A long-running matrimonial dispute rooted in differing dietary practices reached its legal conclusion this week, as the Gujarat High Court rejected a woman’s appeal contesting her divorce and upheld a family court order dissolving the marriage.
The unusual case revolved around disagreements over the use of onion and garlic in the household kitchen—ingredients prohibited in the Swaminarayan faith followed by the wife but regularly used by her husband and in-laws.
The couple married in 2002, but tensions soon surfaced when the wife insisted on strictly adhering to the sect’s injunction against consuming onion and garlic. Her husband and mother-in-law, who had no such restrictions, were unwilling to alter their meal preferences. This led to separate cooking arrangements within the home, a situation that ultimately strained the marriage beyond repair. The wife eventually left the matrimonial house with the couple’s child.
In 2013, the husband approached the Ahmedabad family court seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. On May 8, 2024, the court ruled in his favour, dissolving the marriage and directing him to pay maintenance to his former spouse. Both parties subsequently moved the High Court—the wife challenging the divorce while insisting on enforcement of the maintenance order, and the husband questioning the requirement to pay maintenance.
Before the High Court, the woman’s counsel argued that the family court had mistakenly accepted the husband’s claims that her religiously guided food choices triggered domestic disputes. The husband, however, maintained that he and his mother had made efforts to accommodate her by preparing separate meals without onion and garlic. He told the court that the dispute over these ingredients had become the catalyst for repeated disagreements and alleged that he had approached the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority and even filed a complaint with the Mahila Police Station due to the wife’s “rigidity”, “torture” and “harassment”.
During the hearing, the woman eventually informed the division bench—comprising Justice Sangeeta Vishen and Justice Nisha Thakore—that she no longer objected to the dissolution of the marriage. Taking note of her statement, the court held that her challenge to the divorce no longer stood. “In view of the above statement, the incidental submission as regards the non-formulation of the issue would not survive. Therefore, this court need not delve further into the issue of divorce,” the bench observed.
The only matter left unresolved was the maintenance amount. The wife complained that the husband had failed to pay what was due to her. In response, he agreed to deposit the remaining sum with the court registry in instalments, bringing the contentious, years-long marital dispute closer to closure.
Also Read: The Gujarat High Court refused to give relief of 6 month cooling period to a couple seeking a mutual divorce after just 12 days of marriage https://www.vibesofindia.com/the-gujarat-high-court-refused-to-give-relief-of-6-month-cooling-period-to-a-couple-seeking-a-mutual-divorce-after-just-12-days-of-marriage-%ef%bf%bc/
