1 abs IN THE PARSI CHIEF MATRIMONIAL COURT AT BOMBAY PS SUIT NO. 5 OF 2010 Farokh Rumi Tatary .. Plaintiff No.1 And Jasmine Farokh Tatari .. Plaintiff No.2 Ms. Sanober P. Nanavati for the plaintiffs. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. Assisted by Foreman and 3 Male Members and one Lady Member. DATE : 18/3/2010 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing both for the plaintiff no.1 and the plaintiff no.2. 2. This suit is filed under section 32-B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936. The plaintiff no.1 has filed his affidavit dated 18th February 2010 in lieu of examination in chief. The plaintiff no.2 has declined to cross examine him. The plaintiff no.2 has filed her affidavit dated 18th February 2010 in lieu of examination in chief. The plaintiff no.1 has declined to cross examine her. 2 3. The plaintiff no.1 is the husband and the plaintiff no.2 is the wife. They married on 29th January 1993 in accordance with Parsi Zoroastrian rites and customs. The marriage certificate is produced at Exhibit-A to the plaint. One daughter Delna has been born to them and she is presently 15 years old.. 4. After the marriage, the plaintiff no1 and the plaintiff no. 2 started residing together in the flat bearing flat no.14 situated on the first floor of Cama Building, Kashinath Street, Tardeo, Mumbai belonging to the grand mother of the plaintiff no.1. According to the parties, in few years of the marriage they discovered that they were temperamentally completely different and incompatible with each other. Both of them realised that they could not live together as husband and wife. They therefore decided to part their ways. The plaintiff no.1 left the house and started living with his paternal uncle at Grant Road for some time, but later returned to his grand mother’s flat. During the period they were living separately, they realised that they cannot come together and therefore decided to take a divorce by mutual consent. Accordingly, the present petition has been filed. 3 5. The parties have arrived at consent terms regarding dissolution of marriage. Consent terms duly signed by the plaintiff no.1 and the plaintiff no.2 are annexed to the plaint as Exhibit-B. In the consent terms, it is agreed that the plaintiff no.1 will have custody of the daughter Delna and the plaintiff no.2 will have free access as per her convenience. The parties have also agreed that the plaintiff no.1 would allow the plaintiff no.2 to reside in the same house. It is also agreed that the plaintiff no.2 shall not allow any of her relatives or friends to visit in the said premises and that she alone would have right of residence till she remarries. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any impediment by granting a decree of divorce under section 32-B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) There shall be a decree of dissolution of marriage between the plaintiff no.1 and the plaintiff no.2 by mutual consent under section 32-B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1036. 4 (ii) The consent terms filed as Exhibit-B to the plaint are accepted. It is however clarified that the consent terms shall not be binding on the grand mother of the plaintiff no.1 because she has not appeared before the Court to give her consent. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)