Burzin Somandy (Plaintiff 1) vs Ayesha Somandy (Plaintiff 2)
2017 Latest Caselaw 6228 Bom

                                             1
                                                                    1.PS.11-17.doc




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

                              PARSI SUIT NO. 11 OF 2017

Burzin Somandy                                      ..Plaintiff No.1
          And
Ayesha Somandy                                      ..Plaintiff No.2 

                                          ....

Mr.Sainand Chaugule, Advocate for the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are present in person.
                                ....

                                 CORAM :   R. G. KETKAR, J.

                                 DATE     :  16th AUGUST, 2017
                                             (In Chambers at 2:45 p.m.)
                                 
P.C. 

1. Heard Mr.Sainand Chaugule, learned Counsel for the

plaintiffs. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 both are present in Chambers.

2. This is a Suit for divorce by mutual consent under

Section 32-B of the Parsi Marriage & Divorce Act, 1936 (for

short, 'Act'). Plaintiff No.1 is the husband and plaintiff No.2 is

the wife. They were married on 28.3.1999 according to the Parsi

Zoroastrian rites and customs. Plaintiff No.1 was then divorcee.

Plaintiff No.2 was then a spinster.

1.PS.11-17.doc

3. The parties have one daughter by name Ariana

Somandy, who is presently aged about 16 years.

4. After the marriage both the plaintiffs cohabited and

resided together at 12, Ganpat Niketan, 18 th Road, Khar (West),

Mumbai - 400 052 and from 2012 at 31, Rajiv Apartments, Pali

Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400 050. Sometime in/after the

year 2012, serious differences arose between the plaintiffs giving

rise to continuous tension in the matrimony. The plaintiffs

realized that they were totally incompatible and their outlook on

life and values of life were totally different. In the interest of

their minor daughter, the plaintiffs decided to stay together.

5. As the time lapsed, it became abundantly clear that

the plaintiffs were not suited to each other. The atmosphere

between the plaintiffs in the house was hostile because of the

serious differences between them. As it became impossible for

the plaintiffs to continue living as husband and wife in conjugal

cohabitation, sometime from July, 2013, although they lived

under the same roof, they ceased to cohabit as husband and

wife.

6. Even thereafter the plaintiffs made their best efforts to

1.PS.11-17.doc

sort out their differences with the help and intervention of

relatives, the same could not be resolved. The plaintiffs have

ceased to cohabit as husband and wife which amounts to legal

separation since July 2013 i.e. for more than a year before filing

of present Suit till date. They tried their best to make their

marriage work, but they have been unable to live together. Their

marriage has broken down irretrievably with no possibility for

reconciliation. The parties have, therefore, mutually agreed to

obtain divorce under Section 32-B of the Act. They have arrived

at consent terms at Exhibit-A dated 31.7.2017. Leave to amend

clause-4 of the consent terms so as to delete the last portion,

namely, "or future or even under changed circumstances" is

granted. Amendment shall be carried out forthwith and initialed

by the parties and their Advocate.

7. After perusing the consent terms, I am satisfied that

they are in order and are not contrary to law. The consent terms

appear to have been arrived at by the parties of their own

volition in reflection of their true intention and wishes. The

arrangements have been made in respect of custody of the

daughter, her expenses, the articles, belongings, jewelery,

valuables and other personal effects.

1.PS.11-17.doc

8. Both the plaintiffs are personally present in the Court.

They have tendered the affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief

in which they confirmed the correctness of what is stated in the

plaint. After perusing the consent terms as also affidavits, I am

satisfied that there is no element of force, fraud or coercion.

9. In the light of the aforesaid, there is no impediment to

grant the reliefs. Hence the marriage of the parties is dissolved

by consent. Suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b)

with no order as to costs. Decree be drawn up expeditiously.

10. All concerned to act upon the authenticated copy of

this order. Order accordingly.

(R. G. KETKAR, J.)

Deshmane (PS)