In Shikhar Dhawan divorce case, Indian court sounds off Australian court for its lack of knowledge

The Australian court had said that since Shikhar Dhawan and his wife Ayesha understand English, the case should be moved to Australia and not fought in Delhi

A family court hearing the divorce proceedings filed by Indian cricketer Shikhar Dhawan against his estranged wife, Aesha Mukerji made some scathing observations against an Australian court.

The Australian court had made some condescending remarks on the Indian courts and judiciary.

Foreign courts should shed the attitude that courts in India are still in the pre-independence era, Family Court judge Harish Kumar said.

"Indian Courts are conducting its proceedings through video conference, wherever, such is the requirement. It is to be borne in mind that India got its independence in 1947 and since then it has made tremendous improvement in application of technology in all walks of life. Hence, no one should remain under misconception that Indian Courts are still in pre-independence era," the family court said.

Judge Kumar made these observations after the Federal Circuit and Family Court in Australia had on February 2 asked Dhawan to submit to its jurisdiction and withdraw proceedings initiated by him against his wife in the Family Court in Delhi's Patiala Court.

Mukerji had moved the Australian court seeking maintenance. She is a Melbourne based kickboxer.

Dhawan moved the family court in Delhi for divorce and custody of the child.

The Australian court had said that it had no idea how courts in India function and adjudicate parenting disputes or custody matters. It had also said that since Dhawan and Ayesha understand English, they can continue to pursue their litigation in Australia instead of India as the former uses video conference.

The Indian family court took observation to observations made by the Australian court and said act the same reflected an inappropriate understanding of the law of India qua parenting conditions prevalent in India.

Judge Kumar also noted that Indian courts pass orders on parenting keeping in mind the best interest of the child.

"The paramount consideration in such petition has always been the best interest of the child. Hence, to say that since it is not known to Australian court as to how parenting disputes are determined in India, therefore, court in Australia would have better jurisdiction is nothing but reflection of inappropriate understanding of the law in India," the order read.

Judge Kumar also said that to say that the parties to the litigation are fluent in English and hence the Australian court is better for adjudicating the parenting dispute again shows lack of knowledge about Indian courts.

"Almost all courts in India, particularly courts in New Delhi conducts its proceedings both in English as well Indian language prevalent. Hence, respondent herein would not have any difficulty in understanding and participating in the proceedings in India," the judge said.

The court noted that the litigation should be pursued in India as both Dhawan and Aesha are Hindu by religion and their son, Zoravar is also a Hindu.

"Marriage between the parties was solemnised in New Delhi in accordance with Sikh rites, governed by Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Their marriage was registered in India. All marriages performed in India under Hindu Marriage Act has to be dissolved under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by courts in India or by foreign court applying Hindu Marriage Act provided both parties have subjected to the jurisdiction of foreign court," the judge also said.