Gujarat High Court Dismisses Wife’s Cross-Appeal, Upholds Marriage Dissolution Over Onion-Garlic Diet Dispute
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Gujarat Division Bench of Justice Sangeeta K. Vishen and Justice Nisha M. Thakore dismissed the wife’s appeal and maintained the family court decree dissolving the marriage, while disposing of the husband’s cross-appeal on the maintenance direction as not pressed. The dispute centred on the husband’s allegation that matrimonial differences were triggered by the wife’s strict religious observance, including consumption of food prepared without onion and garlic, which he said led to repeated altercations. On the monetary relief, the Court found no basis to interfere with the permanent maintenance fixed by the family court at Rs.8,000 per month for the earlier period and Rs.10,000 per month thereafter, and directed disbursal of deposited arrears and deposit of the remaining amount for transfer to the wife on verification.
The appeals arose from a common judgment dated 08.05.2024 passed by the Family Court in a matrimonial dispute between the parties, whose marriage was solemnised on 02.03.2002 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The husband instituted proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. He alleged that the wife strictly followed the Swaminarayan religion, did not consume onion and garlic, and insisted on separate food arrangements, which led to frequent disputes. He further alleged rigid and fanatical behaviour, failed reconciliation attempts, and execution of a memorandum of understanding in 2007 which was not adhered to, ultimately resulting in the wife leaving the matrimonial home with the child.
The wife contested the petition, denying cruelty and asserting that the husband was aware of her religious practices prior to marriage. She alleged that the husband had failed to discharge matrimonial obligations and had voluntarily deserted her. She also contended that the husband was financially well-placed, earning substantially from a factory.
The Family Court decreed dissolution of marriage and awarded permanent maintenance of Rs.8,000 per month from 09.07.2013 to 08.07.2020 and Rs.10,000 per month thereafter. The wife preferred an appeal challenging the adequacy of alimony, while the husband filed a separate appeal challenging the maintenance direction.
The Court recorded that the wife did not contest the decree of divorce and confined her challenge to the quantum of alimony. It observed that “the appellant-wife is not contesting the divorce as she is not aggrieved by the dissolution of the marriage,” and therefore the issue relating to dissolution did not require further consideration.
While examining the challenge to maintenance, the Court noted that the wife had sought permanent maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming lack of independent income and alleging that the husband earned between Rs.60,000 and Rs.70,000 per month. The Court, however, observed that “Mr. Gadhvi… has not been able to show that the income of the respondent-husband is Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/-.” On the contrary, salary certificates placed on record indicated an annual income of Rs.62,718, and certificates for multiple years were considered.
The Court further recorded that “the learned Judge has also taken note of the admission of the appellant-wife recorded in Criminal Case no.492 of 2013, admitting that she is doing job.” It noted the absence of evidence dislodging the respective stands of the parties regarding income.
The Bench also considered the husband’s financial responsibilities, observing that “the respondent being the only son has the responsibility of his parents, so also his son, who now has attained maturity and is pursuing his masters.” The Court noted the undisputed fact regarding the modest residential accommodation of the husband as indicative of his financial status.
After evaluating the evidence, the Court stated that “since learned advocates could not point out anything contrary or could suggest that the findings arrived at by the learned Judge, are perverse or illegal,” no interference was warranted with the Family Court’s discretion in awarding maintenance.
The Court recorded that First Appeal No.2399 of 2024, filed by the husband challenging the direction relating to payment of permanent maintenance, was “disposed of as not pressed,” in view of the statement made by learned counsel that the offer to pay lump-sum alimony was not accepted by the wife.
In respect of First Appeal No.3109 of 2024, the Court held that “no error can be said to have been committed in allowing the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife,” and consequently ordered that the said appeal “does not deserve to be entertained and is hereby, dismissed.”
With regard to arrears of maintenance, the Court took note of the statements made by learned advocates concerning the outstanding amount and directed that the appellant-wife shall furnish her bank details to the Registry. Upon receipt and verification of such details, the Registry was directed “to transfer the amount of Rs.4,27,000/- in the account of the appellant–wife.” The respondent-husband was directed to deposit the remaining amount with the Registry of the Family Court, which was further directed, after due verification, to transfer the same to the appellant-wife. The Court clarified that “the amount so withdrawn or received by the appellant wife shall be adjusted against the total outstanding amount.”
All connected Civil Applications were disposed of accordingly, with “no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant/Wife: Mr. Punam G. Gadhvi, Advocate; Ms. Krushangi R. Joshi, Advocate
For the Respondent/Husband: Mr. Bhunesh C. Rupera, Advocate
Case Title: XXX v YYY
Case Number: First Appeal No.3109 of 2024 with First Appeal No.2399 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sangeeta K. Vishen, Justice Nisha M. Thakore
