HC rejects Parsi woman’s divorce and ₹5-crore alimony plea, says Mumbai event was blessing ceremony, not marriage

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has rejected a divorce petition filed by a Parsi woman settled in Perth, Australia, after holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain her Parsi matrimonial suit because the ceremony held in Mumbai was not a valid Parsi marriage ceremony, but a “Tandoorasti” — a traditional Zoroastrian prayer, blessing and reception held for couples

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has rejected a divorce petition filed by a Parsi woman settled in Perth, Australia, after holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain her Parsi matrimonial suit because the ceremony held in Mumbai was not a valid Parsi marriage ceremony, but a “Tandoorasti” — a traditional Zoroastrian prayer, blessing and reception held for couples. The court relied on the unanimous finding of a jury of Parsi delegates that the November 2010 event was not an “Aashirwad”, the Parsi marriage ceremony required for the court to exercise jurisdiction under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.

The woman had approached the high court in 2018 seeking divorce from her estranged husband, claiming that their marriage had been solemnised in Mumbai in November 2010. She had also sought ₹5 crore as permanent alimony.

Her estranged husband, who is also settled in Perth, raised a preliminary objection to the petition, contending that the event held in Mumbai in November 2010 was merely a reception and that no rituals contemplated under Section 3 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 (PMD Act) had taken place in the city. He therefore argued that the high court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matrimonial suit.

The court referred the issue to a jury in September 2024, when a Parsi Session was held. The wife submitted a video recording of the Mumbai event for the jury’s consideration. The jury, comprising five delegates chosen by the state government from a panel, unanimously concluded that the event held on November 20, 2010, was not a marriage ceremony but a “Tandoorasti” or blessing ceremony, and not the “Aashirwad” ceremony followed by Parsis or Iranian Zoroastrians in India.

Following the jury’s decision, the woman argued that the event held in Mumbai was an “Aashirwad” ceremony or a blessings ceremony. She relied on the video, pointing out that people had stood around the newlyweds with lit candles in their hands — a ritual followed by Irani Zoroastrians in India — and contended that the event was therefore a marriage ceremony as contemplated under the PMD Act.

She further argued that the court was not bound by the “opinion” of the jury and that evidence should be led and a full trial conducted to determine whether the November 2010 event constituted a valid marriage ceremony.

A single-judge bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan rejected the argument and upheld the preliminary objection raised by the husband. The court noted that the parties had, by consent, agreed to refer the question of fact — whether the November 2010 event in Mumbai was a Parsi marriage ritual — to the jury, which had unanimously answered the question in the negative.

The court said the woman’s objection to the jury’s conclusion was too “simplistic” as it was based purely on the etymology of the term, an issue that would hardly require evidence to be led. It also held that her argument was contrary to the scheme of the PMD Act, which does not recognise different rituals followed by different Parsi groups in India.

“A jury comprising Parsi Zoroastrians is an integral feature of the PMDA only to preserve and protect the Parsi community’s rituals, customs and beliefs,” the court said.

“The jury has spoken and in the absence of any perversity, it would be inappropriate for this Court to disregard the conclusion of the jury on what is, in essence, an answer on the community’s custom,” it added.

The court further noted that the jury had expressly explained why the November 2010 event could not be regarded as a Parsi marriage ritual.

According to the court, the Parsi Zoroastrian community in India follows a ritual in which the bride and groom sign a document in the presence of a priest and two witnesses — one from each side. The court noted that this is an integral part of every Parsi marriage ceremony and is recorded on video, but nothing of this sort had taken place at the November 2010 event.

The absence of the essential marriage ritual meant that the Mumbai ceremony could not be treated as a Parsi marriage solemnised in India for the purposes of the PMD Act. The high court therefore upheld the husband’s preliminary objection and rejected the woman’s matrimonial suit for want of jurisdiction.