BIZARRE
A husband divorced his wife because she refused to eat onions and garlic; the court made this statement
Husband Granted Divorce After Wife Refused Onion-Garlic Diet, Gujarat High Court Calls It Mental Cruelty
Updated: January 29, 2026
In a significant legal ruling, the Gujarat High Court upheld a family court’s divorce order, stating that a wife’s rigid religious behavior and repeated conflicts over household food habits can amount to mental cruelty toward the husband. The judgment, delivered on November 27, 2025, has drawn public attention due to the unusual nature of the dispute — the wife’s strict refusal to consume onion and garlic, which allegedly led to continuous domestic tension.
The High Court confirmed that persistent disagreements over lifestyle choices, combined with inflexible religious conduct and recurring marital conflicts, can seriously impact the mental well-being of a spouse and justify legal separation under applicable laws.
He claimed that:
- The wife insisted on preparing and eating separate food
- Frequent disputes arose over everyday household routines
- Her behavior caused continuous emotional strain
- The relationship suffered irreparable damage due to constant conflict
The Family Court, after reviewing evidence and testimonies, accepted the husband’s argument and granted the divorce, citing mental cruelty.
High Court Upholds Divorce Verdict
Upon review, the Gujarat High Court supported the Family Court’s findings, stating that all relevant documents, facts, and testimonies were properly examined.
The court ruled that:
- The wife’s persistent conduct and repeated conflicts constituted mental cruelty
- The husband’s mental distress and marital breakdown were legally valid grounds for divorce
- The Family Court’s ruling was neither arbitrary nor legally flawed
The High Court emphasized that marital harmony requires mutual understanding and flexibility, and when one partner’s rigid behavior repeatedly disrupts family life, it may fall under mental cruelty as defined in matrimonial law.
Wife Did Not Challenge Divorce, Disputed Alimony Amount
Interestingly, the wife did not contest the divorce itself in the High Court. Instead, her appeal focused solely on the permanent alimony (maintenance) amount awarded by the Family Court.
She argued that:
- Her husband earned a higher monthly income
- He was allegedly a factory owner earning ₹60,000–₹70,000 per month
- The maintenance amount fixed by the Family Court was insufficient
The husband, however, denied these claims, stating that he worked for a private company and earned a modest salary.
Court Finds Income Claims Exaggerated
During the hearing, the Gujarat High Court observed that the financial evidence submitted did not support the wife’s claims regarding the husband’s high income.
The court noted:
- Available financial records suggested the husband had limited earnings
- There was no conclusive proof that he owned a factory
- The wife herself was employed, a fact she allegedly attempted to conceal
Based on these findings, the High Court concluded that the Family Court’s maintenance decision was reasonable, justified, and lawful.
Alimony Decision: Monthly Maintenance Upheld
Taking into account the husband’s financial responsibilities toward his parents and child, the court upheld the previously determined maintenance structure.
The approved alimony terms include:
- ₹8,000 per month as maintenance from 2013 to 2020
- ₹10,000 per month from 2020 onward
The court ruled that the husband’s income level, living conditions, and dependent responsibilities justified this amount. It also recognized that he resided in a small home and did not possess significant financial resources.
Directions Issued for Payment of Pending Dues
The High Court also provided clear instructions regarding pending maintenance payments. It directed that:
- Any amount already deposited by the husband be adjusted
- The remaining balance be transferred directly to the wife’s bank account
- All payments must comply with the timelines established by the Family Court
With this ruling, the High Court dismissed the wife’s appeal and confirmed both the divorce decree and the maintenance order.
Legal and Social Significance of the Verdict
This case has sparked widespread discussion due to its unique circumstances. Legal experts note that the judgment highlights an important principle: mental cruelty does not only involve abuse or violence, but also persistent emotional strain caused by inflexible behavior or lifestyle conflicts.
The ruling reinforces that:
- Marital relationships require compromise and emotional balance
- Continuous domestic conflict over personal or religious practices can be legally recognized as mental cruelty
- Courts will examine financial transparency and fairness when determining alimony
Conclusion
The Gujarat High Court’s verdict sets an important precedent in defining mental cruelty within marriage, particularly when lifestyle and religious rigidity lead to ongoing conflict. By upholding both the divorce and maintenance order, the court reaffirmed the need for fairness, emotional well-being, and legal accountability in matrimonial disputes.
This case serves as a reminder that healthy relationships depend on mutual respect, adaptability, and understanding, and when these elements break down irreversibly, the law may intervene to provide relief.
