Bombay High Court
Anahita Melvin Irani vs Melvin Tehmton Irani on 30 November, 2023
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
2. PS 30-09 @ NMSP 7-19.doc
IN THE PARSI CHIEF MATRIMONIAL COURT AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 7 OF 2019
IN
PARSI SUIT NO. 30 OF 2009
WITH
PARSI SUIT NO. 30 OF 2009
Anahita Melvin Irani ... Applicant/Plaintiff
V/s.
Melvin Tehmton Irani ...Respondent/Defendant
Ms. Taubon Irani with Ms. Disha Shetty for the Plaintiff/Applicant.
None for the Defendant/Respondent.
In the presence of the following delegates:-
1. Mr. Erric Elavia(Fore Person)
2. Mr. Commodore Medioma Bada (Retd.)
3. Mr. Farhad H. Hozdar
4. Ms. Pearl Mistry
5. Mr. Rumy Zara
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 30th NOVEMBER 2023 P.C. :
1. Today the matter has been listed before this Court conducting the Parsi Session where the empanelled delegates have also been elected to aid this Court in the trial of the suit.
2. This Notice of Motion seeking directions from this Court to the Defendant to file his examination-in-chief or in the alternative for a closure of the evidence of the Defendant.
Nikita Gadgil 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2023 23:36:10 :::
2. PS 30-09 @ NMSP 7-19.doc
3. Ms. Irani, learned Counsel for the Applicant/Plaintiff submits that the Defendant has already filed his examination-in-chief on 21 st April, 2017 and although nothing survives in the motion, however, since the Defendant has not been responding to the notices served upon him by the Plaintiff as well as through this Court, this Court pass an order of closure of the evidence of the Defendant.
4. Ms. Irani, submits that the Defendant had after conducting the cross-examination of the Plaintiff gone ahead and filed divorce proceedings before the Circuit Court for Frederick County, Maryland 21701, USA and despite the Plaintiff herein opposing the proceedings and challenging the jurisdiction of the said Court, a decree of divorce came to be passed by the said Court. Learned Counsel submits that it is settled law that a decree of divorce under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, has to be passed separately even if a decree has been passed by any other Court and therefore, this Court proceed to firstly close the evidence of the Defendant and thereafter, to hear this matter expeditiously, so that appropriate orders can be passed in the suit.
5. A perusal of the record indicates that this Court has time and again served the Defendant with notices of hearing of this matter Nikita Gadgil 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2023 23:36:10 :::
2. PS 30-09 @ NMSP 7-19.doc through email addresses furnished by the Plaintiff to the Registry and even the listing of the matter today has been intimated by the Registry to the Defendant by email, but despite that neither any response has been received nor anyone is present in the Court to represent the Defendant.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel and having considered the submissions, this Court is of the view that despite the Defendant having filed his examination-in-chief earlier and despite notices to appear before this Court, has chosen to remain absent or appoint an Advocate to represent his case, this is a fit case that the evidence of the Defendant be closed. The evidence of the Defendant accordingly stands closed.
7. Notice of Motion accordingly stands allowed in the above terms. List the suit on 13th December, 2023, for ex-parte hearing.
8. This Court, however, appreciates the presence of the empanelled delegates.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) Nikita Gadgil 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2023 23:36:10 :::