In a recent case involving cricketer Shikhar Dhawan and his estranged wife Aesha Mukerji, a Family Court in Delhi ordered Aesha to bring their nine-year-old son to India for a family get-together [Shikhar Dhawan v. Aesha Dhawan]. The court reprimanded Aesha for objecting to bringing the child to India, noting that Shikhar's family had not seen the child since August 2020.
The couple is currently living separately and has initiated legal proceedings in both India and Australia, where the child resides with Aesha, regarding divorce and custody. Initially scheduled for June 17, the family reunion was later rescheduled to July 1 to accommodate the child's school holidays.
However, Aesha raised objections to the revised date, arguing that it would be a poorly attended event as most extended family members were not consulted. The judge dismissed her concerns, stating that even if the extended family members were not consulted, the get-together would still bring joy to Shikhar, his parents, and the child. The judge emphasized that the child had not visited India since August 2020, and the desire for the child to meet their grandparents was not unreasonable.
The judge questioned Aesha's reasons for not wanting the child to be familiar with Shikhar's home and relatives in India. The court observed that Aesha had not presented sufficient grounds for her objections, and her concerns about the child meeting Shikhar were not mentioned in the proceedings for permanent custody. The judge noted that both parties were blaming each other for the litigation, stating that the blame for the family disputes should be shared by both.
The court clarified that Shikhar was not seeking permanent custody but simply wanted to have the child in India for a few days, with Aesha bearing the expenses. The judge acknowledged Aesha's objection to the expenses but found her unwillingness to be unjustified. Aesha had also raised concerns about Shikhar's intentions and had approached an Australian court to put him on a watch list, but she failed to articulate her fears clearly. The judge concluded that if her fears were unclear, her objection to allowing Shikhar to meet his child could not be appreciated.
In a separate order on May 29, the judge criticized Aesha for questioning the jurisdiction of the Indian court in dealing with the issue of bringing the child to India for the family function. The judge emphasized that if Shikhar played an important role in the child's life, Aesha should provide him with the opportunity to spend time with his father and grandparents.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal represented Aesha Mukerji, while Advocate Aman Hingorani represented Shikhar Dhawan.
TAGS: Family Court Delhi Aesha Mukerji Shikhar Dhawan cricketer estranged wife child custody divorce family get-together judge objections school extended family India Australia legal cases jurisdiction expenses watch list role of father role of family members Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal Advocate Aman Hingorani.
