1 IN THE PARSI CHIEF MATRIMONIAL COURT AT BOMBAY PARSI SUIT NO.3 OF 2009 Bakhtawar Rumi Panthaky ..Plaintiff No.1. And Rumi Firoze Panthaky ..Plaintiff No.2. .... Ms. A.S. Khushrushahi for the Plaintiffs. CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. Assisted by Foreman and 3 Lady Members and one male Member. 22nd September, 2009. P.C.: 1. This is a suit for divorce by mutual consent under Section 32-B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 ("the Act"). The parties are both Parsi Zoroastrians and were married on 27th April, 1993, according to Parsi Zoroastrian rites and customs. The First and Second Plaintiffs have three children: Two daughters born on 4th April, 1994 and 3rd June, 1996 and a son born on 12th January, 2003. The Second Plaintiff is a practicing priest. Serious matrimonial differences arose between the parties and they have lived separately since November 2 2007. Consent Terms have been arrived at between the parties, a copy of which is annexed at Exhibit B to the Plaint. Parties have filed affidavits in lieu of the examination in chief and have personally verified the correctness of what has been stated in their respective affidavits of examination. Apart from what has been stated in the Consent Terms, the Second Plaintiff has handed over to the First Plaintiff as part of the settlement two IDBI Bonds of a maturity value of Rs.24,015/- and the relevant details of certain investments in UTI Mutual Fund to which the First Plaintiff would be entitled. The Second Plaintiff has also undertaken to the Court that he will pay over an amount of Rs.35,000/- out of the maturity value of certain ICICI bonds which stand in the name of the Second Plaintiff and which are due to mature in or about September 2010. The undertaking of the Second Plaintiff is accepted. Parties have agreed that the custody of the minor children shall remain with the First Plaintiff. Since two of the children are daughters and the youngest child is six years of age, it would be in the interest and the welfare of the three minor children that custody should be given to the First Plaintiff. The arrangement which has been made by the parties is in the interest of the 3 welfare of the minor children. 2. In view of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, F.I.Rebello, J., dated 18th October, 2004 in Suit No.15 of 2004, which was confirmed in appeal by the Division Bench on 10th March, 2005, it is not necessary for the Court to consult the delegates in a suit under Section 32-B for divorce by mutual consent. 3. Both the parties are present before the Court and have deposed in support of the claim in the suit. Both the parties have stated that they are agreed to a divorce by mutual consent. I am of the view, on the basis of the evidence which has been recorded, that the marriage has been solemnised under the provisions of the Act; that the averments in the plaint are true and that the consent of either party to the suit was not obtained by force or fraud. 4. There is no reason why the prayers sought in the suit should not 4 be allowed. A divorce by mutual consent is in the interest of both the parties and having regard to the fact that they have lived apart for a period in excess of one year, there is no possibility now of a reconciliation. The suit is accordingly, decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). ****