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.
The court emphasized that a mother alone does not possess exclusive rights over a child.
Judge Harish Kumar expressed his displeasure with Aesha’s objections, pointing out that Shikhar’s family has not had the opportunity to meet the child since August 2020.
Shikhar and Aesha are currently living separately and have initiated legal proceedings in both India and Australia, where the child resides, regarding their divorce and custody matters.
The family reunion was initially scheduled for June 17, but Aesha raised concerns about the child missing school. Consequently, the event was rescheduled to July 1, taking into account the school closure during that period.
Aesha continued to express her objections to the rescheduled function, contending that it would not be successful since the date was chosen without consulting most of the extended family members.
The judge observed that, “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 emphasized that Aesha failed to provide a valid reason for her opposition to allowing 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 observed that Aesha had raised concerns about the child’s comfort in meeting Dhawan and others, but these grounds were not mentioned in the proceedings for permanent custody of the child. The judge also noted that both parties were engaged in blaming each other for the ongoing litigation.
The court stated, “Blame for polluting the environment within the family has to be shared by both. Dispute arises when one raises concern and the other does not appreciate it or pay attention.”
The court further emphasized, “Mother alone does not have the right over the child, so why is she opposing the petitioner to meet his own child when he is not a bad father to the child.”
The court noted in the current case that Dhawan is not seeking permanent custody of the child; instead, he simply desires to have his child in India for a few days, with the expenses borne by his estranged wife.
“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,” the bench added.
In a previous ruling on May 29, the judge had criticized Aesha for challenging the authority of the Indian court to address the matter of bringing the child to India for a family function.
The judge observed that while Aesha acknowledges the significant role of Dhawan in the child’s life, she opposes the idea of allowing the child to 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.”
