Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 1209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.Y. KOGJE, N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, JJ.
Kamalrukh Tehmul Sethna - Appellant
Versus
Tehmul Burjor Sethna & Ors. - Respondents
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1487 of 2024 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024, In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1487 of 2024 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2025
Decided on : 05-08-2025
For the Appellant : MS. KRUTI M SHAH
For the Respondent: ADITYA C YAGNIK, JAYANI B SHAH
Limitation for filing divorce on adultery starts when substantial proof is obtained, not when initial suspicion arises, emphasizing the need for contextual evaluation in matrimonial disputes.
Headnote:(A) Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 - Sections 32(d) and 32(dd) - Divorce petition filed by wife on grounds of adultery and cruelty - Suit rejected as time-barred - Court held that limitation begins from the date when wife had authentic knowledge of adultery, i.e., 24.08.2016, not 08.10.2014 when initial suspicions arose - Appellate court emphasized the importance of context in determining limitation periods in matrimonial disputes. (Paras 20, 25, 26)
(B) Limitation - Timing for filing of divorce suit on grounds of adultery must consider the spouse's due diligence in ascertaining facts before proceeding legally - Adultery claims cannot be dismissed purely on technical grounds without evaluating the context of the marriage and efforts made by the spouse. (Paras 20, 25)
Facts of the case:
Appellant-wife filed a divorce petition on discovering explicit communications of the respondent-husband with multiple women. She filed suit for divorce on the grounds of adultery and cruelty following prolonged matrimonial difficulties. Court initially deemed it filed beyond the limitation period under 32(d).
Findings of Court:
Impugned order rejecting the suit was quashed; proceedings on the ground of adultery shall continue in conjunction with the cruelty claim.
Issues: Was the suit for divorce based on adultery time-barred? Was the start of limitation correctly determined?
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the limitation for filing the suit should commence from the date when the appellant had substantive evidence of adultery, thus affirming her right to pursue the claim despite prior suspicion.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. context of marriage and divorce proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. chronology of related legal actions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments on the limitation period. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court analysis on limitation issues. (Para 8 , 11 , 14) |
| 5. statutory limitation periods for divorce. (Para 15) |
| 6. reevaluation of the limitation based on factual knowledge. (Para 20) |
| 7. technicalities in matrimonial cases do not hinder justice. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 8. final determination on appeal. (Para 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
A.Y. KOGJE, J.
1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 20.01.2024 passed by the Principal District Judge, Surat and Parsi Matrimonial Court, Surat. Impugned order was passed on preliminary issue of limitation raised by respondent-husband in Special Marriage Petition (suit) No.6 of 2016, wherein wife had sought divorce under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short).
2. The brief facts of the case that the appellant-wife got married to respondent no.1 on 11.08.1987 according to Parsi Zoroastrian rites and rituals in Ahmedabad. Around October 2014, as the appellant-wife was facing an issue with her phone, her husband gave his old phone to her. On 08.10.2014, while setting up her phone she came across Whatsapp messages and emails consisting of explicit photographs and videos, wherein the respondent-husband was chatting with several women simultaneously. The appellant-wife thereafter left her matrimonial home and filed a complaint at Vastrapur Police Station on 16.11.2014. Thereafter, upon going to the matrimonial home along with P.I. Ramanuj and her friends, the respondent-husband upon being confronted regarding his affairs with multiple women he admitted to it but denied the fact that he abused the appellant-wife and accused her of not having any physical intimacy for over 10 years.
3. The respondent-husband filed a restitution petition being Family Suit No.192 of 2015 (Parsi Suit No.24 of 2016) before the Family Court, Ahmedabad on 02.02.2015. The appellant- wife filed Parsi Suit No.5 of 2015 before the Parsi Chief Matrimonial Session in Bombay High Court on 18.03.2015 seeking divorce.
3.1 The appellant-wife has thereafter filed Transfer Petition (Civil) No.612 of 2015 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for transferring Family Suit No.192 of 2015 from Family Court, Ahmedabad to Family Court, Mumbai. The said transfer petition was disposed of by order dated 11.12.2015 by transferring the proceedings of Family Suit No.192 of 2015 from the Family Court, Ahmedabad to Family Court, Mumbai by clarifying that in case the Family Court, Mumbai finds that it has no jurisdiction in the matter, it shall transfer the said case to such court as may be competent. The Review Petition (Civil) No.97 of 2016 filed by the respondent-husband against the said order was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 21.01.2016.
3.2 Thereafter, the respondent-husband in Parsi Suit No.5 of 2015 has filed Notice of Motion No.12 of 2015 seeking dismissal of suit for want of jurisdiction or alternatively to return the plaint to the appellant-wife (plaintiff) for presentation to the proper court which was allowed and the suit by order dated 25.08.2016 was transferred to the District Court at Surat in Gujarat along with the restitution petition being Family Suit No.192 of 2015 as there is an empanelled jury of delegates in Surat. Thereafter, there was one correction order on 02.10.2016. Against the said order dated 25.08.2015, the appellant-wife filed Appeal No.343 of 2016 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and the Appellate Bench of the High Court of Bombay by order dated 28.09.2016, disposed of the said appeal by dismissing both the suits, i.e Family Suit No.192 of 2015 as the respondent- husband withdrew the same and Parsi Suit No.5 of 2015 as it was withdrawn by the appellant-wife and the Court has reserved specific liberty to file fresh suits, in accordance with law.
3.3 Thereafter, vide order dated 1
