Latest Judgement

1. INTRODUCTION

The Gujarat High Court recently upheld a divorce decree dissolving a long standing marriage where the central issue between the spouses was reportedly the wife’s refusal to consume onion and garlic due to her religious dietary practices. Although the facts may sound unusual, the case highlights how underlying personal and cultural differences can contribute to marital breakdown and how family courts approach such disputes under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).

2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The couple, married in 2002 as per Hindu rites, lived in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The wife was a strict adherent of the Swaminarayan sect, a religious community whose followers traditionally avoid onion and garlic as part of their diet. The husband and his mother, however, continued to cook and consume these ingredients. To accommodate her beliefs, the wife’s food was prepared separately without onion and garlic, while the rest of the family’s meals included them. Over time, this dietary difference became a source of continuing domestic friction.

As domestic disagreements intensified over years, the wife left the matrimonial home with their child in 2007. In 2013, the husband filed a divorce petition in the Family Court, Ahmedabad, alleging cruelty and desertion by the wife — grounding his claim in repeated disputes over her inflexibility on the diet and other conflicts. The family court granted divorce in May 2024 along with a maintenance order.

3. HIGH COURT PROCEEDINGS

The case reached the Gujarat High Court as cross appeals. The wife challenged the family court’s divorce order and maintenance award, arguing that her dietary choices should not have been treated as a cause for marital conflict or cruelty and that the divorce order was unsustainable. The husband, on the other hand, questioned the maintenance amount and sought clarification or adjustments.

During the hearing, the High Court noted that the wife eventually ceased to contest the divorce itself and was instead primarily concerned with the maintenance order from the family court. The wife’s submission focused on alleged non payment of maintenance for a period of over 18 months. The husband agreed to deposit the outstanding amount with the court registry in instalments, reflecting a degree of mutual accommodation at the appellate stage.

4. JUDGMENT AND REASONING

A Division Bench of Justices Sangeeta Vishen and Nisha M. Thakore dismissed the wife’s appeal and upheld the family court’s divorce decree. The High Court observed that the alleged dietary dispute had over time become a persistent trigger point of marital discord, and that both parties had lived separately for a long duration, which reinforced the conclusion that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.

The High Court accepted that although the dietary issue may have originated from a religious practice — the wife’s adherence to the Swaminarayan sect’s dietary norms — it had affected the marriage’s harmony. The Court did not dwell on the specific merits of the dietary choice itself but noted that the long standing separation and unresolved disputes justified the family court’s decision to dissolve the marriage under Section 13 HMA.
The Bench also addressed maintenance. It confirmed the amounts granted by the family court as reasonable in light of the circumstances, dispensing with the need for further interference. While the precise monthly sums were upheld, the High Court directed that outstanding maintenance already earmarked be transferred to the wife’s bank account, enhancing enforceability. (turn0search11)

5. LEGAL AND SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE

THIS CASE REFLECTS SEVERAL NOTEWORTHY POINTS IN FAMILY LAW:

i. Diversity of Marital Conflict: While differences over food habits may seem trivial, the case underscores that deep seated personal or cultural differences can contribute to a marriage’s breakdown when unresolved over many years. Courts must consider the overall marital context, not merely isolated issues.
ii. Application of Section 13 HMA: The judgment reaffirms that persistent and unresolved conflicts leading to separation may amount to grounds for divorce under Section 13 of the HMA, even if rooted in personal lifestyle or religious practices.
iii. Maintenance Enforcement: The High Court’s direction for transferring unpaid maintenance reflects the judiciary’s role in ensuring compliance with court ordered financial relief, a critical aspect of protecting economically vulnerable parties after divorce.

6. CONCLUSION

The Gujarat High Court’s decision upholding a divorce involving a prolonged dispute over dietary practices illustrates the breadth of factors that can lead to marital discord under Indian law. By confirming the family court’s order — encompassing both dissolution and maintenance — the High Court underscored that even seemingly minor differences can, over time, become substantial grounds for divorce when they erode the marital relationship irreparably. This ruling may serve as a reference point for future matrimonial disputes where personal, cultural, or religious practices contribute to enduring conflict.
This article has been researched and written by Advocate Aarun Chanda, who practices divorce law in Mumbai and Pune. It is intended solely for academic purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult a qualified advocate specializing in divorce cases for professional legal guidance.

Seeking expert legal guidance?- Contact The Divorce Law Firm today.