Delhi Court Orders Return of ₹5.7 Crore to Shikhar Dhawan, Cites Coercion in Foreign Settlement

A Delhi court has ruled in favour of cricketer Shikhar Dhawan, holding that certain financial documents signed in connection with his divorce were executed under coercion and are therefore not legally enforceable in India.

The dispute arose from a property settlement order issued by an Australian court during matrimonial proceedings between Dhawan and his former spouse, Aesha Mukerjee. The foreign court had directed Dhawan to make a substantial financial payment as part of a property division arrangement.

Key Findings of the Delhi Court
The Family Court at Patiala House, New Delhi, observed that:

• The settlement documents were signed under circumstances involving pressure and misrepresentation.
• The concept of “property settlement” as applied in the foreign order does not automatically align with Indian matrimonial law.
• Foreign court orders cannot be enforced in India if they conflict with domestic legal principles.

Financial Direction
The court directed Mukerjee to return approximately ₹5.7 crore that had been received under the disputed settlement. Additionally, interest at 9% per annum was awarded from the date of filing of the suit until repayment.

Legal Significance
The ruling reiterates that foreign matrimonial judgments are not automatically binding in India. For enforcement, such orders must satisfy Indian legal standards, particularly those governing marriage, divorce, and financial settlements under applicable domestic law.

This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that cross-border matrimonial agreements comply with Indian legal requirements before they can be enforced within the country.

Discription: A Delhi Family Court has ruled in favour of Shikhar Dhawan, holding that financial documents executed during his divorce proceedings were signed under coercion and cannot be enforced in India. The dispute stemmed from a property settlement order passed by an Australian court in proceedings between Dhawan and his former spouse, Aesha Mukerjee. The Indian court observed that the settlement involved elements of pressure and misrepresentation, and that foreign property settlement concepts do not automatically align with Indian matrimonial law. Consequently, the court directed Mukerjee to return approximately ₹5.7 crore received under the arrangement, along with 9% annual interest. The ruling highlights that foreign matrimonial judgments must conform to Indian legal principles before they can be enforced domestically.