Allowed

Paurusasp Magol (Plaintiff NO.1) v. Maharokh Magol (Plaintiff NO.2)

Bombay HC20 Jan 2015PS/1/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay decreed a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 32-B of the Parsi Marriage & Divorce Act, 1936 between a Parsi married couple living apart since 2003. The court accepted the signed consent terms and ordered the dissolution of marriage.

What did the court decide?

The marriage of the parties is dissolved by mutual consent. There will be a decree in terms of the consent terms.

Paurusasp Magol (Plaintiff NO.1) Vs Maharokh Magol… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

905-PS1-15.DOC

¶2

Agk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PARSI SUIT NO. 1 OF 2015

¶4

Paurusasp Magol…Plaintiff No. 1
Versus
Maharokh Magol…Plaintiff No. 2

¶5

Ms. Armaity S. Khushrushahi, for the Plaintiffs.

¶6

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:20th January 2015

¶7

PC:-

¶8

1.This is a Petition for divorce by mutual consent under
Section 32-B of the Parsi Marriage & Divorce Act, 1936. The
Plaintiffs are both personally present in Court. They have each filed
an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. These affidavits are
dated 9th January 2015. Today on oath, they confirm the
correctness of what is stated in these affidavits.

¶9

2.The Plaintiffs were married on 20th November 1998 in
Mumbai in accordance with Zoroastrian rites and customs. Both
Plaintiffs are Parsis. They have one child, a son named Dinshaw,
born on 5th July 1999.

¶10

3.After marriage, both Plaintiffs lived together as man and wife
at Ahmednagar, where the 1st Plaintiff – husband owns a bungalow.
He resides there permanently.

¶11

1 of 2

¶12

905-PS1-15.DOC

¶13

4.Over time, differences arose between the Plaintiffs. They
found themselves to be incompatible and were unable to live a
harmonious life together. For the sake of their child, they continued
with the marriage for some time. However, the differences grew
sharper, and there was also tension in the house. Attempts at a
reconciliation were unsuccessful.

¶14

5.Finding it impossible to live together, the 2nd Plaintiff – wife
left the matrimonial house on 11th February 2003. She started
residing in Mumbai, where she stays even today. The Plaintiffs have
thus been living apart for more than one year since about February
2003. They have agreed to take a divorce by mutual consent. They
have drawn up consent terms and these are at Exhibit “B” to the
plaint. These are signed by Ms. Khushrushahi, learned Advocate
for the Plaintiffs and by each of the Plaintiffs as well. I have seen the
consent terms and they seem to be in order. The undertakings in
the consent terms are accepted as undertakings to the Court. There
is no impediment to the grant of reliefs sought.

¶15

6.In the result, the Suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a)
and (b). The marriage of the parties is dissolved by mutual consent.
There will also be a decree in terms of the consent terms. Drawn up
decree dispensed with.

¶16

7. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶17

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶18

2 of 2

Paurusasp Magol (Plaintiff NO.1) v. Maharokh Magol (Plaintiff NO.2)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paurusasp Magol (Plaintiff NO.1) v. Maharokh Magol (Plaintiff NO.2)

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

Kum.Freyan Zarir Ichhaporia Thru Her Mother and Natural Guardian Ms.Zenobia Jal Buhariwala Vs Ms.Kashmira Adi Ichhaporia

M/S. Madhav Kutir Chs. Ltd. Vs Ms. Meena C. Somaiya

Rita Mary D'Mello Vs 1. Doris D'Silva and 6 Ors. and John Joseph Dmello (Applicants) and 6 Ors.

Satyavan Mahadev Mestri Vs Neema N. Raut and Anr.

Sharda Dwarkadas Mehra Vs Smt. Indravati Dwarkadas Mehra (Deceased)

Vijaysingh Lalji Khona Vs Ratanshi Umarshi Khona (Deceased)