After declaring instant triple talaq, practised in Muslim community, as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Friday decided to examine validity of of various provisions of Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act which force estranged couples of the community to go through a torturous exercise to get divorce. The procedure under the 1938 personal law is cumbersome, involving a system akin to jury decision, and grants no access to mediation and settlement as available to Hindu women under the family court system. Encouraged by Muslim women's successful fight against triple talaq, a Parsi woman has moved the Supreme Court questioning the validity of provisions of Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act (PMDA). Agreeing to her her plea, a bench Justices Kurian Joseph and Amitava Roy decided to examine the issue and sought response from the Centre. It directed the petitioner Naomi Sam Irani to serve a copy of the petition to additional solicitor general so that the government could take a stand on the next date of hearing. Advocate Neela Gokhale, appearing for the petitioner, contended that PMDA demands that the divorce suit be filed before Parsi matrimonial courts and it was very inconvenient for estranged couples who work away from the metropolitan cities. She said 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, as well as custody and maintenance of children and their education. "These delegates... act like jury and the case is decided by majority decision. It is a fact that Parsi chief matrimonial court sits only once or twice a year... only for a short duration. In view of increase in divorce petitions, jury as a fact finding body practically impedes speedy justice," Irani said and requested the court to do away with the jury system. "The jury delegates adjudicate a divorce petition based on their personal notion of societal norms, morality and ethics, which may not be in sync with the principles of natural justice and the ethos and dynamics of society," the petition said and sought replacement of this system with the procedure provided under family courts, which attempts to provide speedy settlement through reconciliation.