MEHER ROHINTON MOOS Vs. ROHINTON FRAMROZE MOOS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Gentlemen Delegates, who are the sole Judges of facts, have unanimously found that the defendant to the suit is guilty of desertion and that the defendant to the counter -claim is guilty of constructive desertion. In the very special and peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I shall follow the ratio of the House of Lords in Blunt v. Blunt [1943] 2 All. E.R. 76, that where injustice would result in granting relief to one party and refusing it to the other, the Court should pronounce the decree in favour of both without drawing a distinction between them.

(2.) IN Price v. Price [1968] 3 All. E.R. 543, it was held that both the husband and wife were guilty of mutual desertion as neither obtained nor sought to obtain the consent of the other and that neither thought that he or she had the consent of the other or cared whether the other consented or not. It was further held in that case that what applies to the wife applies equally to the husband.

(3.) IN Mehta v. Mehta (1965) Suit. No. 4 of 1963, Kantawala J., as he then was, sitting as the matrimonial Judge in the Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court at Bombay, passed a simultaneous decree of divorce in favour of both the parties inter alia on the ground of desertion.