Allowed

Kainaz E. Wadia v. Eric K. Wadia

Bombay HC16 Dec 2005PS/34/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court decreed a suit for divorce by mutual consent under Sec. 32-B of the Parsi Marriage & Divorce Act, 1936. Finding that both plaintiffs were present, voluntarily signed consent terms, and had lived separately due to incompatibility, the court dismissed the suit only regarding the already-pensed payment.

What did the court decide?

Decree of divorce dissolving the marriage by mutual consent, subject to the fact that Rs. 25,000 was already paid to the plaintiff.

Kainaz E. Wadia Vs Eric K. Wadia — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE PARSI CHIEF MATRIMONIAL COURT AT BOMBAY

¶2

 SUIT NO. 34 OF 2005

¶3

 Kainaz Eric Wadia
 At 4/6, Mehta Bldg., Khan Estate,
 Mahim, Mumbai - 400 016. ... Plaintiff No.1.
 V/s

¶4

 Eric Khushroo Wadia,
 At N/30, Navroze Baug,
 S.S. Rao Road, Mumbai-400 012. ... Plaintiff No.2.

¶5

 Ms. A.S. Khushrushahi for the plaintiffs.

¶6

 Both plaintiffs present in person.

¶7

CORAM: P.V. KAKADE, J.

¶8

DATED: 16TH DEC., 2005

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

 1. The suit is filed for decree of divorce dissolving

¶11

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

¶12

 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

¶13

 2. Both plaintiffs are present before the Court and

¶14

 submit that they were married on 6.1.2003 according to
 Parsi Zoroastrian rites and customs. There is no issue
 of the said marriage. After the marriage, they
 cohabited and resided at Vashi for a short while and

¶15

¶16

 thereafter both plaintiffs shifted to plaintiff No.2’s
 parents’ place in Mumbai. Thereafter, plaintiffs
 shifted to Mahim and stayed there alongwith plaintiff
 No.1’s parents. There were serious differences between
 the plaintiffs as they realized that they were totally
 incompatible. Both plaintiffs are working and their
 jobs require night shifts because of which the
 plaintiffs hardly had any time for each other. There
 were disputes between them and they were unable to
 resolve the differences and due to such differences
 there were tension in the house and they realized that
 it would not be possible to lead a harmonious married
 life and it became impossible for them to live together
 and, therefore, they are living separately with each
 other w.e.f. 30th October, 2004. Plaintiff No.2 moved
 out of the plaintiff No.1’s parents place and went to
 his parents’ place at Navroze Baug, Mumbai.

¶17

 3. Both plaintiffs admit that they have voluntarily
 signed the consent terms without any pressure from any
 party. Clause 4 of the consent terms also show that
 plaintiff No.2 had agreed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the
 plaintiff No.1 which he had earlier paid at the time of
 booking of the flat at Pune. Plaintiff No.1 admits that
 she has received the said amount from plaintiff No.2

¶18

¶19

 already and there is no grievance in that regard.

¶20

 Plaintiff No.1 also has agreed to sign all necessary
 papers that may be required to get plaintiff No.2’s name
 deleted from ownership of flat at Pune as her name was
 added for the sake of convenience and, as such, she has
 no right, title and interest on the said flat. They
 have further agreed to sign all the documents and
 papers, forms that may be required from the joint
 holding/bank accounts where their name stands second.
 In view of this position, I am satisfied that the
 plaintiffs are seeking separation and divorce by
 dissolving marriage by mutual consent and there is
 absolutely no reason why decree should not be passed
 accordingly.

¶21

 In the result, the suit stands decreed in terms of
 prayer clauses (a) & (b) except for the fact that
 payment of Rs.25,000/- is already made to plaintiff
 No.1.

¶22

 With this direction, the suit stands disposed of with no
 order as to costs.

Kainaz E. Wadia v. Eric K. Wadia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kainaz E. Wadia v. Eric K. Wadia

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.

Rohinton F. Anklesaria Vs and Tanaz R. Anklesaria

Noshir P. Katrak Vs and Rashna N. Katrak

Cyrus Shavak Patel Vs and Erzaan Cyrus Patel