Shikhar Dhawan and his Wife separated
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.”
Court ruling
“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.
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 by the decree of divorce on the grounds listed in Section 13(1)(a) of the HMA.
Custody of son is complicated after divorce of Shikhar Dhawan
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 defendant is a significant factor favoring the petitioner.
In this case, the custody dispute is significantly more complicated 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 arguments that were pending in this court.
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,” 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.
Also Read: Asian Games 2023 : Lovlina’s Dream Run Ends In Final
Australian court involvement
“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 claimed in his appeal that he learned after the wedding that the respondent had primarily induced the petitioner to marry her in order 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.
