The Court took notice of the petitioner’s request for full custody of his small son, arguing that it would be ethically, physically, and emotionally devastating for him to live with the respondent because she persistently behaved against his best interests from the time of his birth.
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 due to cruelty. When ending their 11-year union, Harish Kumar’s family court judge remarked, “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 have not been living as husband and wife since August 8, 2020.”
The court stated: “Respondent’s/estranged wife’s intentional decision to leave this matter uncontested also shows her desire that the court should pass decree of divorce even at the cost of holding her guilty of the matrimonial offence 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 favourable orders from the Federal Circuit and Family Court in Australia.”
“This idea of her has given her the courage to deliberately and wilfully disobey the order dated March 2, 2023 and June 6, 2023 of this court. Because of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the petitioners in the current instance are entitled to a divorce judgement based on cruelty, the court added.
The court further stated that the marriage between the parties herein, performed on December 30, 2012, in accordance with Sikh rites on November 30, 2012, at Gurudwara, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, is hereby dissolved as a result of 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 cognitively devastating. Additionally, it has been claimed that the fact that a criminal case is still pending against the defendant is a significant factor favouring the petitioner.
In this scenario, the custody dispute is comparatively trickier than in any other case—and not because of any inherent legal issues. In the current case, an Australian court ordered the petitioner to drop all of his custody-related claims that were pending before this court.
The petitioner in this case initiated the proceedings relating to custody here in India, whereas the Court in Australia ruled in its favour based on the “doctrine of forum convenience,” and 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.
The youngster resides in Australia and is an Australian citizen. Any order or verdict can only be properly carried out in another country’s territory if that country’s government is ready to do so, either willingly or as a result of international duties, the court ruled.
The respondent is hereby instructed 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 child’s academic schedule. According to a court ruling, the respondent is further required to permit the child to have unsupervised contacts with the petitioner in Australia for a suitable amount of time as and when he visits Australia with advance notice, subject to the child’s academic schedule.
Through his plea, Shikar Dhawan claimed that he had learned after his marriage that the respondent had primarily done so in order to extract crores of rupees from him. The respondent threatened to concoct false and defamatory information about the petitioner soon after their marriage and spread it in an effort to ruin his reputation and cricket career if he did not give in to her requests for money.
The respondent forced the petitioner to give her 99% ownership of one property and joint ownership of the other two after he used his own money to purchase three immovable properties in Australia. The respondent was requesting the title of the second property after claiming a portion of the net sale proceeds of the first property and the entire net sale proceeds of the second.
Shikhar Dhawan pleaded in his request that ownership of the third property be given to her.
