Can a foreign court force an Indian husband to give away crores under a law not valid in India? Delhi Court says NO. Orders Shikhar Dhawan’s ex-wife to return of ₹5.72 crore and calls Australian property orders illegal here.
NEW DELHI: A major legal relief has come for Indian cricketer Shikhar Dhawan after a Delhi Family Court ruled that orders passed by an Australian court under the concept of “Property Settlement” are not valid under Indian law.
The court directed his ex-wife to return nearly ₹5.72 crore and also restrained her from demanding ₹16.9 crore as earlier ordered by the Australian court.
The decision was delivered by Family Court Judge Devender Kumar Garg at Patiala House Courts. The court clearly stated that the concept of ‘Property Settlement’ under the Australian Family Law Act, 1975 does not fit within Indian matrimonial laws, especially the Hindu Marriage Act.
The judge explained that under Australian law, all properties of a husband can be brought into a “marital pool,” and the court can even transfer up to 60 percent of the total assets — including properties located in India and abroad — to the wife. However, such a system does not exist under Indian law.
In Dhawan’s case, the Australian court had invoked Section 79 of the 1975 Act to pass financial orders. But the Delhi court observed that such powers are not aligned with Indian statutes.
“Such order could alter the interest of the parties to the marriage in the property. Thus, (Australian) Family Law Act, 1975 pertaining to property settlement are contrary to and repugnant not only with the public policy of India but with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act also. The same are also not consistent with Indian Law as contained in the Registration Act, Transfer of Property Act and other statutes,” Judge Garg observed.
The court further noted that Dhawan’s ex-wife did not appear before the Indian court and the matter proceeded ex-parte. It was recorded that the Australian Family Court had ordered Dhawan to hand over proceeds from the sale of two Australian properties under ‘Interim Property Settlement,’ even though he claimed he never agreed to such terms.
Dhawan told the court that he participated in Australian proceedings under pressure and threat.
“Thus, the presentation of the plaintiff (Dhawan) before the Court proceedings in Australian Court cannot be stated to be voluntarily submission to the jurisdiction of Australian Court. Further, the contest of the claim was not based on grounds available under the matrimonial law i.e. Indian Law under which the parties were married. Further, it is not the case of the defendant (Aesha) that Dhawan had consented to the grant of relief although the jurisdiction of the Forum was not in accordance with the provisions of matrimonial law of the parties,” the court said.
The Delhi court held that since the ex-wife did not contest the case in India, Dhawan successfully proved that the Australian order directing him to pay AU $ 812397/50 from property sale proceeds was illegal and unenforceable in India. It was also accepted that she had retained AU $ 82,000 from another property sale.
“The averments and deposition of the plaintiff has remained unchallenged. Thus, the plaintiff has proved that all documents which culminated in the financial agreement (before the Australian Court), due to the threats, extortion, trickery and fraudulent action by the defendant and the same are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff,” the judge held.
Based on this, the court ruled that Dhawan is not bound by the Australian court’s property settlement orders. It declared the financial agreement documents signed under alleged pressure as null and void.
“A decree for directing the defendant to return to the plaintiff the sale proceeds of property 10 Pagebrook Road, Berwick, Australia totaling to AU $_812,397/50 (AU $ 150,000 and AU $ 662,397/50) received by her as “Interim Property Settlement” and to return to the plaintiff amount of AU $ 82,000 as part sale proceeds of the property 6 Forest Drive, Clyde North, Australia forcibly retained by her, is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant,” the judge ordered.
The court also directed her to pay interest at 9 percent per annum on the total amount from the date of filing of the suit until final recovery.
Explanatory Table of Laws and Sections Mentioned
| Law / Statute | Section | Jurisdiction | What It Provides | Court’s Observation in This Case |
| Family Law Act, 1975 | Section 79 | Australia | Empowers court to alter property interests between spouses and pass any order it considers appropriate under property settlement | Held to be contrary to Indian public policy and inconsistent with Indian matrimonial and property laws |
| Family Law Act, 1975 | Property Settlement Proceedings | Australia | Brings all assets of spouses into a “marital pool” and allows discretionary division, even up to 60% to one spouse | Concept found alien to Indian law and not enforceable in India |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Relevant matrimonial provisions (no specific section cited in judgment excerpt) | India | Governs marriage, divorce, and limited financial relief between spouses | Australian property settlement provisions held inconsistent with HMA framework |
| Registration Act, 1908 | General applicability | India | Governs registration of property documents | Australian orders not consistent with Indian statutory property framework |
| Transfer of Property Act, 1882 | General applicability | India | Regulates transfer and ownership of property | Court held foreign property alteration orders inconsistent with this statute |
| Indian Public Policy Doctrine | — | India | Foreign judgments unenforceable if contrary to Indian public policy | Australian property settlement orders declared repugnant to public policy of India |
Case Details
- Case Title: Shikhar Dhawan vs Aesha
- Court: Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
- Bench: Judge Devender Kumar Garg
- Counsel for Plaintiff (Shikhar Dhawan): Senior Advocate Dr Aman Hingorani, Advocate Dr Shweta Hingorani, Advocate Yukta Chauhan
Key Takeaways
- Foreign property settlement laws cannot override Indian personal law. Indian husbands cannot be stripped of assets through foreign discretionary frameworks alien to Indian statutes.
- Public policy protection works. If a foreign judgment is contrary to Indian law and public policy, it is not automatically enforceable in India.
- Property rights are not subject to arbitrary redistribution. Indian law does not recognise automatic pooling and discretionary division of all assets like certain foreign jurisdictions.
- Participation under threat is not consent. Appearance before a foreign court under coercion does not amount to voluntary submission to its jurisdiction.
- Financial agreements obtained through alleged threats, extortion or fraud can be declared null and void. Courts will protect individuals from unfair and coercive financial settlements.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
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.