NEW DELHI: The validity of Parsis’ personal law is under the legal scanner once again, on a petition by Naomi Sam Irani, 33 and mother of a 10-year son and an 8-year daughter, from Panchgani, Maharashtra, challenging the British-era Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act (PMDA) of 1936 empowering “local Parsi people” to be the jury in deciding whether estranged couple be granted divorce or not.
A Bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and Amitava Roy on Friday issued a notice seeking the Centre’s view on her petition, challenging the Act as violative of her fundamental rights under Article 14 and 21. The Bench wondered why such a law has not been challenged so far.
In her petition, she says: “…the impugned provision of the said Act is archaic which pre-dates the country’s independence. More importantly, it pre-dates the abolition of the jury system in our criminal jurisprudence in the 1960’s and as such it cannot be retained for just one community.”
She has knocked at the Apex Court’s door, citing a suit by her husband for dissolution of the marriage hanging before the Bombay High Court for close to one and a half years as till date “there has been no appointment of delegates as contemplated under the PMDA to participate in the pending matrimonial proceedings, depriving the petitioner of speedy disposal of her case.”
Section 18 of PMDA provides for constitution of special courts in Kolkata, Chennai and Mumbai where the chief justice of the HC concerned would have jurisdiction to appoint a judge who would be aided by five delegates, which together would decide alimony, maintenance as well as custody and maintenance of children and their education.
Naomi had married Sam Irani in 2005 under Zoroastrian-Iranian rites and customs as per the Act and hence she is not allowed to move the Family Courts, wondering why Parsis are excluded while every other person who is subject to their respective codified personal laws can approach the Family Courts for secure and speedy settlement.
Her counsel Neela Gokhale told the Court that she was inspired to move it after the Supreme Court’s intervention on behalf of the Muslim women to strike down triple talaq seen as a practice in violation of women fundamental rights to life and dignity.
