New Delhi: In a significant legal development involving cross-border matrimonial law, a Delhi Family Court at Patiala House has ruled in favour of former Indian cricketer Shikhar Dhawan, ordering his estranged ex-wife, Aesha Mukerji, to return approximately ₹5.72 crore (AU$894,397).
Presiding Judge Devender Kumar Garg declared that the property settlement agreements previously executed between the parties were obtained through threats, extortion, and trickery, rendering them null and void under Indian law. The court’s decision centred on the unenforceability of foreign judicial orders that conflict with domestic statutes and public policy.
The court specifically directed Mukerji, an Australian national, to refund the sale proceeds of two properties located in Australia. These include AU$812,397.50 received as an interim property settlement from a property in Berwick and AU$82,000 retained from the sale of another property in Clyde North. Furthermore, the court mandated that the defendant pay annual interest at 9 percent on these amounts, calculated from the date the suit was instituted until full payment is realised.
A pivotal aspect of the ruling was the court’s observation that the concept of “property settlement”, as defined under the Australian Family Law Act, 1975, is “alien” and “unsustainable” within the Indian legal framework. Under Australian law, the court may create a “marital pool” encompassing all global assets of the husband, regardless of location, and has the discretion to award up to 60 percent of these total assets to the wife. The Delhi court found that such provisions are contrary to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and inconsistent with other Indian statutes such as the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act. Consequently, the court held that the Australian Family Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the couple’s marital disputes and restrained Mukerji from enforcing the anti-suit injunction and asset-division orders previously granted by the Australian judiciary.
The Australian court had earlier awarded Mukerji 15 percent of the couple’s tangible asset pool, allowing her to retain assets worth approximately AU$1.17 million, while granting her an additional AU$2.5 million payable by Dhawan. Dhawan challenged these orders before the Patiala House Court, arguing that they violated Indian marriage laws and were based on agreements signed under duress. The court accepted Dhawan’s evidence that he had participated in the Australian proceedings under pressure and that his signatures on financial documents were not the result of voluntary consent.
Dhawan’s testimony detailed a history of alleged coercion beginning shortly after the couple’s marriage in 2012. He claimed that Mukerji threatened to circulate fabricated and defamatory material to destroy his reputation and cricketing career unless he complied with her financial demands. The court was informed that although Dhawan purchased several properties using his own funds, he was compelled to register them in joint names or, in one instance, list Mukerji as a 99 percent owner. The court noted that the defendant chose not to contest these specific allegations in the Indian proceedings, leading it to accept Dhawan’s averments as unchallenged facts.
The legal history between the parties includes a 2023 divorce decree granted by a Delhi court on the ground of “mental cruelty” inflicted by Mukerji. In that proceeding, the court observed that Dhawan had suffered significant emotional distress after being kept away from his son, Zoravar, for several years. While permanent custody was not determined at that stage, Dhawan was granted visitation rights and video-call access. However, subsequent claims by the cricketer indicated that communication with his son was later blocked despite the court’s standing orders.
The present suit was decreed ex parte, as Mukerji did not appear before the Delhi court to contest the allegations of fraud and extortion. The court directed preparation of the decree sheet but did not pass any order as to litigation costs.
Shikhar Dhawan was represented in the matter by a legal team led by Senior Advocate Aman Hingorani, along with advocates Shweta Hingorani and Yukta Chauhan.
Case Title: Shikhar Dhawan v. Aesha Mukerji
.webp)
