In a significant development, the Gujarat High Court has put on hold a family court's directive that required an Ahmedabad-based businessman to pay a substantial alimony amount to his estranged wife, who stands accused of murdering his mother. The interim stay offers temporary relief to the husband, Dipak Agrawal, who had challenged the order to pay Rs 45 lakh to Nikita Agrawal.
The Core of the Legal Challenge
The controversy stems from a family court's decision in August this year. While granting Dipak Agrawal a divorce on the grounds of mental and physical cruelty, the court simultaneously ordered him to pay a one-time alimony of Rs 45 lakh to Nikita. This amount was determined based on Dipak's income from his granite trading business.
Dipak, through his counsel Rahil Jain, appealed this order in the High Court. The central argument presented was that it was neither proper nor feasible to mandate alimony payments to a spouse accused of such a grave crime as murdering his mother. The HC noted the submission, which emphasized that this was not a simple divorce case but one where the husband endured profound emotional and physical cruelty due to the alleged killing of his parent.
A Timeline of Tragic Events
The backdrop of this legal battle is a harrowing incident from October 2020. Nikita Agrawal was arrested for allegedly striking her mother-in-law, Rekha, with an iron rod, leading to her death. Reports indicate the incident followed repeated verbal disputes between Nikita and her husband.
At the time of the alleged crime, Nikita was pregnant. She later gave birth while in judicial custody and remained in jail for over two years before being granted bail. In 2021, citing the alleged murder as an act of extreme cruelty, Dipak filed for divorce, which was eventually granted this year alongside the alimony order he is now contesting.
High Court's Interim Intervention
The High Court bench, comprising Justice Sangeeta Vishen and Justice Nisha Thakore, took a serious view of the circumstances. After hearing the initial arguments, the bench issued a notice to Nikita Agrawal, seeking her response, and scheduled further hearings for January.
Granting interim relief, the court stated, "Considering the chequered and serious facts, by way of an ad-interim relief, direction contained in Para 4 is placed in abeyance till the next date of hearing." This order effectively stays the family court's alimony directive until the matter is examined further.
The case highlights the complex interplay between matrimonial law, maintenance rights, and criminal allegations. The High Court's decision to stay the payment underscores the legal principle that extraordinary circumstances demand careful judicial scrutiny. The final outcome, expected in the coming months, will be closely watched for its implications on similar cases where severe criminal charges are involved in divorce proceedings.
