The No Onion Garlic Diet Divorce Case once again highlights how seemingly routine domestic preferences can escalate into deep marital discord.
The Gujarat High Court has now confirmed the family court’s decree of divorce between a couple whose marriage fractured over dietary practices shaped by faith, with onion and garlic becoming the recurring flashpoints in the matrimonial household.
Both parties appeared before the Division Bench but neither contested the divorce itself, restricting the High Court’s scrutiny to the question of maintenance under the earlier family court order.
Background of Matrimonial Strain
The parties married in 2002. Over time, disagreements emerged regarding the wife’s adherence to the Swaminarayan faith and her strict no onion garlic diet, which required separate cooking arrangements within the matrimonial home.
According to the husband, his mother had to prepare two daily meals, one without onion or garlic exclusively for the wife and another for the rest of the family. The Bench noted that the following of religion and consumption of onion garlic acted as the initial trigger for continued disputes.
The wife asserted that her dietary discipline was well within the husband’s knowledge before marriage and could not be treated as misconduct.
Past reconciliation efforts, including a 2007 memorandum of understanding, failed to restore normal relations. Eventually, the husband sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Family Court Decree and Appeals
In May 2024, the Ahmedabad Family Court granted a decree of divorce. It further directed the husband to pay maintenance of ₹8000 per month from July 2013 to July 2020 and ₹10000 per month from July 2020 onwards.
Both sides approached the High Court in appeal only regarding the quantum and nature of maintenance.
The wife sought an enhancement of monthly maintenance while the husband insisted on substituting the monthly sum with a one-time permanent alimony payment.
During proceedings, the husband expressed readiness for a lump-sum settlement but the wife declined consent. His counsel subsequently informed the Bench that the appeal would not be pressed, leading to its disposal.
High Court’s Analysis on Maintenance
The High Court evaluated the husband’s salary certificates and considered his responsibilities towards his aged parents and adult son.
Records also revealed that the wife had made prior statements in a criminal case indicating her own employment. After reviewing the material, the Bench held that there existed no justification to modify the family court’s computation of maintenance.
Neither party furnished additional financial evidence warranting reassessment of earning capacity or financial need. Consequently, the Bench upheld the maintenance awarded by the family court.
With both appeals dismissed, the Division Bench has left undisturbed the decree of divorce as well as the original maintenance structure.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
