Observing that a mother alone does not have rights over a child, a Family Court in Delhi recently ordered Aesha Mukerji , the estranged wife of cricketer Shikhar Dhawan, to bring their nine-year-old son to India for a family get-together [Shikhar Dhawan v. Aesha Dhawan].
Judge Harish Kumar even pulled up Aesha for her objections to bringing the child to India after noting that Shikhar's family has not met the child since August 2020.
The Dhawan couple has been living separately now and have also initiated legal cases both in India and Australia (where the child lives with Aesha) related to divorce and custody of the child.
The family reunion was initially fixed on June 17. However, Aesha objected to bringing the child then, as he would miss school. Subsequently, the event was rescheduled to July 1 considering the fact that the child's school would be shut during this period.
Aesha again objected to the re-planned function, arguing that it would be a flop show as most of the extended family members were not consulted before fixing the date.
"Even if petitioner presumably did not consult the other members of his extended family, what would be the consequence thereof - at best such get together would be a flop one as many of his members of the family might not make it to the party but petitioner and his parents will have the joy of having the company of their eye's apple. Admittedly, child of the petitioner has not visited India since August, 2020 and parents of the petitioner and other family members have not got chance to meet the child and petitioner's desire to have bis child meet with grand parents cannot be said to be unreasonable," the judge observed.
The judge underlined that Aesha has not been able to make out a sufficient ground as to why she did not want the child to meet the Dhawan family.
"Why she does not want the child to be frequent and familiar to petitioner's home and his relatives in India. Hence, in this circumstance when there is school holiday of the child, petitioner's desire to have the child in India for few days cannot be said to be unrealistic particularly when child is comfortable with petitioner," the order stated.
The judge noted that Aesha had then raised concerns that the child would not be comfortable to meet Dhawan etc. and that such grounds were not mentioned in the proceedings for permanent custody of the child. It noted that both the parties were blaming each other for the litigation.
"Blame for polluting the environment within the family has to be shared by both. Dispute arises when one raises concern and other does not appreciate it or pay attention," the court said, adding,
"Mother alone does not have right over the child, why then she is opposing the petitioner to meet his own child when he is not bad father to the child."
In the present application, the court pointed out that Dhawan is not asking for permanent custody of the child, but rather simply wants to have his child in India for a few days at his estranged wife's expense. It added,
"Her objection on expense might be justified and consequent objection might be alright but her unwillingness may not be justified. She has not be able to put forth what her fear is about the petitioner qua the child and why she approached the court in Australia to put him in watch list. If petitioner had intended to take law in his hand for taking the custody of the child he would not have approached the court in India. Once her fear is not clear her objection to allow the petitioner to meet his child cannot be appreciated."
In a separate order passed on May 29, the judge had pulled up Aesha for questioning the jurisdiction of the Indian court for dealing with the issue of bringing the child to India for attending the family function.
The judge noted that on one hand, Aesha claims to understand the important role of Dhawan in the child's life, and on the other, he is objecting to bringing the child to let him meet his father and grandparents.
"If father has an important role in the life of the child it is equally important for her to provide him with opportunity so as to allow him to inculcate in the child the values he considers important. The respondent (Aesha) being originally Indian should definitely understand the role of other family members in the life of the child as well," the judge observed in that order.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal appeared for Aesha Mukerji.
Advocate Aman Hingorani represented Shikhar Dhawan
