The household court docket of Delhi on Wednesday granted divorce to Cricketer Shikhar Dhawan and her estranged spouse and mentioned the petitioner (Shikhar Dhawan) is entitled to decree of divorce on the bottom of cruelty. Harish Kumar’s household court docket choose whereas dissolving their 11 years outdated wedlock mentioned, “There is no dispute that both parties had agreed to take divorce by mutual consent and that their marriage is otherwise dead long ago and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 docket mentioned.

“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.

Court additional mentioned that the decree of divorce on the bottom enumerated in Section 13(1)(a) of the HMA is hereby handed thereby dissolving the wedding between events herein, carried out on December 30, 2012, in line with Sikh rites on November 30, 2012 at Gurudwara, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

The Court famous that Petitioner has additionally prayed for the grant of everlasting custody of his minor son submitting that it was morally, psychologically and mentally disastrous for the minor son to be with respondent who constantly acted detrimentally to his welfare proper from his start. Additionally, it has additionally been submitted that since a legal case is pending in opposition to the respondent, mentioned truth is a vital issue weighing in favour of the petitioner.

The subject of custody within the current case is relatively extra sophisticated than some other case not on deserves however for different causes. In the current case Court in Australia directed the petitioner herein to withdraw all his declare qua the custody of the kid pending earlier than this court docket.

This court docket vide order dated March 2, 2023, directed the respondent herein to withdraw her proceedings qua the custody of the kid within the Court in Australia primarily given that petitioner herein had first began the proceedings qua custody right here in India whereas the Court in Australia dominated in its favour following “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 docket mentioned.

“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 purchased three immovable properties in Australia from his personal funds however was compelled by the respondent to make her the 99% proprietor in a single property and joint proprietor in two properties. The respondent had taken a piece of the online sale proceeds of 1 property and your complete web 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.

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)