The Gujarat High Court recently upheld a family court's grant of divorce to a couple whose marriage started to fall apart over arguments about onions and garlic in the family kitchen, which were connected to the wife's religious practices.

Neither spouse contested the grant of divorce. However, the case reached the High Court after disputes arose about the maintenance to be paid under the family court order.

The couple married in 2002. Early tensions surfaced over the wife’s adherence to the Swaminarayan faith and her decision to avoid onion and garlic. The husband told the High Court that his mother had to cook food separately, without onion and garlic, for his wife and prepare food with onion and garlic for the rest of his family.

“Following of the religion and consumption of onion and garlic was the trigger point of the differences between the parties," the High Court noted.

The wife countered that her dietary practices were known to the husband before the marriage.

The wife sought an enhancement of the maintenance ordered to be paid by the husband under a family court order. On the other hand, the husband filed an appeal questioning the family court's directive that he pay the wife monthly maintenance. The husband expressed that he wished to pay a lumpsum or one-time payment of permanent alimony instead.

The High Court Division Bench of Justice Sangeeta K Vishen and Justice Nisha M Thakore dismissed both appeals, while confirming the family court's divorce order.

Attempts at reconciliation had earlier been made by the couple. In 2007, they even signed a memorandum of understanding which aimed to stabilise the marriage.

However, the husband eventually approached a family court for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

In May 2024, the Ahmedabad family court granted a divorce. It also directed him to pay maintenance to the wife of ₹8,000 per month for the period from July 2013 to July 2020 and ₹10,000 per month from July 2020 onwards.

This part of the verdict was challenged in appeals filed by the wife as well as the husband.

During the High Court proceedings, the husband expressed willingness to pay a lump-sum amount instead of monthly payments if the wife agreed.

She declined, and the husband’s lawyer later informed the court that he would not press his appeal, leading to its disposal.

The High Court also reviewed the records, including salary certificates produced by the husband, to assess his annual income. The Court noted his responsibilities toward his parents and adult son. It further recorded that the wife had stated in an earlier criminal case that she had been employed.

After assessing the available material, the Bench found no basis to alter the family court’s calculation of maintenance.

It observed that neither side had submitted additional evidence that would justify a different assessment of the husband’s earning capacity or the wife’s financial needs.

The Court therefore confirmed the maintenance amounts set by the family court.

Advocate Punam G Gadhvi and Advocate Krushangi R Joshi appeared for the wife.

Advocate Bhunesh C Rupera represented the husband.