking care of her on behalf of that Husband that amounts to the
subordination of women. It is also stated that section 198(2) of CRPC is gender stereotype about
the role of women it does not provide dignity, liberty, privacy and sexual autonomy.

This section is also gender-biased as it forbade women from being punished as only men were
punished for an elopement.

6. Your lordship, can referred to page no 24 of the memorial in the landmark judgment by Hon'ble
“Supreme Court” in the case “Joseph Shine v. Union of India” in which it was held that the law
deprives women of the fundamental right to sexual autonomy. While government, on the other hand,
argued it as an essential element to maintain the sanctity of marriage, although also recognized section
198(2) of CRPC as discriminatory against women and proposed to make the offence of adultery as
gender-neutral.
Your lordship, Change in social, cultural, moral, economic and political values and perspective with
passage of time and in the wake of evolving notions of transformative constitutionalism and
constitutional moralism, provision criminalising adultery has lost its efficacy 7— Global trend is also in
favour of treating adultery as a civil wrong and a ground of divorce — Hence S. 497 IPC and S. 198
CrPC deserve to be struck down as unconstitutional

7. Your lordship, can referred another case on the page no 25 of the memorial in the landmark judgment by
Hon'ble “Supreme Court” in the case “Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001)” in which it was held that
gender equality is not just a constitutional guarantee but a human right. The petitioner contends that this
case establishes a strong precedent8 for challenging provisions like Section 198(2) that create
distinctions based on gender.
8. Your lordship, can referred another case on the page no 25 of the memorial in the landmark judgment by
Hon'ble “Supreme Court” in the case “Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020)” in which it was
held that daughters have equal coparcenary rights 9in joint Hindu family property. Manish contends
that this case reinforces the need for a more inclusive and non-discriminatory legal framework, aligning
with the broader principles of equality recognized in the Constitution.
9. Your lordship, can referred another case on the page no 25 of the memorial in the landmark judgment by
Hon'ble “Supreme Court” in the case “Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India and V. Revathi v. Union

7
the power to produce a desired result
8
an official action or decision that has happened in the past and that is considered as an example or rule to follow in
the same situation later
9
According to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, an individual who is born in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) has a legal right over his ancestral
property.
 of India, (1988) ” in which it was held that The decision in Revathi reaffirms the principles established
in Sowmithri Vishnu, applying the doctrine of equality and prohibiting discrimination based on sex in a
formalistic manner. The judgment argues that since neither spouse can prosecute the erring spouse, there
is no discrimination on the grounds of sex. However, the judgment's narrow interpretation of equality
and its failure to address crucial aspects related to the provision's constitutionality raise concerns. Similar
to Sowmithri Vishnu, Revathi does not establish the correct legal principle.
10. Your lordship, Considering the aforementioned discussion and the identified anomalies in Section 497,
as outlined in paragraph 271, the following declarations are made:
1. Section 497 is deemed unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
2. Section 198(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), outlining the procedure for prosecution
under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code, is declared unconstitutional.

Your lordship, In conclusion, Manish argues that the gender-specific nature of Section 198(2) is in direct
conflict with constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination. The provision, by limiting the
right to file complaints based on the gender of the complainant, does not withstand constitutional scrutiny
and should be reconsidered to align with the broader ideals of equality and justice.

Your lordship, the council seeks permission to read the prayer which is refer on the Pg no 31 in the
memorial.

Wherefore in the light of the issued raised herein above, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel
on the behalf of the Appellant most humbly and respectfully requests that the Hon’ble supreme court be pleased
to adjudge and declare that:
1. Grant appropriate relief in favor of the Appellant.
2. Set aside the impugned judgment and order in the present matter.
3. Declare the relevant provision, Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code, as unconstitutional.
4. Any other relief or remedy the Court deems just and proper.

AND/OR
Pass any other order, direction or relief that may deem fit best in the interest of justice, fairness, equity and good
conscience.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPELLANT SHALL BE DUTY BOUND FOREVER
All of which is humbly submitted.

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 198 — Providing procedure for filing complaint in respect of
offence of adultery under S. 497 IPC struck down as unconstitutional alongwith S. 198(2) of CRPC
— Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 15(1) and 21
 Section 498 o ipc: Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman.
Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to
be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of
 that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains
with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
 Section 497 : Adultery
Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to
be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse
not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with
both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.

 Article 14 of the Constitution of India reads as under: “The State shall not deny to any
person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
 Article 15 of the Constitution of India forbids discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste,
gender, or place of birth.
 Article 21: “Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”