JAYANT KANAIYALAL SHROFF Vs. YASHODHARA JAYANT SHROFF
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Jayant Kanaiyalal Shroff
Yashodhara Jayant Shroff
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) By this Appeal, the appellant - husband has taken an exception to the judgment and decree dated 16 th February, 2008 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court No.6, Bandra, Mumbai. We are directing that names of the parties in the cause title of the judgment shall be masked and
accordingly, the appellant and the respondent have been described as "H" and "W" respectively. We
have also masked the names appearing at various places in this judgment.
(2.) We had kept this Appeal pending with the hope that the parties will see the reason and will come out with amicable solution. But, so far, there is no
(3.) The marriage between the parties was solemnizsed on 6 th July, 1994 in accordance with the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (for short "the said Act"). At the time of marriage, the respondent - wife
was a spinster. However, the appellant - husband was a divorcee. He had two children from his first
marriage. At the time of marriage, the age of his son was 15 years and the age of the daughter was 8
years. The appellant - husband filed a Petition No.A-507 of 2000 of 2 nd May, 2000 seeking a
decree of divorce on the grounds set out in clauses (d) and
(e) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 27 of the said Act. The first ground was of cruelty and the second
ground was that the respondent has been suffering intermittently from mental disorder of such kind
and to such an extent that the appellant - husband cannot be reasonably be expected to live with her.
A decree of injunction was prayed for by the appellant - husband in respect of Flat No.404 (for short "the said flat") in Twin Star Building, Shristy Complex, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai. Injunction sought was for restraining the respondent - wife from entering upon or remaining upon the suit flat.
The prayer for perpetual injunction was also sought restraining the respondent - wife from visiting premises of M/s. Vitrun Glass where the appellant was working and from contacting the appellant's employer on telephone. The Petition was contested by the respondent - wife by filing her written statement. The appellant adduced evidence of himself by filing an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief at Exhibit - 21 and additional affidavit in lieu of examination at Exhibit - 31. The respondent examined herself by filing an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief.
Apart from examining themselves, the parties did not examine any other witnesses but both parties adduced documentary evidence. By the impugned decree, the learned Judge of the Family Court held that the appellant was not entitled to any relief and proceeded to dismiss the Petition. ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.