The Gujarat High Court on Monday heard yet another chapter of a rather unusual divorce dispute one involving accusations about stray dogs, late-night police visits and even a prank call that aired on radio. The atmosphere in court wasn't hostile, but there was a clear sense of fatigue on both sides, as the bench nudged the couple's lawyers to rethink whether a negotiated settlement is wiser than prolonging a fight that started more than a decade ago.
Background
The couple married in 2006, but the husband claims their relationship deteriorated soon after his wife began bringing stray dogs into their apartment complex. The society reportedly did not permit pets, and according to him, the resistance from neighbours snowballed into formal complaints, which eventually dragged both spouses to the local police station multiple times.
He further alleged that the dogs were not just companions but practically took over their home life sometimes entering their bed, occasionally biting him, and creating conflicts with other residents. Another incident he highlighted was an April Fool's Day prank that his wife arranged through a radio station, where he was portrayed as having an affair. The husband says he felt humiliated professionally and socially.
The wife, however, rejected these claims. In the earlier family court proceedings, she argued that he was himself associated with a trust working for stray animals and had willingly brought dogs home. She admitted planning the radio prank but insisted it was harmless and nowhere close to "cruelty'.
The family court had agreed with her version and dismissed his divorce plea earlier this year.
Court's Observations
During Monday's appeal hearing, the bench of Justice Sangeeta K Vishen and Justice Nisha M Thakore didn't dwell long on the colourful details of the marriage. Instead, they focused on the gap between the settlement amounts each side proposed.
The husband's counsel stated that while the wife sought ₹2 crore, his client could arrange only ₹15 lakh. The wife's lawyer disputed the financial hardship claim, arguing that the husband and his family were reasonably well off and capable of offering more.
At one point, the bench remarked,
"Both of you must reconsider your instructions. Endless litigation helps nobody," signalling that the court preferred a settlement but would proceed with the appeal if necessary.
Decision
The bench scheduled the matter for further consideration on December 1, directing both sides to return with their final positions on settlement before the appeal is argued on merits.
