Allowed

Hector Fali Patel v. Anita Hector Patel

Bombay HC9 Feb 2009PS/4/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay granted a decree dissolving the marriage of two plaintiffs by mutual consent under section 32B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, after finding their consent free from force or fraud and their inability to live together.

What did the court decide?

Decree dissolving the marriage of the plaintiffs was granted under section 32B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.

Hector Fali Patel Vs Anita Hector Patel — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

PARSI MATRIMONIAL JURISDICTION

¶4

PARSI SUIT NO.4 OF 2009

¶5

Hector Fali Patel .. Plaintiff No.1
and

¶6

Anita Hector Patel .. Plaintiff No.2

¶7

Mrs.A.S.Khushrushahi for plaintiffs

¶8

CORAM :S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE:9th February 2009.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

.This is a suit praying for dissolution of
marriage of plaintiffs solemnised on 9th January
1999 at Mumbai.

¶11

2.Both plaintiffs havefiled their
affidavits in evidence reiterating the contents
of the plaint. Plaintiffs have claimed decree
under section 32-B of the Parsi Marriage and
Divorce Act, 1936. The decree of divorce is
claimed by mutual consent. They have set out

¶12

¶13

that they have been living separately since March
2006. After their marriage in January 1999,
plaintiffs moved in the matrimonial home at
Mumbai. Thereafter, they had noticed over a
period that there are differences between them.
Extreme incompatibility of temperament led to
disputes and differences. Plaintiffs drifted
apart and, therefore, they have not been able to
live together. They have, therefore, mutually
agreed that their marriage be dissolved.

¶14

3.Plaintiffs have setout necessary
declarations on oath. They have reiterated that
the consent is given willingly and without any
force or undue influence. On perusal of the
plaint and the statement made in the affidavit so
also hearing Counsel, I am satisfied that the
averments are true and correct. The consent has
been given without any force or fraud. I am
further satisfied that the plaintiffs having not
been able to live together for a period of a year

¶15

¶16

or more have agreed to dissolve their marriage
under section 32B of the Act.

¶17

4.Both plaintiffs have stated that they are
gainfully employed. They have not made any
claims against each other. They have settled all
the claims with regard to joint property.
Plaintiff No.1 is not claiming any alimony or
maintainance from plaintiff No.2.

¶18

5.As a result of the above discussion and
the marriage having been solemnised at Mumbai,
there is no impediment in granting decree in
terms of prayer clause (a) of the plaint.

¶19

6.Accordingly, there will be a decree under
section 32B of the Act dissolving the marriage of
the plaintiffs. Office to draw up the decree
accordingly.

¶20

(S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)

Hector Fali Patel v. Anita Hector Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hector Fali Patel v. Anita Hector Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishinchand Laxmandas Aidasani and Ors. Vs Chandra Alias Gullu Ramesh Manghanani

Dr. Niranjan Narayanrao Chavan and Ors. Vs Dr.(Mrs.) Vikasini Narendra Chavan

Prasad T. Tendolkar Vs Seema Rebendra Datta Nee Seema Parab

M/S.Reliance Exports Ltd. Vs Pramilavati Mehra and Ors.

Balkrishna Bapu Khadang Vs Ashabai Kashid / Mane

Bank of India Vs the Official Liquidator , High Court , Bombay as Liquidator of Dynacraft Machine Co. Ltd.