Indian Cricketer Shikhar Dhawan Gets Divorce on Grounds Of Cruelty By Wife: Cricketer Shikhar Dhawan and her estranged wife got 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 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.”

Read More | Shaheen Afridi in new Pepsi ad? Watch Pakistani pacer dropping major hint

“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.

Read More | Shadab Khan Feels Rohit Sharma is most toughest Batsmen to Bowl

Court further said that the decree of divorce on the ground enumerated in Section 13(1)(a) of the HMA is hereby passed thereby dissolving the marriage between parties herein, performed on December 30, 2012, according to Sikh rites on November 30, 2012 at Gurudwara, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

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. It has also been claimed that the fact that a criminal case is still ongoing against the defendant is a significant factor favoring the petitioner.

Read More | Rohit Sharma Names the Toughest Bowler He faced

In this situation, the custody dispute is far more difficult 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.

This court vide order dated March 2, 2023, directed the respondent herein to withdraw her proceedings qua the custody of the child in the Court in Australia primarily for the reason that petitioner herein had first started the proceedings qua custody here in India whereas the Court in Australia ruled 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 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.

(With Input From NDTV)