Cricketer Shikhar Dhawan gets divorce due to cruelty by wife. 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.
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 have not been living as husband and wife since August 8, 2020.”
“Respondent’s/ estranged wife 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,” 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.
As Cricketer Shikhar Dhawan gets divorce due to cruelty by wife, the court also stated that the divorce decree is hereby issued on the grounds enumerated in Section 13(1)(a) of the HMA, thereby dissolving the marriage between the parties herein, which was performed on December 30, 2012, according to Sikh rites on November 30, 2012, at Gurudwara, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
Also read: “Could be a sad end to a glorious career”: Dinesh Karthik on Shikhar Dhawan
The Court noted that Petitioner had also requested permanent custody of his minor son, arguing that it was morally, psychologically, and mentally disastrous for the minor son to be with the respondent, who had consistently acted detrimentally to his welfare since his birth.
Furthermore, it has been argued that the fact that a criminal case is pending against the respondent is an important factor weighing in favour of the petitioner.
The custody issue in this case is more complicated than in any other case, not because of the merits, but for other reasons.
In the current case, an Australian court ordered the petitioner to withdraw all claims for custody of the child that were pending before this court.
This court, by order dated March 2, 2023, directed the respondent herein to withdraw her proceedings pertaining to the custody of the child in the Court in Australia, primarily because the petitioner herein initiated the proceedings pertaining to custody in India, whereas the Court in Australia ruled in its favour based on the “doctrine of forum convenience.”
“The child is an Australian citizen and is in Australia. Any order or judgement 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, atleast 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 through plea stated that he discovered post-marriage that the primary reason for the respondent to induce the petitioner into marrying her was merely to extort crores of rupees from him. Shortly after the marriage, the respondent threatened to fabricate defamatory and false material against the petitioner and circulate the same to destroy the reputation and cricketing career of the petitioner if he did not comply with her demands for money.
“The petitioner bought three immovable properties in Australia from his own 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.”
