Wife's refusal to eat onion, garlic and fanatical conduct regarded as mental cruelty by court, divorce granted to husband

On November 27, 2025, the Gujarat High Court upheld a family court’s divorce order which dissolved the marriage based on the husband alleging cruelty done by the wife due to her following a no onion and garlic and behaving in a fanatic and a rigid manner. The wife’s no onion no garlic diet triggered irreversible differences between them and several altercations were taking place between them.

While she agreed to the divorce, she contested the alimony order. Her husband also proposed a one-time alimony settlement, which she turned down, and sought a higher monthly maintenance payment. Consequently, she appealed to the Gujarat High Court.

Also read: Husband wins divorce case after court finds wife’s family hid infertility details; to pay Rs 5 lakh one-time alimony

Background of the case

The respondent (husband) filed an application under the provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground that he has been subjected to cruelty and the wife has deserted him.

In response, the appellant (wife) filed a written statement disputing these claims, asserting that her husband has not fulfilled his duties as a spouse and had left her of his own accord. She also pointed out that her dietary restrictions were part of her religious beliefs, which the husband was aware of before they got married.

Additionally, she claimed that right from the start of the marriage, the respondent (husband) was eager for a divorce, and all the allegations levelled against her are just a way for him to get out of matrimonial obligations. She said that the husband is the owner of a factory and earning around Rs 60,000 to Rs 70,000 per month, and it’s not true that he works in his father’s factory.

The husband countered the wife's arguments and said that his mother would prepare food for her separately without onion and garlic, while the rest of the family had meals cooked with those ingredients.

He said that her adherence to a particular religion and her eating habits were the main trigger for their conflict. The husband further claimed that due to the inflexibility shown by the appellant (wife). he had to file applications to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority. Moreover, he mentioned the pressure from his wife, and that he also filed an application with the Mahila Police Station, Bhadra, regarding the torture and harassment he faced from the appellant (wife).

On November 27, 2025, the Gujarat High Court ruled in the husband’s favour. Mr. Bhunsh C Rupera (3896) represented him.

Also read: Divorce: Husband not liable to pay maintenance when wife lives in continuous adultery, rules Kerala High Court

Summary of the judgement

The Gujarat High Court, dismissed the appeal filed by the wife and disposed of the appeal filed by the husband, thereby upholding the Family Court’s decree of divorce and order of permanent alimony.

The husband had sought divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and desertion. He contended that persistent matrimonial discord arose due to the wife’s rigid religious practices, including insistence on food without onion and garlic, leading to frequent altercations, complaints to authorities, and eventual breakdown of the marriage.

The Family Court accepted the husband’s case and granted divorce. Before the High Court, the wife did not contest the dissolution of marriage but challenged the adequacy of alimony, seeking enhancement.

The husband, in his appeal, limited his challenge to the manner of payment and offered a lump-sum settlement, which the wife declined. The High Court held that the Family Court had properly appreciated the evidence on record, including income documents and living conditions of the husband, and found no perversity or illegality in awarding maintenance.

Also read: Wife called husband ‘Paaltoo Chooha’, beat him before his mother: HC grants him divorce with Rs 5 lakh permanent alimony

Gujarat High Court analyses the facts of divorce

The Gujarat High Court in its judgement (C/FA/3109/2024) dated November 27, 2025, said that after hearing both the parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Judge, answered the issue no.1 in affirmative, as according to him, the respondent-husband had proved that he was subjected to cruelty by the appellant-wife. Accepting it, the marriage solemnized, was dissolved.

Mr Punam G. Gadhvi, advocate, conceded before Gujarat High Court that the appellant-wife is not contesting the divorce as she is not aggrieved by the dissolution of the marriage.

In view of the above statement, the incidental submission as regards non-formulation of the issue, would not survive. Therefore, Gujarat Court said it need not delve further into the issue of divorce.

Also read: Husband breaks wife’s phone, produces adultery photos; gets photographer who developed photo to be a witness; MP HC grants divorce

Gujarat High Court analyses the alimony/maintenance facts

The Gujarat High Court said that the only issue, then falls for consideration of this Court is whether the alimony awarded by the Family Court is reasonable and proper? The issue is dealt with herein below.

Application Exh.20 was preferred by the appellant-wife, inter alia, requesting for permanent maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month as per the provisions of Section 25.

Moreover, application, Exh.92 was preferred by the appellant-wife, praying for separate residence, on the ground that the respondent-husband resides in a joint family and is the only son.

It is also averred by the wife that the husband’s father is running a fabrication factory, wherein the husband is serving as a partner and earns Rs 80,000 to Rs 1 lakh per month.

It is also alleged that the appellant-wife is not having any independent income to maintain herself and she be allowed maintenance of Rs 20,000.

The application was resisted by the respondent-husband contending that the appellant (wife) is qualified and can maintain herself, as she is earning Rs 15,000 per month, which is a fact suppressed by her.

The respondent-husband also disputed the fact of him doing the job in the factory of his father. It is a categorical stand taken that he is serving with Vishvakarma Enterprises and his income is Rs 7,000 per month.

The husband also said that he has the liability (responsibility) of his parents and his son, who are residing with him and his son is a major now and is pursuing his masters in Computer Engineering.

He said that with this meagre income, he hardly is in a position to take care of his family and son.

The Judge, after considering the merits and the principles laid down for granting permanent alimony, allowed Rs 8,000 per month for the period from July 9, 2013 to July 8, 2020 and Rs 10,000 from July 9, 2020 onwards.

The Gujarat High Court said that it is vehemently argued that the alimony granted, is not reasonable and is insufficient; however, Mr. Gadhvi, advocate of the wife, has not been able to show that the income of the respondent-husband is Rs 60,000 to Rs 70,000.

On the contrary, Gujarat High Court said that the salary certificate issued by Vishvakarma Enterprises is placed on record, indicating a salary of Rs. 62,718 per annum. The salary certificates have been placed on record of the years 2014 to 2019.

Furthermore, the Judge also took note of the admission of the appellant-wife recorded in Criminal Case no.492 of 2013, admitting that she is doing a job. Besides, there is no evidence on record dislodging the stands taken by the respective parties.

Moreover, the Gujarat High Court said that it is not in dispute that the respondent-husband is residing in a house consisting of one room and kitchen, which indicates his financial status.

Moreover, the undisputed fact is that the respondent-husband being the only son has the responsibility of his parents, so also his son, who now has attained maturity and is pursuing his masters in Computer Engineering.

The Gujarat High Court said that considering the evidence and documents available on record, as also the oral evidence of both the parties, the Judge, has concluded that in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, the say of the respondent-husband, cannot be believed.

Exercising discretion and keeping in mind the principles of granting permanent maintenance, the respondent-husband was ordered to pay an amount of Rs 8,000 per month for the period from July 9, 2013 to July 8, 2020 and Rs 10,000 from July 9, 2020 onwards.

The Gujarat High Court said that since the advocates for the wife could not point out anything contrary or could suggest that the findings arrived at by the Judge, are perverse or illegal, they are of the opinion that no error can be said to have been committed in allowing the maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month to the appellant-wife.

Poonam G. Gadhvi, advocate, at this stage, stated that the total outstanding amount was Rs 13.02 lakh out of which, Rs 2.72 lakh was paid towards the interim maintenance, and therefore, an amount to the tune of Rs 10.3 lakh is still outstanding. It is urged that the amount be directed to be deposited with the fFamily Court at the earliest.

Mr. Bhunesh C. Rupera, advocate for the husband states that at the relevant point of time, in the captioned proceeding, to show bona fide, the husband has deposited 50% of the amount of Rs 8,54,000, which would be Rs 4,27,000. It is further stated that the remaining amount shall be deposited at the earliest. It is also urged that the amount already paid and received by the appellant be adjusted accordingly.

Gujarat High Court judgement

The Gujarat High Court said that in view of the above statement, let the appellant-wife provide her bank details to the registry of this Court, and once the details are provided, registry , after proper verification, is directed to transfer the amount of Rs 4,27,000 in the account of the appellant–wife.

• The respondent - husband shall deposit the remaining amount with the registry of the Family Court, and the registry shall, after due and proper verification, transfer it in the account of the appellant - wife. Needless to clarify that the amount so withdrawn or received by the appellant wife shall be adjusted against the total outstanding amount.
• In view of the above discussion, the captioned appeal being First Appeal no.3109 of 2024 does not deserve to be entertained and is hereby, dismissed. Civil Applications, stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.