High Court of Gujarat
PANKAJKUMAR KESHAVLAL MAISURIYAversusDHANISHA PANKAJKUMAR MAISURIYA D/O HASMUKH NAROTTAM
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
Holding
The appellate court set aside the Family Court’s decree and remanded the suit for fresh determination, permitting amendment and further evidence.
Summary
The appellant married the respondent in 2008 and, citing a customary practice of their Maisuriya Bhatia community, executed a notarized divorce deed in 2009. In 2025 the appellant filed a divorce suit in the Surat Family Court to obtain a judicial decree required for a US visa, but the court dismissed the suit on the ground that the appellant failed to prove the existence of a community custom permitting mutual divorce. The appellant appealed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, arguing that the notarized deed and affidavits of community elders should suffice to establish the custom. The High Court examined the affidavits and the deed, noted the appellant’s inability to present sufficient oral and documentary evidence before the Family Court, and held that a competent decree was necessary for the appellant’s visa and other purposes. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the Family Court’s decree, remanded the matter for a fresh hearing, and allowed the appellant to file an amendment and adduce further evidence, without expressing any view on the merits. The appeal was allowed at the admission stage and no costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court erred in dismissing the divorce suit for lack of proof of a customary practice of mutual divorce in the appellant’s community.
- Whether a notarized divorce deed and affidavits of community elders are sufficient to establish the existence of such a custom under the Family Courts Act.
Legislation cited
Subjects
divorcecustomary lawmutual consent divorceFamily Courts ActSection 19appealjudicial decreevisa
Judgment
C/FA/2805/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2805 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2805 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 2 of 2026
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2805 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE) NO. 3 of 2026
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2805 of 2026
==========================================================
PANKAJKUMAR KESHAVLAL MAISURIYA
Versus
DHANISHA PANKAJKUMAR MAISURIYA D/O HASMUKH NAROTTAM
==========================================================
Appearance:
ZAINAB I BHARMAL(9298) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 02/07/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. This First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act,
1984, is directed against the judgment and decree dated
15.05.2026, passed by the learned Family Court, Surat, in Family
Suit No. 1307 of 2025, whereby, the Family Court was pleased to
dismiss, appellant’s suit to declare dissolution of marriage.
2. We have heard learned counsel Ms. Zainab Bharmal appearing for
and on behalf of appellant herein.
3. Brief facts leading to file this appeal are as follows:
Page 1 of 4
C/FA/2805/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026
(i) Marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on
13.03.2008 as per Hindu Rights and Rituals applicable to their
community. Admittedly, parties belonged to Maisuriya Bhatia
Community. On November, 2008, on account of matrimonial
discord between the parties, they decided to live separately and
thereafter, mutually dissolved their marriage on 10.08.2009 by
executing customary notarized divorce deed duly signed by the
parties and the witnesses present over there. In the divorce deed, it
was expressly recorded that, dissolution was being effected in
accordance with ancient custom prevailing in the community,
which recognizes such mode of dissolution.
(ii) Since 2009, the parties have part their ways and living separately
since long. In 03.06.2025, U.S. Consulate General refused to grant
VISA to the appellant and asked a proper decree of divorce.
(iii) A Divorce Suit came to be filed on 09.07.2025 before the Family
Court, Surat. The respondent herein did not have contested the suit.
(iv) The Family Court, after appreciation of the oral evidence of the
appellant, was pleased to dismiss the suit, observing that, the
appellant failed to prove that, there is a custom prevailing in their
caste to dissolve the marriage mutually.
4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel Ms.
Zainab Bharmal invited our attention towards the sworn affidavit
of the witnesses namely Alpesh Maisuriya, Maheshkumar
Maisuriya, contractor – Kuldeep Chhotalal, to contend that, the
Page 2 of 4
C/FA/2805/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026
appellant belonged to Maisuriya Bhatia (Nayee community) and as
per the administration and affairs of the community managed by
the persons referred above, there is custom in the Nayee
community, permitting dissolution of marriage by mutual consent
through intervention of community leaders and since long, this
custom being followed by the members of the community. Thus,
therefore, it is submitted that before the learned Family Court, the
appellant had only produced the copy of Notarized Divorce Deed
and nothing else and that is why the Family Court while dismissing
the suit, observed that, the appellant failed to prove the prevalent
custom of the community for getting divorce by mutual consent.
However, the appellant could not adduce sufficient evidence on
this count and he was under impression that Notarized Divorce
Deed is sufficient to prove the prevailing customs.
5. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the judgment and decree
may be set aside and matter be remanded to the Family Court to
decide the issue afresh.
6. We have perused the affidavits of the community persons as
referred above, including the Notarized Divorce Deed. Before the
Family Court, the appellant did not have adduced the oral as well
as documentary evidence, as referred herein to prove prevailing
custom for mutual divorce. Even, he could not prove the Notarized
Divorce Deed. In such circumstances, in our opinion, in order to
get VISA and for the purpose of passport, etc. the decree of
competent Court is necessary. The respondent wife has contested
Page 3 of 4
C/FA/2805/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026
the suit and she is settled out of India. Thus, to do substantial
justice to the parties, let fresh opportunity be given to the appellant
to prove his claim for divorce.
7. For the reasons recorded, the judgment and decree dated
15.05.2026 passed in Family Suit No. 1307 of 2025 by the Family
Court, Surat is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to decide
the suit afresh. The appellant is permitted to file amendment
application, so as to incorporate the necessary and requisite
grounds for divorce and also permitted to adduce oral as well as
documentary evidence, as referred herein. The appellant also
permitted to file fresh affidavit, in form of examination-in-chief.
The Family Court shall decide the suit in accordance with law on
its own merits. We have not expressed any opinion on merits.
8. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed at the admission stage in the
aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
9. In view of the order passed in main First Appeal, no orders in
connected Civil Applications and are disposed of accordingly.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
P.S. JOSHI/03.07.2026
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: PALLAV SUBHASHCHANDRA JOSHI(HC00177), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 03/07/2026 17:41:41
Page 4 of 4
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "divorce"Sign in to search