Senior Indian opener Shikhar Dhawan is set to reunite with his nine-year-old son Zoravar after a Delhi family court summoned Dhawan’s estranged wife, Aesha Mukherjee, to India for a family get-together. The court has directed Aesha to attend the family function next month as ‘a mother alone does not possess exclusive rights over a child.’
Shikhar Dhawan’s family has not been able to meet his son, who is residing with his mother in Australia, since August 2020. An earlier plea from Dhawan was declined by the court on the grounds of his son missing important classes at school. Dhawan’s wife had also declined their request, citing that the family get-together would not be attended by many people so the mother-son duo didn’t need to attend the function.
However, a family court in Delhi has intervened in the matter, directing Dhawan’s wife to attend the gathering after Dhawan’s family had rescheduled the event in line with the school holidays of the child. The court established that a father is also within his rights to meet his son, especially after such a lengthy interlude.
“The mother alone does not have rights over the child, why then is she opposing the petitioner meeting his own child when he is not a bad father? Blame for polluting the environment within the family has to be shared by both. A dispute arises when one raises concerns, and the other does not appreciate them or pay attention,” it said,” Judge Harish Kumar of the family court at Delhi’s Patiala House Courts said.
Delhi court warned Aesha after she questioned their jurisdiction
The court also highlighted the misdemeanour of Dhawan’s wife as she had urged an Australian court to put the Indian cricketer on a watch list. Notably, Aesha was also pulled up for questioning the jurisdiction of the Indian court last month in the matter pertaining to the child.
“Her objection on the expense might be justified, and consequent objection might be alright but her unwillingness may not be justified. She has not been able to put forth what her fear is about the petitioner qua the child and why she approached the court in Australia to put him on the watch list. If the petitioner had intended to take the law into his own hands for taking the custody of the child, he would not have approached the court in India,” it added.