Allowed

Rohinton F. Anklesaria v. and Tanaz R. Anklesaria

Bombay HC16 Dec 2005PS/27/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court decreed a suit for divorce by mutual consent under Section 32-B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, after finding the parties voluntarily filed the suit and met statutory conditions, noting their separation since before the marriage registration.

What did the court decide?

The suit was decreed for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and disposed of with no order as to costs.

Rohinton F. Anklesaria Vs and Tanaz R. Anklesaria — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE PARSI CHIEF MATRIMONIAL COURT AT BOMBAY

¶2

 SUIT NO. 27 OF 2005

¶3

 Rohinton Farmroze Anklesaria,
 At E/20, Shapurji Bharucha Baug,
 S.V. Road, Mumbai - 400 016. ... Plaintiff No.1.

¶4

And

¶5

 Tanaz Rohinton Anklesaria
 At Malcolm Baug, Jogeshwari (W),
 Mumbai-400 012. ... Plaintiff No.2.

¶6

 Ms. Armaity S. Khushrushahi for the plaintiffs.

¶7

 Ms. Freny Percy Siganporia - Sister of plaintiff No.2
 present.

¶8

CORAM: P.V. KAKADE, J.

¶9

DATED: 16TH DEC., 2005

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

 1. The suit is filed for decree of divorce dissolving

¶12

 the marriage by mutual consent as contemplated under
 Sec.32-B of the Parsi Marriage & Divorce Act, 1936

¶13

 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

¶14

 2. The plaintiff No.2 wife is present. Plaintiff No.1
 husband is not present. Real sister of plaintiff No.2
 is present and submits that plaintiff No.1 is abroad at
 Muscat and unable to visit India. However, the record
 shows that on 24.8.2005 plaintiff No.1 was present and

¶15

¶16

 pointed out to the Court that he had to leave the
 country and therefore considering the circumstances,
 this Court has passed an order to the effect that his
 presence is dispensed with on the next occasion i.e.
 today. The matter could not be disposed of due to
 illness of plaintiff No.2 on that day.

¶17

 3. Subsequently, on 31.8.2005, this Court has passed
 directions in presence of plaintiff No.1 who was
 present, to the effect that his further presence from
 the Court is dispensed with as plaintiff No.2 was not
 present and it was further directed that it would be
 open for the plaintiff No.2 to apply for the earlier
 date of hearing if plaintiff No.2 is present.

¶18

 4. On this back ground, the matter has come up for
 hearing today. I am satisfied that this Court, while
 passing orders dated 24.8.2005 as well as 31.8.2005 has
 satisfied itself from the plaintiff No.1 about the
 voluntariness of the plea made in the suit.

¶19

 5. As the record shows that the parties were married on
 15th December, 2004, according to the Parsi Zoroastrian
 rites and customs and there is no issue from the said
 marriage and they are separated from 20.4.2004 and have

¶20

¶21

 not cohabited since then. I am also satisfied that both
 parties have voluntarily filed the suit and consent
 terms and, therefore, the conditions as contemplated
 under Sec.32-B of the said Act are complied with and I
 have no hesitation in decreeing the suit.

¶22

6. The suit stands decreed in terms of prayer clause

¶23

(a) and stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

Rohinton F. Anklesaria v. and Tanaz R. Anklesaria

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohinton F. Anklesaria v. and Tanaz R. Anklesaria

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Vithoba Sukhdare Vs the Greater Bombay Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Maharashtra Industrial Dev.Corpn. and Ors. Vs Oceana Textile Mills Pvt.Ltd.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Bhauso Ramchandra Mane and Anr.

Noshir P. Katrak Vs and Rashna N. Katrak

Kainaz E. Wadia Vs Eric K. Wadia

Cyrus Shavak Patel Vs and Erzaan Cyrus Patel