PAYNE AND CO Vs. PIROJSHAH NUSSERWANJI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is an offshoot of case No. 3 of 1910 filed in the Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court by the defendant Pirosha Nusserwanji Patel against his wife Soonabai and which was heard before me in July last. For a correct appreciation of the questions in dispute in this suit, it is necessary to set out shortly the facts and circumstances of that case, The parties at the hearing of this suit agreed that I should treat all the papers in that case as papers before the Court in this suit.

(2.) In the Matrimonial Suit, the defendant in this suit Pirosha charged his wife Soonabai with having committed adultery with the co-respondent therein and prayed for a decree for the dissolution of his marriage with her. Soonabai denied adultery with the co-respondent but admitted that she was compelled to have illicit intercourse with Pirosha s father, that Pirosha knew of this and connived at it and that he had condoned the offence. It was contended on her behalf that if the husband had been guilty of connivance and condonation as alleged by her, he was not entitled to succeed even though adultery with the co-respondent or with other persons were proved against her. The fight between the parties at the outset was most acrimonious. The plaintiff applied for commissions to examine his witnesses at Bangalore, Madras and Ootacamund and those commissions had to be granted. These commissions were executed and voluminous evidence was recorded. The case came on for hearing on the 4th of July. A suggestion from the Court, that in view of the fact that there were children of the marriage, it was desirable to avoid in some way the unpleasant trial of a most unpleasant action, was not accepted. The hearing proceeded and the case was heard on the 4th, 5th and the 6th of July. At 1-35 on the third day of hearing, I was informed that the parties were settling their differences and I was asked to give them time till 3-30, p. M. This was done. At the re-assembling of the Court, I was asked to record the following decree by consent of all the three parties:- Suit dismissed. All allegations made by the purl.ies to the suit against other party or parties and allegations made by the defendant against her father-in-law Nusserwanji unreservedly withdrawn, Plaintiff to pay defendant s costs of the suit. To other order as to costs. The above order relating to costs to be without prejudice to any right the defendant s attorneys may have in law to recover their attorney and client costs from the plaintiff.

(3.) The last reservation in favour of Soonabai s solicitors is embodied in the decree.