A Delhi court has granted 37-year-old Indian cricket Shikhar Dhawan a divorce from his estranged wife, Aesha Mukherji, on the grounds of mental cruelty. The couple married in 2012 and have a ten-year-old son, Zoravar Dhawan.

A Delhi court has granted 37-year-old Indian cricket Shikhar Dhawan a divorce from his estranged wife, Aesha Mukherji, on the grounds of mental cruelty. The couple married in 2012 and have a ten-year-old son, Zoravar Dhawan. Aesha is an Australian citizen and resides there with Zoravar. Shikhar Dhawan's divorce petition sheds light on the Indian laws regarding mental cruelty in marriage. Delhi court on Shikhar's Dhawan's divorce petition In Dhawan's case, the Delhi court stated that his wife subjected him to mental agony by forcing him to live separately from his only son for several years. In the order, Judge Harish Kumar 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." ALSO READ | Hindu marriage not valid without 'saat pheras': Allahabad High Court The judge also stated that Aesha, a Melbourne-based kick-boxer who was born in India, made Shikhar suffer a long-distance marriage. Although the court has not passed an order of permanent custody of Zoravar, it has granted mandatory visitation rights to Dhawan to meet his son in India and Australia. Furthermore, it ordered Aesha to bring Zoravar to India for visitation purposes, including overnight stays with Dhawan and his family and during the school holidays. Indian laws on mental cruelty in marriage The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, which handles marriages between Hindus, and the Special Marriage Act of 1954, the law about marriages regardless of religion, contain a cruelty clause. Both acts consider cruelty in a marriage as a valid ground for divorce. However, they do not state what classifies as cruelty. The courts in India define cruelty as "the total of reprehensible conduct or departure from normal standards of conjugal kindness that causes injury to health or an apprehension of it." As per Indian law, there are two types of cruelty: physical and mental. While physical cruelty is definite and has no ambiguity, the courts in India have not been able to put down exactly what mental cruelty is. However, they have broadly based it on severe frustration, making it impossible for the spouse to continue matrimonial relationships. Courts in India have made multiple judgments in divorce cases based on mental cruelty despite its uncertain definition. Refusing intercourse without sufficient reason for a long time, making false allegations about a woman's chastity, forcing the husband to separate from dependent parents, and not feeding the husband and children are a few examples of mental cruelty from past divorce cases in India. Although the definition of mental cruelty is unclear, it certainly applies to both genders equally. Married couples can experience cruelty from either partner, causing the relationship to deteriorate. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

Shikhar Dhawan's divorce sheds light on Indian laws regarding mental cruelty in marriage

The Supreme Court has said that courts cannot force a husband to &quot;keep his wife&quot; as it asked a man, a pilot by profession, to deposit Rs 10 lakh as interim maintenance for his estranged wife and upkeep of their son.

The apex court restored the bail order of the Madras High Court which was cancelled after the husband refused to comply with the compromise agreement.

&quot;We cannot force a husband to keep his wife. It&#39;s a human relationship. You (man) deposit Rs 10 lakh with the trial court which will be withdrawn by the wife unconditionally to meet her immediate requirement,&quot; a bench of justices Adarsh Goel and U U Lalit said.

When the counsel appearing for the man said that the amount be reduced, the bench said that apex court is not a family court and no negotiations can be held.

&quot;If you agree to deposit Rs 10 lakh immediately, the bail order would be restored,&quot; the bench said.

The counsel then agreed to deposit Rs 10 lakh but sought some time.

&quot;We are inclined to restore the order of bail in view of the statement made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs 10 lakh with the trial court within a period of four weeks,&quot; the bench said.

It said that the amount may be withdrawn by the wife unconditionally, so that she can meet immediate requirements for herself and the child.

&quot;The said amount will be subject to adjustment in any future proceedings. The parties are free to reach mutual settlement for rehabilitation, as was earlier proposed. Accordingly, the order of bail will stand restored subject to above stipulations,&quot; the court said.

It directed that the pending proceedings may be completed by the trial court, as far as possible within a period of three months, as already directed by the high court.

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court had on October 11, cancelled his anticipatory bail saying the man has entered into a compromise memo with the complainant but contrary to the compromise memo, he had gone back from his promise and filed an evasive counter affidavit to wriggle out from his responsibilities.

It had noted that the very first condition of the memo that he would take her and their child to his place of working along with himself has not been fulfilled and under the pretext of reunion has made the wife to drop the departmental action that was initiated against him.

The high court had also noted that due to the false promise, the life of their child is in limbo as a transfer certificate has been obtained from the school.

It directed the police to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet before the trial court within three months.

The husband was booked under various sections of IPC including dowry harassment.&nbsp;

'We cannot force a husband to keep his wife. It's a human relationship,' the court said

The Supreme Court has said that courts cannot force a husband to "keep his wife" as it asked a man, a pilot by profession, to deposit Rs 10 lakh as interim maintenance for his estranged wife and upkeep of their son. The apex court restored the bail order of the Madras High Court which was cancelled after the husband refused to comply with the compromise agreement. "We cannot force a husband to keep his wife. It's a human relationship. You (man) deposit Rs 10 lakh with the trial court which will be withdrawn by the wife unconditionally to meet her immediate requirement," a bench of justices Adarsh Goel and U U Lalit said. When the counsel appearing for the man said that the amount be reduced, the bench said that apex court is not a family court and no negotiations can be held. "If you agree to deposit Rs 10 lakh immediately, the bail order would be restored," the bench said. The counsel then agreed to deposit Rs 10 lakh but sought some time. "We are inclined to restore the order of bail in view of the statement made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs 10 lakh with the trial court within a period of four weeks," the bench said. It said that the amount may be withdrawn by the wife unconditionally, so that she can meet immediate requirements for herself and the child. "The said amount will be subject to adjustment in any future proceedings. The parties are free to reach mutual settlement for rehabilitation, as was earlier proposed. Accordingly, the order of bail will stand restored subject to above stipulations," the court said. It directed that the pending proceedings may be completed by the trial court, as far as possible within a period of three months, as already directed by the high court. The Madurai bench of Madras High Court had on October 11, cancelled his anticipatory bail saying the man has entered into a compromise memo with the complainant but contrary to the compromise memo, he had gone back from his promise and filed an evasive counter affidavit to wriggle out from his responsibilities. It had noted that the very first condition of the memo that he would take her and their child to his place of working along with himself has not been fulfilled and under the pretext of reunion has made the wife to drop the departmental action that was initiated against him. The high court had also noted that due to the false promise, the life of their child is in limbo as a transfer certificate has been obtained from the school. It directed the police to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet before the trial court within three months. The husband was booked under various sections of IPC including dowry harassment.

Courts cannot force husband to keep wife: Supreme Court

estranged-wife

Estranged Wife, News on Estranged Wife, stories on Estranged Wife, articles on Estranged Wife, Estranged Wife stories at Wion, Estranged Wife news, Estranged Wife latest news