A man from Ahmedabad has moved the Gujarat High Court seeking divorce Settlement, alleging his wife brought stray dogs home and even made him sleep with them. The High Court will now hear the matter on December 1 after the family court earlier rejected his plea.
Settlement of ₹2 Crore: A man approached the Gujarat High Court seeking divorce from his wife, claiming that her extreme obsession with stray dogs made their marriage impossible to continue.
The High Court will take up the case on December 1. He has alleged that his “dominant” wife would regularly bring stray dogs inside their apartment and even force him to sleep on the same bed with them.
The husband has mentioned several other instances of alleged cruelty, but the central issue placed before the Court is his claim that the wife’s attachment to stray dogs completely disturbed their married life. Earlier, a family court had rejected his divorce plea, saying he could not prove that the wife brought home stray dogs only to trouble him.
In March 2024, the High Court issued notice to the wife after he challenged the family court’s decision. On November 11, the Division Bench of Justice Sangeeta K Vishen and Justice Nisha M Thakore asked the lawyers for both sides to take instructions regarding any possible settlement.
The husband’s lawyer informed the Court that the wife was demanding a settlement amount of ₹2 crore, whereas the husband was only ready to pay ₹15 lakh considering his job and financial situation. However, the wife’s counsel argued that the husband failed to prove cruelty and that he had enough properties, directly or in his family members’ names, to offer a reasonable amount.
The Court has now posted the matter for consideration on December 1.
According to the case records, the Christian couple first met in 2001 and married in 2006 in Ahmedabad. The husband claims he was pressured into marriage through “manipulative acts”. He says the problems started when his wife picked up a stray dog and brought it home, even though their residential welfare association did not allow pets.
He has stated that the dog caused inconvenience and fear among other residents and that they did not have enough money to care for the pet. Despite his objections, the wife allegedly brought more stray dogs into the apartment complex, leading to regular fights with neighbours.
His plea narrates that:
“These dogs bit other residents and unhygienic conditions began to prevail in the apartment complex. The appellant and defendant were ostracized by the other residents and became the subject matter of several complaints to the jurisdictional Police resulting in the appellant and defendant being summoned by them at all odd hours of the day and night on innumerable occasions. Appellant was devastated by this development in his marriage.”
The husband further claims that their personal relationship also deteriorated because of the dogs. He has alleged that she forced him to clean the dogs and cook for them.
The plea states:
“Very often the dogs which were greatly attached to the defendant would attack the appellant when the defendant was assaulting him and inflict painful bites and serrations on him. The appellant has bled profusely on several occasions. As a matter of fact one of the dogs would insist on sleeping in the bed of the appellant and defendant and would bite the appellant viciously if he tried to sleep beside the defendant.”
Another unusual claim in the divorce appeal is that the wife once planned an April Fool’s prank on him through a radio show. The husband says the prank portrayed him as having an affair and publicly humiliated him.
According to the plea:
“The appellant was deeply shocked by this act of the defendant for millions of people had become aware of what was going on in the Radio Station. He was greatly embarrassed and humiliated before his friends and employers and became an object of ridicule.”
The husband has also claimed that he developed diabetes in 2009 and several other health problems due to “constant torture and cruelty” from his wife. In 2011, he left the matrimonial home and moved to Bengaluru, but he alleges that the wife followed him there as well.
He first filed for divorce in Bengaluru in 2012. The wife then filed multiple cases, including maintenance proceedings, in Ahmedabad. In 2016, the Bengaluru court returned the divorce petition on the ground of jurisdiction. He later filed the divorce case in Ahmedabad, but the family court rejected it in February 2024, leading him to approach the High Court.
The wife has completely denied all allegations. She told the family court that she never picked up stray dogs. Instead, she claimed her husband was associated with a Trust that cared for stray animals and that he was the one who brought dogs home and looked after them.
She did admit to planning the April Fool’s prank but said that the radio call made no adverse remarks about him. She denied causing any harm to his health.
The family court accepted the wife’s version and rejected the husband’s allegations, holding that cruelty was not proved.
In his High Court appeal, the husband argues that the trial court wrongly concluded that he had affection for the dogs and that this was a factual misjudgment.
Explanatory Table Of All Laws / Sections Mentioned In The Case
| Law / Section | Where It Was Used | Meaning / Explanation in Simple English |
| Cruelty (Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act) | Mentioned indirectly as the ground for divorce even though couple is Christian | Under Indian matrimonial law, “cruelty” means physical or mental behaviour that makes living together impossible. Husband alleges cruelty due to dogs, bites, humiliation, and pranks. |
| Ground of Desertion (Section 13(1)(i-b), HMA) | Implied as part of husband’s claims about being forced to leave | Desertion means abandoning the marriage without reason for 2+ years. Husband said he left due to torture. |
| Family Courts Act | Original divorce tried in Family Court | Family Courts handle matrimonial, maintenance, custody, and divorce matters. |
| Jurisdiction Under Civil Procedure | Bengaluru court returned case in 2016 | Case must be filed where marriage was solemnised or where parties last lived together. |
| Maintenance Laws (CrPC 125 / Christian Divorce Act provisions) | Wife filed maintenance cases | Allow a woman to claim financial support if husband neglects or refuses to maintain. |
| Police Complaints & RWAs By-laws | Repeated dog complaints | Not a penal section, but part of administrative norms of housing societies; police summoned them frequently. |
| Christian Marriage & Divorce (Indian Divorce Act, 1869) | Applicable to the couple | Governs divorce for Christians. Grounds include adultery, cruelty, desertion, etc. |
Case Summary
- Court: Gujarat High Court
- Bench: Justice Sangeeta K. Vishen Justice Nisha M. Thakore
- Next Hearing Date: December 1
Counsel for Husband:
- Advocate Bhargav Hasurkar
- Advocate Vishwajitsinh Jadeja
Counsel for Wife:
- Advocate N.V. Gandhi
Parties:
- Appellant / Husband – Christian man from Ahmedabad
- Respondent / Wife – Christian woman from Ahmedabad
Key Allegations by Husband:
- Wife brought multiple stray dogs home against society rules.
- She allegedly forced him to sleep on the same bed with them.
- Dogs allegedly bit him and other society members.
- Wife pressured him to clean and cook for the dogs.
- Claim of assault + dogs attacking him when she hit him.
- An April Fool radio prank accused him of an extra-marital affair.
- He developed health issues due to alleged “constant torture”.
Wife’s Defence:
- She never picked up stray dogs.
- Husband worked with a dog-care Trust and he brought dogs home.
- Radio prank had no adverse comment.
- She denies causing health issues or cruelty.
Family Court Result:
- Husband failed to prove cruelty.
- Petition was rejected in February 2024.
High Court Notes:
- Wife demanding ₹2 crore for settlement.
- Husband offered ₹15 lakh based on job profile.
- Court asked both sides to reconsider for settlement.
Marriage Timeline:
- Met in 2001
- Married in 2006, Ahmedabad
- Husband left home in 2011
- First divorce case filed in Bengaluru in 2012
- That case returned in 2016 for lack of jurisdiction
- Refiled in Ahmedabad → rejected in 2024
- Appeal now before High Court
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.