Jury’s limited role

On July 29, 2005, when the Mumbai High Court "was marking a poor attendance…on account of the still continuing bad weather, the Parsi Matrimonial Court was in full session over there,” noted a write up by Zarin Amrolia in the Afternoon Despatch and Courier of August 1, 2005. "One plausible reason for this could be the fact that this court meets only twice or thrice a year, when sufficient cases come on board,” adds the report. The July 2005 session had 12 pending cases tried by a deputed judge of the High Court who was assisted by a jury of five community members. From 30 delegates elected to the jury by the community, five are selected by draw to act as jury at each session. Officiating at the last session were Darius Gotla who has been associated with the Parsi Matrimonial Court for 31 years, former assistant commissioner of police Sam Patel, social workers Mahrukh Noble and Perin Hakim and principal of the Sunflower Playgroup at Rustom Baug, Mithoo Wadia.

All jury members were reportedly against the recent High Court directive that the jury’s advice will be sought only in ‘contested’ divorce cases and not when both parties have mutually consented to a divorce. In October 2004, the Bombay Parsi Punchayet had petitioned the High Court when a few orders were passed without consulting the jury. The community, it appeared, was keen to preserve the jury system for the Parsi Matrimonial Court, the only instance of a jury prevailing in India, for it was determined to minimize divorces within a small community, it was reported in the Mumbai Mirror of July 26, 2005.

With the jury members being paid Rs 500 for their services, they insist they are performing their duty not to earn money but because they perceive their role as that of peace makers and counselors. Noticing how people’s tolerance levels have gone down, Wadia commented that 50 percent of the divorce petitions were from couples who have been married for barely two years.

Patel recollected an instance when the jury advised one contesting couple to see a movie together during the break. When they came back they decided to withdraw their petition. Gotla was quoted in the Afternoon, "In one mutual consent case, both the parties were so poor that we paid the settlement. We have been helping people like this for so many years. Only if we are present during the cases can we do something like this.”