Allowed

Zurvan Marolia (Plaintiff NO.1) v. Kamalrookh Marolia (Plaintiff NO.2)

Bombay HC29 Nov 2016PS/18/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a suit for divorce by mutual consent between Zurvan Marolia and Kamalrookh Marolia. The court found the parties' consent genuine, underage children are not involved due to their majority, and the settlement terms regarding assets and maintenance are lawful.

What did the court decide?

Divorce by mutual consent decreed in terms of Consent Terms annexed to the plaint, dissolving the marriage of the parties.

Zurvan Marolia (Plaintiff NO.1) Vs Kamalrookh Marolia… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

904-PS18-16.DOC

¶2

ATUL

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PARSI SUIT NO. 18 OF 2016

¶4

…Plaintiff No. 1

¶5

Zurvan Marolia…Plaintiff No. 1
Versus
Kamalrookh Marolia…Plaintiff No. 2

¶6

Ms. Armaity S. Khushrushahi, with Ms. N. Almeida, for both the
Plaintiffs.

¶7

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 29th November 2016

¶8

PC:-

¶9

1.This is a Suit for divorce by mutual consent under Section 32-
B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936. The 1st Plaintiff is
the husband. The 2nd Plaintiff is the wife. They were married on
23rd January 1989 according to the Parsi Zoroastrian rites and
customs. This was the first marriage for both.

¶10

2.The parties have two children: a daughter named Hamarna
born on 19th October 1992 and a son, Anosh, born on 6th November
1995. Both children have attained majority.

¶11

3.After marriage, both parties lived as man and wife at Godrej
Hill Side Colony, L.B.S. Road, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 079.
However, over time, differences arose between the parties. Their

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

29th November 2016

¶14

904-PS18-16.DOC

¶15

relationship deteriorated. They found themselves to be incompatible
and unable to adjust to each other. Despite the efforts of family and
friends, they were unable to resolve these differences.

¶16

4.The 1st Plaintiff husband moved out of the bedroom and
started living apart from the 2nd Plaintiff wife from September
2013. Although under the same roof, they lived separately and had
no matrimonial ties. Their disputes have continued.

¶17

5.The parties have now agreed to dissolve their marriage by
mutual consent. They have drawn up Consent Terms annexed at
Exhibit “B” to the plaint. I have seen these Consent Terms and they
are in order, not contrary to law and appear to have been drawn by
the parties of their own volition in reflection of their intentions.
Arrangements have been made in regard to a motor car, furniture,
outgoings as also an amount of permanent alimony and residence.

¶18

6.Both Plaintiffs are present in Court. They have both tendered
Affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief in which they confirm the
correctness what is stated in the plaint. I am satisfied that there is no
element of force, fraud or coercion. The undertakings in the
Consent Terms are accepted as undertakings to the Court and in
particular, the undertaking in clause 1(b) where the 1st Plaintiff is to
get his name deleted from the SPICE investment earlier jointly held
with the 2nd Plaintiff. The 1st Plaintiff has confirmed that he has
already done so.

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

29th November 2016

¶21

904-PS18-16.DOC

¶22

7. There is no impediment to the grant of relief. The marriage of the parties is dissolved by mutual consent. The Suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

¶23

8. Decree to be drawn expeditiously.

¶24

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

¶25

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶26

Page 3 of 3
29th November 2016

Zurvan Marolia (Plaintiff NO.1) v. Kamalrookh Marolia (Plaintiff NO.2)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zurvan Marolia (Plaintiff NO.1) v. Kamalrookh Marolia (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

Sangita Sanjay Lohar Vs Sanjay Laxhman Lohar (Deceased)

Shri Ramlal Choithram Moorjani Vs Shri Shyam Choithram Moorjani

Socomed Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs Amico Pharma

D and H Secheron Electrodesltd. Vs D and H India Limited

S P Mistry and 3 Others Vs Sherene Neville Vakil and Anr.

S P Mistry and 3 Others Vs Sherene Neville Vakil and Anr.