Jayeshkumar Kanaiyalal Mistry vs Kokilaben Jayeshkumar Mistry
2022 Latest Caselaw 5987 Guj

     C/FA/314/2011                             JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 314 of 2011


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================

1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
     to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
     of the judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question
     of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
     of India or any order made thereunder ?

================================================================
                     JAYESHKUMAR KANAIYALAL MISTRY
                                 Versus
                     KOKILABEN JAYESHKUMAR MISTRY
================================================================
Appearance:
VASIM MANSURI(8824) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RITESH B DAVE(2815) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
          and
          HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
          PRACHCHHAK

                           Date : 06/07/2022
                          ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)

1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant against

the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2008 passed by the Family

Court No.4, Ahmedabad in Family Suit No.232 of 2000 (Old

C/FA/314/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022

No.422 of 1997) whereby the Court had allowed the suit

preferred by the respondent - Kokilaben Jayeshkumar Mistry and

the appellant herein was directed to fulfill the conjugal rights by

giving a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. This was given

along with the amount of maintenance. The couple does not

have any child begotten out of the said wedlock which had taken

place on 24.11.1995.

2. Many attempts had been done by the Court for arriving at

the settlement, however, it was never materialized.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have submitted

that the respondent herein has passed away on 08.04.2021

during the pandemic because of covid-19 virus. This would bring

to an end to the relationship of the marriage between the parties

in back of since death and the death certificate is having come

on record. The appellant has chosen not to press this appeal.

Hence, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

(SONIA GOKANI, J)

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL