1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PARSI SUIT NO.30 OF 2008 Katy Eddie Pavri .. Plaintiff Versus Eddie Dorab Pavri .. Defendant Ms.Z.S.Irani for plaintiff None for defendant. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Assisted by: Foreman and Four Lady Members DATE : 5th March 2009. P.C. . Ms.Irani appearing for plaintiff states that the defendant is duly served as evident from the affidavit proving service. No W.S. is filed denying, disputing and dealing with the case set out in the plaint. The defendant is absent although the matter is listed on today’s board. 2. It is in these circumstances, she submits 2 that the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the plaintiff be taken on record. 3. The plaintiff is present in court. She confirms the statement made in the affidavit. She states that there is a small typographical error in para 1 of the affidavit. However, the original marriage certificate is annexed as Exh.A to the plaint. That evidences that she got married as per Parsi Zorastrian Rites on 4th June 1981. On the date of marriage her name was Katy Soli Kapadia. The defendant was known as Eddie Dorab Pavri. She seeks leave to correct the typographical error. Leave granted. The error be corrected in terms of Exh.A to the plaint. 4. The plaintiff confirms the signature below the affidavit and states that she has signed the same. She states that all statements made therein are true and correct. She states that the annexures are also proved inasmuch as 3 the original marriage certificate is annexed as Exh.A. She has annexed the copy of the will which has been probated by this Court. However, she has annexed the complaint made to the Gamdevi Police Station. She confirms the contents of each these documents and states that they are true and correct. She also confirms the contents of the advertisement inserted by the father of the defendant stating therein that the defendant has changed his name to Alexander Ramesh Bansal. However, this name is changed without his consent. 5. In the light of the above, affidavit is taken on record and marked "X". The documents are also taken on record and marked as "X-1". 6. There is no written statement on behalf of the defendant. 7. Considering the pleadings the following 4 issues are framed:- (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant had inflicted mental and physical cruelty on her? (2) Whether there is collusion, connivance or condonation between the parties regarding subject matter of the suit? (3) Whether there is any improper delay in filing the suit? (4) What order? 8. Plaintiff has stepped into the box and has filed an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. The defendant has not remained present to cross examine plaintiff on the case set up in the plaint. There is no written statement either. 5 9. In these circumstances, Ms.Irani prays that if the uncontroverted statements in the plaint and the affidavit are perused, it is clear that the plaintiff has proved that she is treated with cruelty by the defendant. Further, the defendant has behaved in such a way so as to render, in the judgement of this Court, improper to compel the plaintiff to live with defendant. She prays that considering the acts of cruelty this is a fit case where the Decree for Divorce as prayed be granted. In other words, she submits that the marriage be dissolved under the provisions of Section 32(dd) of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act. 10. The opinion of the Delegates/ Jury is that the plaintiff has proved that defendant inflicted mental and physical cruelty on her. In other words, the unanimous verdict of the Jury is that Issue No.1 can be answered in the 6 affirmative. 11. Apart from the opinion of the Jury, having perused the plaint and the affidavit, I am satisfied that this is a fit case where the plaintiff was treated with cruelty by defendant from the date the marriage has been solemnised. The contents of the plaint and affidavit so also perusal of the documents, such as police complaint, leave me in no manner of doubt that the plaintiff has proved her case. There is no cross examination on the case set up in the plaint. In such circumstances, Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative. 12. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 have to be answered in the Negative, as I am in agreement with the opinion that there is no improper delay in filing the suit. 13. There is no question of any collusion 7 between the plaintiff and defendant nor is there any material to hold that there is condonation between the parties. On the other hand averments in para 18 are supported by documents so also testimony of the plaintiff. 14. In these circumstances, the suit is decreed in terms of prayer clause (a). (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)