Allowed

Pakzan Sarosh Dastoor v. Kaivaan Jehangir Movdawalla

Bombay HC21 Apr 2016PS/1/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment considers a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 32-B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936. The court found no impediment and the parties were free of coercion, thereby dissolving the marriage and issuing a decree based on consent terms.

What did the court decide?

Marriage dissolved by mutual consent; decree passed in accordance with the amended consent terms; alimony and maintenance granted as per terms.

Pakzan Sarosh Dastoor Vs Kaivaan Jehangir Movdawalla — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

903-PS1-16.DOC

¶2

Shephali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE PARSI CHIEF MATRIMONIAL COURT AT

¶4

MUMBAI

¶5

PARSI SUIT NO. 1 OF 2016

¶6

Pakzan Sarosh Dastoor…Plaintiff No. 1
And
Kaivaan Jehangir Movdawalla…Plaintiff No. 2

¶7

Mr. Narayana B. Suvarna, for the Plaintiff No. 1.
Mrs. Aban Patel, for the Plaintiff No. 2.

¶8

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 21st April 2016

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1.This is a Petition for divorce by mutual consent under
Section 32-B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936. The 1st
Plaintiff is the wife. The 2nd Plaintiff is the husband. They were
married on 3rd December 2011 in Mumbai according to the
Zoroastrian rights and customs. This was the first marriage for
both. The 1st Plaintiff has retained her maiden name after marriage.

¶11

2.The parties have no children. Immediately after marriage,
they lived together as man and wife in Mumbai at the 2nd
Plaintiff’s parents’ house.

¶12

1 of 3

¶13

903-PS1-16.DOC

¶14

3.A few years later, the Plaintiffs realised that they were
incompatible. Serious differences arose between them. They were
unable to reconcile these despite all efforts and the intervention of
friends and family. The parties drifted apart.

¶15

4.On 1st October 2014, the 1st Plaintiff left the matrimonial
home. Since then, she is staying at a separate residence at Andheri
(West). The 2nd Plaintiff continues to reside at his parents’ house.

¶16

5.The Plaintiffs have now decided to take a divorce by mutual
consent. They say that from 1st September 2014, they are living
apart and there has been no cohabitation since then.

¶17

6.Both Plaintiffs are personally present in Court. They have
today tendered their respective affidavits in lieu of examination-in-
chief.

¶18

7.Annexed to the plaint are Consent Terms at Exhibit “B”
dated 4th February 2016. It seems that parties have since revised
these Consent Terms. Amended Consent Terms are tendered.
These are signed by the parties and their Advocates. In these
Consent Terms, provisions have been made for alimony,
maintenance, return of personal belongings, joint property and
other matters. There are undertakings by the 1st Plaintiff not to
make any claim in or in respect of the matrimonial home at Juhu.

¶19

8.Having considered the Consent Terms, I am satisfied that
they reflect the true intention of the parties and that they have been
arrived at by the parties of their own volition, and without fraud or

¶20

2 of 3

¶21

903-PS1-16.DOC

¶22

coercion of any kind. I am also satisfied that the Consent Terms are
not contrary to law. The Consent Terms are taken on record and
marked “X” for identification. The undertakings in the Consent
Terms are accepted as undertakings to the Court. The Consent
Terms tendered today are to be added to the Petition as Exhibit
“B1”. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith in
Court, without need of reverification.

¶23

9. There is no impediment to the grant of relief. This Court has jurisdiction.

¶24

10.In view thereof, the Petition is made absolute in terms of
prayer clauses (a) and (b). The marriage of the parties is dissolved
by mutual consent under Section 32-B of the Parsi Marriage and
Divorce Act, 1936. There will also be a decree in accordance with
the Consent Terms, taken on record and marked “X” for
identification (now Exhibit “B1”) with the undertakings in the
Consent Terms accepted as undertakings to the Court.

¶25

11. Decree to be drawn up expeditiously.

¶26

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

¶27

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶28

3 of 3

Pakzan Sarosh Dastoor v. Kaivaan Jehangir Movdawalla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pakzan Sarosh Dastoor v. Kaivaan Jehangir Movdawalla

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

Mrs.Angelia D.D'Souza and Zefferino Dominic Dsouza (Applicnt) Vs --------

Mrs.Angelia D.D'Souza and Magdeline Do Minic D'Souza (Applicant) Vs ----------------------------

Pandurang Bhimaji Shardul and Anr. Vs Smt Lata Pundalik Shardul and Pradeep Pundali Shardul (Applicant)

Shri Gopal Nayak Vs Mr. Ammembal Anant Pye

Bhavik Dattani and Anr. Vs Mohd.Phool Shaikh

Asha Tulsidas Narang @ Asha Narang Vs Amit Kishore Narang (Caveator)