[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Dilshad Khambata vs Farrokh Aspi Khambata on 17 December, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:25167
Sumedh 902-osps-3-2025-J-F .doc
IN THE PARSI CHIEF MATRIMONIAL COURT AT BOMBAY
PARSI SUIT NO.3 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.27420 OF 2025
Dilshad Khambata ]
Parsi Zoroastrian, Indian Inhabitant ]
of Mumbai, Aged: 48 Years, ]
Occupation: Consultant, ]
Permanent Address: 102A Meher ]
Apartments, Anstey Lane, Altamount ]
Road, Mumbai 400 026 ] ...Plaintiff
V/s.
Farrokh Aspi Khambata ]
Parsi Zoroastrian, Indian Inhabitant ]
of Mumbai, Aged: 55 Years, ]
Occupation: Business ]
Permanent Address: Ness Baug, ]
Annex 2, Flat No.3, 2nd Floor, Nana ]
Chowk, Mumbai 400 007. ] ...Defendant
______________________________________
Ms. Firoza Daruwala a/w. Adv. Manvee Chararia, Adv. Nerissa
Almeida for the Plaintiff.
Ex-parte against Defendant
_____________________________________________
CORAM : KAMAL KHATA, J.
RESERVED ON : 26th November, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 17th December 2025.
Judgment :
1) By the present suit, the plaintiff-wife seeks a decree of
divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion for a continuous
period of more than two years.
Digitally
signed by
SUMEDH
SUMEDH
NAMDEO
NAMDEO
SONAWANE
1/7
SONAWANE Date:
2025.12.18
12:11:28
+0530
::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/12/2025 20:49:36 :::
Sumedh 902-osps-3-2025-J-F .doc
Brief facts:
2) The suit concerns a couple as popularly referred to in the
press as the 'golden couple of Mumbai's food scene,' credited with
pioneering elegant, high-energy dining spaces and hosting some of
the city's most glamorous evenings.
3) The Plaintiff and Defendant were married on 18th October
1997 according to the Parsi Zorastrian rights and customs at the
Colaba Agiary, in accordance with the Parsi Marriage and Divorce
Act, 1936. The marriage was duly registered before the Registrar of
Parsi marriages, Mumbai on 20 October 1997, as evidenced by the
original marriage certificate.
4) One child named Hushaan was born out of the marriage on
8th February 2001, he was aged about 24 years at the time of filing of
the Suit.
5) Despite repeated attempts, the Defendant-husband could not
be served as the Defendant-husband had shifted to Philippines.
Consequently, the suit proceeded ex parte by order dated 30th
September 2025.
6) The Plaintiff was directed to file her Affidavit in lieu of
examination-in-chief along with a compilation of documents she
relied upon and the matter proceeded for final hearing on 26th
November 2025.
2/7
::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/12/2025 20:49:36 :::
Sumedh 902-osps-3-2025-J-F .doc
Plaintiff's submissions:
7) Ms. Daruwala summits that the Plaintiff has approached
this Court as a last resort, all attempts to bring about an amicable
resolution in the past having failed.
8) She submits that the marriage between the parties was a
love-cum-arranged marriage. The Defendant, a hotel-management
diploma holder engaged in catering business, proposed to the Plaintiff
within two months of meeting her, and they were engaged on 26th
January 1997. The Plaintiff has been a homemaker throughout.
9) She submits that Defendant has consistently subjected the
Plaintiff to cruelty, causing grave mental trauma and emotional
anguish, particulars of which are detailed in the Plaintiff's affidavit of
evidence and supported by documentary proof. It is further
submitted that the Defendant has been residing in a separate
bedroom since 19th June 2014, and the parties have not shared
marital relations since 2015.
10) She further submits that the Defendant deserted the
Plaintiff since 16th August 2022, when he moved to Philippines
without her knowledge, consent, or any reasonable cause. The
Defendant is alleged to be in an inappropriate relationship with one
Joesphine Punjabi. The Defendant has adopted from Manila,
Philippines, Yve a girl-child as his own child, abandoning their
3/7
::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/12/2025 20:49:36 :::
Sumedh 902-osps-3-2025-J-F .doc
natural-born son. The Defendant has allegedly provided emotional
and financial support exclusively to Josephine and Yve while
neglecting the Plaintiff and their son, thereby failing in his duties as a
husband and father.
11) She further states that in or around July 2024, the
Defendant absconded to the Philippines with Josephine and Yve after
committing a large-scale fraud upon nearly ten banks and financial
institutions aggregating to approximately ₹2.68 crores, by forging
the Plaintiff's signatures on various loan documents, thereby
intending to leave her indebted. Criminal investigations are
underway based on complaints filed by the Plaintiff. The Defendant is
also alleged to have misappropriated his 90-year-old father's life
savings of ₹2.75 crores, resulting in the lodging of additional police
complaints.
12) She submits that the Defendant has availed of a retirement
scheme in the Philippines and is presently living a life of luxury with
Josephine and Yve. Since 2024, he has also blocked the Plaintiff and
their son on all communication channels, rendering contact
impossible.
13) She further submits that the Plaintiff has deposed that she
has exhausted her entire life savings towards funding Hushaan's
education and repairing the matrimonial home after a fire. She is
4/7
::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/12/2025 20:49:36 :::
Sumedh 902-osps-3-2025-J-F .doc
presently embroiled in litigation with banks and financial institutions
in Bengaluru and Kolkata, solely due to the Defendant's fraudulent
conduct. In these circumstances, she seeks permanent alimony of
₹3,50,00,000/-.
Reasons & Conclusions:
14) In the present case, the Plaintiff has clearly established the
grounds of cruelty as well as desertion, and the requisite statutory
ingredients, namely (1) the factum of separation; (2) animus
deserendi; (3) absence of his or her consent; and (4) absence of his or
her conduct giving reasonable cause to the deserting spouse to leave
the matrimonial home as set out in the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Lachman UtamChand Kirpalani vs.
Meena alias Mota1 stand fulfilled. Her claim for permanent alimony of
₹3,50,00,000/- is also justified, keeping in view the Plaintiff's present
financial circumstances as more particularly set out in affidavit of
evidence and the guidelines governing such relief set out in the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs.
Neha & Ors.2
15) It is settled law that marriage may be dissolved by a decree
of divorce, inter alia, where the other party has, after solemnisation
of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty.
1 AIR 1964 SC 40
2 AIR 2021 SC 569
5/7
::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/12/2025 20:49:36 :::
Sumedh 902-osps-3-2025-J-F .doc
16) In my view, a marital relationship that has progressively
deteriorated into bitterness serves only to inflict cruelty on both
sides. Compelling the parties to maintain the façade of such a broken
marriage would amount to injustice. Desertion, for the purpose of
divorce, involves the intentional, permanent forsaking and
abandonment of one spouse by the other without consent and
without reasonable cause. It is a complete repudiation of marital
obligations--not merely a withdrawal from a place, but from a state of
things. Desertion is a continuing course of conduct to be assessed on
the facts and circumstances of each case.
17) In view of the unrebutted evidence as set out in the
Plaintiff's affidavit in lieu of examination in chief, I am satisfied that
the Defendant has treated the Plaintiff with cruelty and has, without
cause, deserted her. It would therefore be unjust to require the
Plaintiff to continue in this marriage. Accordingly, the suit is liable to
be allowed.
18) Pending Interim Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
: : ORDER ::
I. The marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant solemnized on 18th October 1997 is dissolved under Section 32 (dd) and Section 32 (g) of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.6/7 ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/12/2025 20:49:36 :::
Sumedh 902-osps-3-2025-J-F .doc II. The Defendant is hereby ordered to pay the Plaintiff a sum of ₹3,50,00,000/- (Three crore fifty lakhs only) as permanent alimony under section 40 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.
III. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
IV. No order as to costs.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.)
7/7
::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/12/2025 20:49:36 :::