JUDGMENT :- This is a suit filed by a husband against his wife, both practising Jewish Religion, praying for a Decree for divorce of their marriage. In the alternative the plaintiff-husband has prayed for judicial separation against the defendant. Thirdly, the plaintiff-husband has prayed for the custody of the minor daughter Michelle and lastly, for costs of the suit.

2. The suit was called out for hearing and final disposal today, when the plaintiff was represented by his Advocate. The defendant has remained absent. The Affidavit of Service has been marked as Exhibit 'A'. A copy of the letter of the Superintendent of Post offices, Bombay City South Division, addressed to the Sheriff of Bombay has been marked as Exhibit 'B'.

3. Tile plaintiff has examined himself. In his evidence he has deposed that he and the defendant both practiced Jewish Religion and that he was domiciled in India. He has stated that he was married to the defendant on 24th May, 1972 at the Jewish Synagogue, Byculla, Bombay, according to Jewish Rites and Ceremonies. The plaintiff has produced the certificate of marriage issued by the Synagogue, which has been tendered and marked Exhibit 'C'.

4. After the marriage, the parties resided at Simla House, Napean Sea Road, Bombay. There is one issue of the said marriage a daughter named Michelle born in Bombay on 20th August, 1973.

5. The plaintiff stated that after the marriage, the defendant without any reasonable cause and without his consent left Bombay and went to reside with her parents in Israel and since then the parties had not cohabited or resided together.

6. The plaintiff stated that sometime later he followed the defendant to Israel. The plaintiff met the defendant when the defendant told him that she did not wish to continue living with him as his wife and that she intended to reside with her parents in Israel. The plaintiff thereafter obtained a decree for divorce against the defendant in the Jewish Religious Court. The plaintiff has produced the decree of divorce together with the translation thereof, which has been marked as Exhibit 'D'. The plaintiff stated that there was no collusion between him and the defendant in respect of the subject matter of the suit. The plaintiff stated that the defendant had deserted him for a period of over two years and, therefore prayed for a decree for divorce.

7. The question which I have to consider in this suit is whether this Court hat jurisdiction to pass a Decree of Divorce where the parties professed Jewish Religion. This question was considered by this Court in the case of Benjamin v. Benjamin reported in 28 Bom LR 328 : (AIR 1926 Bom 169), wherein Crump, J. observed :-

"Here the parties are Jews and the question is whether clause 12 of the Letters Patent gives this Court jurisdiction to entertain a suit arising out of matrimonial disputes between Jews.. ... .... . ... It follows that nothing was there decided which is in any way relevant to the question now before me. I reach this conclusion the more readily as it avoids the position which the Privy Council deprecated so strongly in Ardaseer Cursetjee V. Perozeboye,*when their Lordships said : "But we should much regret if there ware no Courts and no law whereby a remedy could be administered to the evils which must be incidental to the married life amongst. them." Those words are as applicable to Jews as to litigants of any other persuasion, and, as I have endeavoured to show, Cl.12 of the Letters Patent was deliberately intended to remove the difficulty. I hold, therefore, that I have jurisdiction to entertain this suit, and that in deciding it the Jewish law must be applied "with such adaptations to the circumstances of the case as justice may require ... ... .. .. .." "It would thus appear that under the Jewish law the plaintiff is entitled to divorce, and it may be noted that the result would be the same under English Laws it now stands."

* Reported in (1856) 6 Moo Ind App 348 (PC)

8. The next question which

Click Here to Read the rest of this document