STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner approach the Hon`ble supreme court of Antia under Article 137 r/w Article 145(e)
of Antian constitution against the order suppressing the dignity of women.

ARTICLE137. Review jurisdiction of supreme court of Antia.

(1). Article 137 of the Constitution of Antia, provides that subject to provisions of any law and
rules made under Article 145 (e), the Supreme Court has the power to review any judgment
pronounced or order made by it.

(2). Article 145 (e) reads as - Any judgment pronounced or order made by the Court may be
received and rules as to the conditions the procedure for such review including the time within
which applications to the Court for such review are to be entered.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

 On 13th march 2017 a young girl named Jenny got married to Jack. After one year Jenny
gave birth to a son.
 With the passage of time Jack attracted towards a married woman named Phenny. Jack
developed an intimate relationship with Phenny and even had sexual Intercourse with her
on many occasions. This continued for a period of Virtually six months.
 On 15th September 2018 Jenny saw Jack’s Whatsapp messages and came to know about
this relationship between Jack & Phenny. After that she was heartbroken but she decided
to save her Marriage and to continue her matrimonial relationship with Jack.
 On 16th September 2018 when jenny tried to have a word with Jack then Jack forced
sexual acts upon Jenny against her will and consent. This behavior of Jack forcing sexual
acts upon Jenny became a habitual exercise.
 After these incidents Jenny felt harassed, and helpless she wanted to save her matrimonial
life but not at the cost of herself respect and individual dignity.
 Jenny decided to lodge a complaint against Jack`s adulterous relationship & forcible
sexual acts but there was no legal remedy available as per existing penal laws except
divorce petition but Jenny did not want to destroy her matrimonial relationship and create
a problem for her small child.
 As per section 497 of APC, “the wife has no right to file a complaint in case of adultery
and similarly according to section 375 of APC a husband cannot be punished for marital
rape.
 On 22nd October 2018 Jenny filed a writ petition before supreme court challenging
constitutional validity of sec.497 & 375 of APC. On the ground of it being violative of
Art.14, 15, 21 of constitution of Antia.
 In the absence of any existing laws, Jenny urged the supreme court to direct the Republic
of Antia to bring laws for the protection of those wives whose husbands indulge in
adultery and also bring laws and penal provision for marital rape. No punishment
provision exists for marital rape thus making woman, a commodity.
 Hon’ble Supreme Court of Antia decided to hear the petition as It pertained to the
dignity, justice and equality for women. After hearing the petition, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of Antia struck down Section 497 of APC on the ground that it is violative of
Article 14, 15 and 21 of Constitution of Antia and 13 declared adultery only as a civil
offence.
 After this decision Jenny still felt victimized and files a review petition before the
Hon’ble supreme court of Antia on the principle of “Natural Justice”, as “justice not only
be done but it must appear to be done”. Hon’ble Supreme Court of Antia decided to hear
the review Petition as it relates to the dignity of women and definitely has a substantial
question of law.
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE NO.1
WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY JENNY UNDER ARTICLE 137 IS
MAINTAINABLE ?

ISSUE NO.2
WHETHER THE OFFENCE OF ADULTERY SHOULD BE CRIMINALIZED?

ISSUE NO.3
WHETHER THE OFFENCE OF MARITAL RAPE SHOULD BE CRIMINALIZED?

ISSUE NO.4
WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT VOILATES PRNCIPLE OF NATURAL
JUSTICE ?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1 : WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY JENNY UNDER

ARTICLE 137 IS MAINTAINABLE ?

It is humbly submitted that the Review Petition filed by Jenny is maintainable under
Article 137of the constitution of Antia (herein after referred as the constitution), The
Supreme Court has the jurisdiction under Article 137 r/w Article145 of the Constitution
to hear the matter. The right to access to the Supreme Court under Article 137 is a
discretionary right of the court.

ISSUE 2 : WHETHER THE OFFENCE OF ADULTERY SHOULD BE

CRIMINALIZED?
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1 : WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY JENNY UNDER

ARTICLE 137 IS MAINTAINABLE?

It is humbly submitted that the present Review Petition filed by Jenny in The Supreme
Court of Antia [ here in after referred to as SC ] arising from the order pronounced by this
court in exercise of Inherent & Plenary jurisdiction, [1.] is maintainable under Article
137 .The supreme court has jurisdiction under Article 137 to hear the matter.

1. THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE PRESENT MATTER

Art.137 of the Constitution reads as:-

“Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court. — Subject to the provisions of any law
made by Parliament or any rules made under article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to
review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.”

Art. 145 (e) of the constitution reads as:-

“Any judgment pronounced or order made by the Court may be received and rules as to the
conditions the procedure for such review including the time within which applications to the
Court for such review are to be entered.”

Review literally and even judicially means re examination or re consideration. Basic Philosophy
inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Rectification of an order thus stems
from the fundamental principle that justice is above all. It is exercised to remove the error and
not for disturbing finality.1

1
S. Nagraj v State of Karnataka (1993)
The objective of Review Petition is to do away with quickly the Injustice which may be
necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine Actus curie Neminem Gravabit2 which means
that no act of court should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of the courts to see that if a
person is harmed by mistake of the court, he should be restored quickly to the position he
would have occupied but for the mistake.

Reference has been made to decision of the Supreme Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. A.J.
Thomas3Court in Lily Thomas v. Union of India,4, wherein it has been observed that if the court
finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier
judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist
and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice, nothing would preclude the court from
rectifying the error.

The court has described its review power as follows in LILY THOMAS CASE5 :-

“…the power to review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and to substitute a view.
Such Powers can be exercised within the limits of the statue dealing with the exercise of power.
The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review.”

Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the Constitution also provides the mechanism for
constitutionalism. The Supreme Court being the apex Court of the country is obliged to interpret
and implement the law made by the legislature. However, the court under Art.142 of the
Constitution can fill in the gaps of law and declare the law in its absence to meet the end of the
Justice i.e. Under the impugned article though the court has an inherent power to pass any order
to meet the end of the Justice, it should be exercised either in the absence of law and in the
circumstances where the situation so demands or where any law made by the Parliament or other
authorities is in derogation of the spirit of the Constitution. Therefore, under the guise of
“Interest of Justice” the court should not step into the arena of COLORABLE LEGISLATION
i.e. indirectly doing something which cannot be done directly.

2
AIR 2005 Supreme Court 592 (605-para 88-90)]
3
ACJ 471
4
AIR 2000 SC 1650
5
(2000) 6 SCC 224
 ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE OFFENCE OF ADULTERY SHOULD BE
CRIMINALIZED?

It is humbly submitted that the present Review Petition filed by petitioner in The Supreme Court
Of Antia [hereinafter referred to as SC] that Adultery which is described in Section 497 of
Antian Penal Code and it is violates the dignity and equality of women, should be criminalized.

Sec. 497 of APC reads as:-

“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.”

In W. Kalyani vs. State Through Inspector Of Police And Another6, The court held that:-

“Adultery under criticism from certain quarters for showing a strong gender bias for it makes the
position of a married woman almost as a property of her husband. But in terms of the law as it
stands, it is evident from a plain reading of the section that only man can be proceeded against
and punished for the offence of adultery. Thus mere fact that the appellant is a woman makes her
completely immune to the charge of adultery and she cannot be proceeded against for that
offence.”

In instant case also, the respondent was in adulterous relationship with a married lady while
existing married and also used to physically harass the petitioner.
Natural justice has been variously defined. It is another name for common-sense justice. Rules of natural
justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural
justice is the administration of justice in a common-sense liberal way. Justice is based substantially
on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and
restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic
technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form.
Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the
minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted
by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights.
These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. Rules of “natural justice” are
not embodied rules. The phrase “natural justice” is also not capable of a precise definition. The
underlying principle of natural justice, evolved under the common law, is to check arbitrary exercise of
power by the State or its functionaries. Therefore, the principle implies a duty to act fairly i.e. fair play
in action. The aim of rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent
miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made.
They do not supplant the law but supplement it, Sahara India (1) v. CIT, (2008) 14 SCC 151.

Natural Justice & Legal Justice — The expressions “natural justice” and “legal justice” do not
present a watertight classification. It is the substance of justice which is to be secured by both and
whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal
justice. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or
logical prevarication. It supplies the omissions of a formulated law. No form or procedure should ever
be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant's defence, Canara Bank v. Debasis Das, (2003)
4 SCC 557.