Couple’s onion–garlic dispute ends in divorce




By Sagaya Fernando | December 9, 2025


Ahmedabad, Gujarat, INDIA: A long-running marital dispute over the use of onion and garlic in food ended in divorce for an Ahmedabad couple, with the Gujarat High Court dismissing the wife’s appeal challenging the dissolution of the marriage.


The couple, married in 2002, belonged to sharply different culinary cultures. The wife, a follower of the Swaminarayan sect, strictly avoided onion and garlic in adherence to her faith, while her husband and in-laws had no such restrictions. What began as a dietary difference soon escalated into a full-blown domestic conflict, ultimately forcing the family to maintain separate cooking arrangements.


The strained atmosphere led the woman to leave the matrimonial home along with the couple’s child. In 2013, the husband approached the Ahmedabad family court seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The family court granted the divorce on May 8, 2024, and directed him to pay maintenance.


Both parties then moved the Gujarat High Court—the wife challenging the divorce and the husband contesting the maintenance order. During the hearing, the husband argued that he and his mother would prepare separate meals without onion and garlic for the wife, but her “rigidity” regarding dietary practices caused persistent disputes. He claimed he even approached the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority and the Mahila Police Station due to her alleged harassment.


However, during arguments, the woman informed the court she no longer opposed the dissolution of the marriage. A division bench of Justice Sangeeta Vishen and Justice Nisha Thakore held that, in light of her statement, the challenge to the divorce no longer survived.


The woman also complained that the husband had not paid the ordered maintenance. The court directed him to deposit the balance amount with the registry in instalments.


With this, the nearly two-decade-old matrimonial discord rooted in food habits finally reached legal closure.

Comments