Indian cricketer Shikhar Dhawan’s divorce highlights mental cruelty in marriage under Indian law. Learn about the legal perspective and the court’s ruling.
In a significant legal development, Indian cricket star Shikhar Dhawan has been granted a divorce by a Delhi court, citing mental cruelty inflicted upon him by his estranged wife, Aesha Mukherji. This divorce case has shed light on Indian laws concerning mental cruelty in marriage and the court’s approach to such cases.
The couple, who tied the knot in 2012, share a ten-year-old son named Zoravar Dhawan. Aesha Mukherji, an Australian citizen and a former kickboxer born in India, resides in Australia with their son.
The Delhi court’s verdict emphasized that Shikhar Dhawan had endured severe mental agony due to being compelled to live separately from his son for an extended period. In Judge Harish Kumar’s ruling, it was noted, “Even though the wife denied the allegation, submitting that she genuinely wanted to live in India with him but could not due to her commitment towards her daughters from her previous marriage requiring her to stay in Australia, she could not come to live in India and that he was well aware of her commitment, yet she did not choose to contest the claim.”
While the court did not issue an order for permanent custody of Zoravar, it did grant Shikhar Dhawan mandatory visitation rights, allowing him to meet his son both in India and Australia. Additionally, the court instructed Aesha Mukherji to bring Zoravar to India for visitation purposes, including overnight stays with Dhawan and his family, particularly during school holidays.
This case has brought attention to Indian laws pertaining to mental cruelty in marriage. The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, which governs Hindu marriages, and the Special Marriage Act of 1954, which covers marriages irrespective of religion, include a cruelty clause, citing cruelty as valid grounds for divorce. However, these laws do not explicitly define what constitutes cruelty.
Indian courts interpret cruelty in marriage as “reprehensible conduct or departure from normal standards of conjugal kindness that causes injury to health or an apprehension of it.” While physical cruelty is straightforward, mental cruelty remains a broadly defined concept. It generally encompasses actions that cause severe frustration, making it impossible for one spouse to continue the matrimonial relationship.
Despite the lack of a precise definition, Indian courts have issued several judgments in divorce cases based on mental cruelty. Some examples include refusing intercourse without a valid reason, making false allegations about a spouse’s chastity, pressuring a spouse to separate from dependent parents, and neglecting to provide food for the spouse and children.
It’s crucial to note that mental cruelty is not limited to any specific gender; both husbands and wives can experience it, leading to the deterioration of the marital relationship.
Shikhar Dhawan’s divorce case highlights the significance of understanding mental cruelty in marriage within the context of Indian law and the legal remedies available to those who face such challenges in their relationships.