Dhawan and Aesha had gotten married in October 2012.
Judge Harish Kumar accepted all the allegations made by Dhawan in his divorce petition against his wife on the ground that the wife either did not contest the said allegations or failed to defend herself.
The judge also held the wife subjected Shikhar Dhawan to mental agony by compelling him to live separately from his only son for years. The court didn’t pass any order on permanent custody of the couple's son.
They granted Shikhar visitation rights for the appropriate duration in India and Australia and also to chat with him over a video call.
Aesha was further ordered to bring the child to India for visitation purposes including an overnight stay with Dhawan and his family members, at least for half the period of school vacation during the academic calendar.
"Since the petitioner is a reputed International Cricketer and has been a pride of the nation, subject to the petitioner approaching the Union Government of India, it is requested to take up the issue of visitation/custody of the minor son with its counterpart in Australia to help him have regular visitation or chatting with his son or his permanent custody," the Court ordered as per Bar and Bench website.
As per Dhawan's plea, the wife had initially said she would live with him in India. However, she failed to do so owing to a commitment to her ex-husband with whom she had two daughters. The wife had committed to her ex-husband not to leave Australia where she presently lives with her two daughters and a son from Dhawan.
"He (Dhawan) for no fault of his own had been through immense agony and anguish of living separately from his son for years. Even though the wife denied the allegation, submitting that she genuinely wanted to live in India with him, 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," the judge noted.
Unchallenged testimony of Dhawan has to be believed, the judge said, while adding, "Hence, it stands proved that the wife backtracked from her assurance of setting up matrimonial home in India after marriage and thus made him suffer a long-distance marriage and suffered immense agony and anguish of living separately from his son for years."
The court further considered Dhawan’s contentions as regards the wife compelling him to make her the owner of 99 percent of the three properties that he had purchased in Australia using his own money.
Aesha had also forced Dhawan to make her a joint owner in the other two properties, the Court noted. She failed to contest this claim too and therefore, accepted Dhawan's allegation.
The judge ruled: "Thus, in the absence of any probable defense, Dhawan's allegation that she compelled him to make her owner to some extent in all three properties or that she pocketed sale proceeds thereof to the extent pleaded and testified to by him has got to be believed as true."
CWC 2023: WATCH- "Slightly spicy”- Babar Azam shares his review and rates Hyderabadi biryani
Further on the allegations that Aesha sent defamatory messages to the officials in the Indian cricket board owners of IPL and fellow cricketers, she said that she had sent messages only to three persons to ensure that she gets her monthly maintenance on time as Dhawan had been delaying the payments.
However, the Court rejected her claim and held that she had sent defamatory texts to several persons to pressure, defame, and humiliate Dhawan. The court also accepted the allegation that Aesha quarreled with Dhawan for ‘taking out time’ to take his ailing father to the hospital when he had contracted Covid-19.
"Petitioner further alleged that in or around January 2020, Aesha and the minor son came to India to spend a prolonged period, but her daughters stayed back in Australia still she compelled him to send her daughters AU $15,500 per month (inclusive of mortgage payments) on the pretext that they were struggling to survive," the Court noted.
Dhawan paid the school fees which were additional and above this amount. He was forced to increase the payment amount to AU $16,500 per month and then AU $17,500 per month.
(Bar and Bench inputs)