Here, we witness a contentious battle over the division of relationship property following the end of a marriage. The husband, Mr. Prakash, argued that his extraordinary circumstances entitled him to a greater share of the matrimonial assets and that he needed additional time to raise funds to buy out his wife's share. The wife, Ms. Gupta, maintained that an equal share was fair and that there had already been far too much delay. Ultimately, the court agreed with the wife.
Mr. Prakash's challenge was difficult; he had to convince the judge that an equal division would be "repugnant to justice." He argued that his financial contributions and care for their son post-separation warranted a larger share. However, the court was not convinced and ordered an equal division of the assets and an immediate sale of the property.
Although the details about the costs of the proceedings are not published, the court did decide that Ms. Gupta could seek to have her legal fees paid by Mr. Prakash. Additionally, she was entitled to compensation for the rent she had to pay while Mr. Prakash stayed in the family home. The lesson for those considering litigation is clear: putting forward a risky argument in court is like placing a bet at the track on long odds.
If your ex-partner is determined to gamble, litigation might be the only option. For everyone else, negotiation will almost always produce a faster and more certain outcome. Using an experienced mediator to work with both parties can help avoid Ms. Gupta and Mr. Prakash's nightmare.
Коментари