Allowed

Scherezade Farshogar Tangi v. Farshogar Noshir Tangi.

Bombay HC20 Dec 2005PS/35/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment deals with a suit for divorce by mutual consent under Sec. 32-B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936. The court observed that both parties were present, had been living separately, and had filed consent terms regarding personal belongings and absence of maintenance claims. The court found no reason to oppose the decree.

What did the court decide?

Decree for divorce by mutual consent passed. Suit disposed of with no order as to costs.

Scherezade Farshogar Tangi Vs Farshogar Noshir Tangi. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE PARSI CHIEF MATRIMONIAL COURT AT BOMBAY

¶2

 SUIT NO. 35 OF 2005

¶3

 Scherezade Farshogar Tangri
 At 2/A, Karai Estate,
 248, Tardeo Rd/. Mumbai 400 007. ... Plaintiff No.1.

¶4

And

¶5

 farshogar Noshir Tangri
 At 1/3 Fiona apartments, 5th flr.,
 Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai - 400 049. ... Plaintiff No.2.

¶6

 Ms. S. P. Nanavati i/by Mulla & Mulla and C.B.C. for the
 plaintiff No.1.

¶7

 Mr. Sameer Tapia i/by ALMT Legal for plaintiff No. 2.

¶8

 Both plaintiffs present in person.

¶9

CORAM: P.V. KAKADE, J.

¶10

DATED: 20TH DEC., 2005

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

 1. This suit is filed for decree for divorce by mutual
 consent dissolving the marriage between parties under
 Sec. 32-B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.

¶13

 2. Both plaintiffs are present before the Court
 alongwith their advocates. They have stated that they
 were married on 5.1.2004 in Bombay according to the
 rights and ceremonies under Parsi Zoroastrian religion
 and custom. They were living together till 20.10.2004

¶14

¶15

 from which date they separated from each other due to
 reasons mentioned in the petition, to the effect that
 soon after the marriage there were serious differences
 between parties which made it very difficult for the
 parties to live together as husband and wife. They
 tried their level best to reconcile the dispute but in
 vain and, therefore, came to the conclusion that the
 marriage was incompatible temperamentally and inspite of
 best efforts they were unable to make marriage work.
 Finally, they separated on 20th October, 2004 and since
 then are living separately. The suit came to be filed
 on 14th December, 2005.

¶16

 3. There is no issue of the marriage. Parties have
 filed consent terms wherein it is stated that the
 plaintiff No.1 has received all her personal belongings
 and is in complete and sole possession thereof. So
 also, the plaintiff No.2 has received all his personal
 belongings and is in complete and sole possession
 thereof and there are no claims for maintenance and
 alimony from either party as both parties are running
 well. They have also submitted that they have signed
 the consent terms without any force or threat from any
 party.

¶17

¶18

4. Under the circumstances, I do not see any reason why

¶19

 the decree for divorce by mutual consent should not be
 passed.

¶20

 Hence, the suit stands decreed in terms of prayer clause

¶21

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

Scherezade Farshogar Tangi v. Farshogar Noshir Tangi.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Scherezade Farshogar Tangi v. Farshogar Noshir Tangi.

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

Rohinton F. Anklesaria Vs and Tanaz R. Anklesaria

Noshir P. Katrak Vs and Rashna N. Katrak

Kainaz E. Wadia Vs Eric K. Wadia

Union Bank of India Vs Aries Corporation

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Sudhakar Shalik Pethkar and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Krishna Hasha Govari and Ors.