Allowed

Khushnaaz Ardeshir Mistry - Plaintiff No. 1 v. Ardeshir Khurshed Mistry- Plaintiff No 2

Bombay HC22 Jul 2013PS/13/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court decreed a suit for divorce by mutual consent filed under section 32B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936. The consent terms were modified to delete the phrase 'both present and future' regarding waiver of maintenance and residence claims, following the dictum of Hirabai Bharucha v. Pirojshah Bharucha.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed for dissolution of marriage; consent terms modified to delete 'both present and future' from the waiver clause.

Khushnaaz Ardeshir Mistry - Plaintiff No. 1 Vs… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2013)

PS13-13.doc

Sequeira

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

PARSI SUIT NO. 13 OF 2013

¶6

Khushnaaz Ardeshir Mistry, nee Khushnaaz Naval Ghadiali .. Plaintiff No.1 And Ardeshir Khurshed Mistry .. Plaintiff No.2

¶7

Ms Preeti Shah, for plaintiffs.

¶8

Khushnaaz Ardeshir Mistry, nee Khushnaaz Naval Ghadiali, plaintiff No.1 present. Ardeshir Khurshed Mistry, plaintiff No.2 present.

¶9

CORAM: N.M.JAMDAR, J. Monday 22 July 2013

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

By this suit the plaintiffss pray that the marriage solemnized between both the plaintiffs on 12 December 2004 be dissolved by decree of divorce under provisions of section 32 B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.

¶12

The plaintiffs got married on 12 December 2004 and the marriage was duly registered on 28 December 2004. It is stated that due to dispute and differences since 5 March 2009 the parties have been living separately. They have tried to resolve the differences between themselves with the help of friends and relatives, however they were not successful. In the circumstances, they have decided to seek a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

¶13

¶14

PS13-13.doc

¶15

Perusal of the plaint reveals that all the ingredients for grant of decree under section 32B of the Act are satisfied. The consent terms which have been duly signed by both the parties and the advocate are placed on record.

¶16

It was pointed out to the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the words “both present and future” appearing in paragraph 4 of the consent terms cannot be granted in view of the dicta of this Court in the case of Hirabai Bharucha v. Pirojshah Bharucha reported in A.I.R. (32) 1945 Bombay 537 . Accordingly, learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that these words will be deleted from the consent terms and the line will read as - “that both the plaintiffs hereby give up their respective claims for maintenance / permanent alimony and for residence and declare that they do not and will not claim any such right against each other.” Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of prayer clause (a) as per the consent terms, except the bracketed portion.

¶17

N.M.JAMDAR, J.

Khushnaaz Ardeshir Mistry - Plaintiff No. 1 v. Ardeshir Khurshed Mistry- Plaintiff No 2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khushnaaz Ardeshir Mistry - Plaintiff No. 1 v. Ardeshir Khurshed Mistry- Plaintiff No 2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. L. Chemical Industries Private Limited. Vs M/S. Kopran Limited --- Cin-- L24230MH1958PLC011078

Perfect Finance and Exports Private Limited Vs

Honey Machines Private Limited. Vs ------------------------------------

Mirc Electronics Ltd. Vs Punsumi India Ltd.

Concept Marketing and Advertising Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. .Ltd.

M/S.Shrirang Films Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S. One More Thought Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.