Delhi Family Court has accepted all the allegations made by Shikhar Dhawan against his wife in his divorce petition

Cricketer Shikhar Dhawan and her estranged wife received a divorce on Wednesday from the Delhi family court, which also ruled that the petitioner (Shikhar Dhawan) was entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Cricketer Shikhar Dhawan and her estranged wife received a divorce on Wednesday from the Delhi family court, which also ruled that the petitioner (Shikhar Dhawan) was entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Harish Kumar’s family court judge while dissolving their 11 years old wedlock said:

“There is no dispute that both parties had agreed to take divorce by mutual consent and that their marriage is otherwise dead long ago and has not been living as husband and wife since August 8, 2020.”

“Respondent’s/ estranged wife’s intentional decision to leave this matter uncontested also shows her desire that the court should pass a decree of divorce even at the cost of holding her guilty of the matrimonial offense as she knows that no harm could be caused to her even if she is held to have treated the petitioner with cruelty because she has already obtained sufficient favorable orders from the Federal Circuit and Family Court in Australia,”

the court said.

“This thought of her has given her the courage to not abide by the order dated March 2, 2023, and June 6. 2023 of this court deliberately and intentionally. Hence, the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed above petitioners are entitled to a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty,”

Court added.

The court further stated that the marriage between the parties herein, performed on December 30, 2012, following Sikh rites on November 30, 2012, at Gurudwara, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, is hereby dissolved by the decree of divorce on the grounds listed in Section 13(1)(a) of the HMA.

The Court took notice of the petitioner’s request for permanent custody of his minor son, noting that the minor boy’s presence with the respondent, who has persistently behaved against his best interests since his birth, would be ethically, psychologically, and mentally devastating. It has also been claimed that the fact that a criminal case is still pending against the respondent is a significant factor favoring the petitioner.

In this situation, the custody dispute is comparatively trickier than in any other case—not because it is more important, but for other factors. In the present case, a court in Australia ordered the petitioner to withdraw all of his custody-related claims that were pending before this court.

This court directed the respondent herein to withdraw her proceedings relating to the custody of the child in the Court in Australia by order dated March 2, 2023, while the petitioner, in this case initiated the proceedings relating to custody here in India, whereas the Court in Australia ruled in its favor based on the “doctrine of forum convenience.”

“The child is an Australian citizen and is in Australia. Any order or judgment can be implemented in foreign territory effectively only if the State machinery of that foreign country is willing to implement the same either voluntarily or under international obligations,”

the court said.

“In the meantime, subject to the academic schedule of the child, the respondent is hereby directed to bring the child to India for visitation purposes, including an overnight stay, with the petitioner and his family members, at least for half the period of school vacation during the academic calendar. Subject to the academic schedule of the child respondent is further under obligation to let the child have unsupervised meetings with the petitioner in Australia for sufficient duration as and when he visits Australia with advance intimation,”

the Court said in an order.

Shikar Dhawan claimed in his appeal that he learned after the wedding that the respondent had primarily induced the petitioner to marry her to extort crores of rupees from him. 

Soon after their marriage, the respondent threatened to invent false and defamatory information about the petitioner and spread it to ruin his reputation and cricket career if he did not give in to her requests for money.

“The petitioner bought three immovable properties in Australia from his funds but was compelled by the respondent to make her the 99% owner in one property and joint owner in two properties. The respondent had taken a chunk of the net sale proceeds of one property and the entire net sale proceeds of the second property and was demanding that the title of the third property be transferred to her,”

Shikhar Dhawan stated in his plea.