Mumbai: Dismissing a suit filed by a Parsi woman seeking a divorce, Bombay High Court held that as the Nov 2010 ceremony in Mumbai was not a valid marriage under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act , it has no jurisdiction to hear it.




“The suit is dismissed because of the vital jurisdictional fact not having been found to be in existence, posing a bar in law to proceed with the trial,” said Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan in Wednesday’s verdict.




He allowed the husband’s 2023 interim application seeking rejection of his wife’s 2018 suit under the Code of Civil Procedure . She had sought dissolution of their Aug 2010 marriage, Rs 5 crore in permanent alimony and Rs 1 lakh interim monthly maintenance.




The Australia-based couple had a civil marriage there in Aug 2010. The wife claimed that the Nov 2010 ‘Ashirvad’ ceremony in Mumbai solemnised their marriage under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act. The husband countered that it was merely a ‘Tandoorasti’ reception ceremony entailing blessings of elders, as is customary with Parsis who wed outside India and return to enable relatives to wish them. His advocate, Parul Vedak, said the suit is barred by the res judicata principle as the couple had already got divorced in Australia , with the final division of assets and their child’s custody.




Justice Sundaresan noted that in the Sept 2024 hearings, both agreed to have the Mumbai ceremony video-examined by a jury of Parsi delegates. The jury was “unanimous” that it was not a marriage ceremony (Ashirvad) but a blessing ceremony (Tandoorasti) practised among Zoroastrian couples who marry abroad. It noted a core missing element — the signing of a document by the couple and their witnesses. Under Section 3 (requisites), a Parsi marriage has to be solemnised in an Ashirvad ceremony by a priest in the presence of two Parsi witnesses.




The wife’s advocate, Taubon Irani, said the jury’s opinion should not bind the court and the trial should be conducted. But Justice Sundaresan said Section 3 read with Section 29 (courts in which suits to be brought) deny HC jurisdiction.




“The parties reside in Perth , and the sole connecting factor was the (marriage) solemnisation ceremony said to have been conducted in Mumbai. If the Nov 2010 event is not a solemnisation ceremony, then that connecting jurisdictional fact is missing. Therefore, the suit is barred within... CPC,” he said. He also rejected the res judicata contention, noting the Australian court expressly noticed the suit, formed no view on it and left the husband’s alleged Indian properties subject to its outcome.