Allowed

Kashimira Rustom Kambata and Rustom Melhi Kambata v. .......................................

Bombay HC3 Dec 2009PS/27/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an oral judgment in a suit for divorce by mutual consent under Section 32B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936. The court allowed the suit, passing a decree based on affidavits tendered by the plaintiffs, one of whom resided in New Zealand.

What did the court decide?

Decree passed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b); issuance of certified copy expedited.

Kashimira Rustom Kambata and Rustom Melhi… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE PARSI CHIEF MATRIMONIAL COURT
AT BOMBAY
SUIT NO.27 OF 2009

¶3

Kashmira Rustom Kambata
Parsi Zoroastrian,
Citizen of New Zealand,
Age: 44 years, residing
at 2/188 Clovelly Road,
Bucklands Beach, Auckland.... Plaintiff
1202, New Zealand. No.1

¶4

AND

¶5

Rustom Melhi Kambata
Parsi Zoroastrian, Citizen
of India, Age: 49 years,
residing at 13, Walworth
Avenue, Pakuranga,.... Plaintiff
Auckland 2010, New Zealand. No.2

¶6

Mrs. Armaity S. Khushrushahi for the
Plaintiffs.

¶7

Ms Kashmira R. Kambata, Plaintiff No.1,
present in person.

¶8

CORAM: A.S. OKA, J.

¶9

DATED: DECEMBER 03, 2009

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶11

Not on board.

¶12

2.The learned counsel appearing for the

¶13

¶14

first and the second plaintiffs made a request
for taking the suit on board as the first
plaintiff has come all the way from New Zealand
for attending to the suit.

¶15

3.The present suit is filed under
Section 32B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce
Act, 1936 seeking a decree of divorce by mutual
consent.

¶16

4.The first plaintiff is personally
present in the Court. She has tendered on
record her affidavit which was affirmed before
a Notary Public in New Zealand on 14-11-2009.
The first plaintiff affirms the correctness of
what is stated in the suit as well as in the
affidavit. The learned counsel appearing for
the plaintiffs has tendered the affidavit of
the second plaintiff which has been affirmed on
14-11-2009 before a Notary Public in New
Zealand. She states that the second plaintiff
is unable to come down to India due to his
commitments. She invited my attention to the
averment made in paragraph 11 of the said
affidavit. There is a photograph of the second
plaintiff affixed on the said affidavit. The
learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs
has also tendered on record a zerox copy of the

¶17

¶18

driving licence of the second plaintiff which
is duly certified as a true copy by a Notary
Public in New Zealand.

¶19

5.I have perused the averments made in
the plaint as well as in the affidavits filed
by the first and the second plaintiffs. Both
of them have asserted that the marriage between
them was solemnised on 12-12-1987 in accordance
with the Parsi Zoroastrian rites and customs.
There is only one son of the said marriage who
has now attained majority. It is stated that
since the year 2002 serious differences arose
between the first and the second plaintiffs.
It is asserted that from 6-6-2006 till the date
of filing the suit, the plaintiffs have been
living separately. Even in the affidavits
tendered today, it is asserted that the parties
continue to stay separately from June, 2006.

¶20

6.The Consent Terms duly signed by the
first and the second plaintiffs before a Notary
Public in New Zealand on 14-11-2009 have been
annexed to the plaint. The Consent Terms record
complete settlement between the parties.

¶21

7.Considering the affidavits tendered, I
am satisfied that the averments made in the

¶22

¶23

plaint are true and correct and that the
consent of neither parties is obtained by
practising force or fraud.

¶24

8.Hence, a case is made out for
exercising power under Section 32B of the
Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.

¶25

9.Hence, I pass the following order:

¶26

(a)There shall be a decree in terms of
prayer clauses (a) and (b).

¶27

(b)Issuance of certified copy is
expedited.

¶28

(c)The parties to act upon an

¶29

authenticated copy of this judgment.

Kashimira Rustom Kambata and Rustom Melhi Kambata v. .......................................

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashimira Rustom Kambata and Rustom Melhi Kambata v. .......................................

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

Bhakti Uday Mhamunkar Vs Uday Balkrishna Mhamunkar

Janaki Kalia Murty and Anr. Vs Govt. of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay Stone Quarries Vs State of Maharashtr Aand Ors.

Jayashri Vasant Suryavanshi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jayashri Vasant Suryavanshi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Dhanaji Waman Patil Vs the Managing Trustees Mother Education Trust and Ors.