The High Court case of Mahtani v Mahtani highlights significant issues of non-disclosure and non-engagement in divorce proceedings. With claims involving millions, Mr Mahtani’s failure to participate led the court to draw adverse inferences, awarding Mrs Mahtani £13.9 million. This pivotal case underscores the importance of fairness and judicial discretion in financial settlements.
I represented Mrs Mahtani in a High Court finance case. The case is unusual because the defining characteristic of the case is Mr Mahtani’s failure to engage in the proceedings at all or enter into any communication. Notwithstanding this, the court was satisfied that he was aware of the proceedings and sufficient notice had been given to him of every hearing and accordingly the court made a final order in his absence based on adverse inferences.
Background of the Marriage
The parties married in 2003. Mrs Mahtani is a 49-year-old British Indian and married Mr Mahtani, a 52-year-old Indonesian Indian. The marriage took place in England, and then Mrs Mahtani moved to Indonesia to live with her husband. They subsequently had two children. Mr Mahtani comes from a very wealthy and influential family in Indonesia and is in his own right a millionaire. Mrs Mahtani enjoyed a very high standard of living where money was never an issue.
Standard of Living During the Marriage
- Luxury properties owned by Mr Mahtani
- Household staff including a cook, nanny, cleaner, and driver
- Children attending exclusive private schools
- Investments in several countries
- Mr Mahtani’s businesses included sectors such as iron and steel, industrial chemicals, forestry products, spices, and coconut plantations.
Mrs Mahtani’s Relocation to England
In May 2016, Mrs Mahtani travelled to England with her children for their annual summer holiday. Due to alleged abuse in the marriage, she decided not to return to Indonesia. She feared the consequences for herself and her children if they went back.
Legal Actions
- In May 2019, Mrs Mahtani applied for a child arrangement order and a prohibited steps order.
- Mr Mahtani failed to engage in these applications.
Financial Struggles
Mr Mahtani provided no financial support for his wife or children. As a result:
- Mrs Mahtani lived in a small 2-bedroom flat and relied on benefits.
- Mr Mahtani has not seen his children since May 2016 and blocked all contact with them.
Divorce Proceedings in Indonesia
Unbeknown to Mrs Mahtani, Mr Mahtani applied for a divorce in Indonesia on 14 November 2017. He obtained this divorce without notice to her and without giving her opportunity to participate in the proceedings. Mr Mahtani failed to comply with the requirements of Indonesian law to serve her through diplomatic channels, as she was living in England at the time and remains living here to date. Mr Mahtani knew perfectly well that Mrs Mahtani was living in England, and he had her address and other contact details, but he fraudulently gave the Indonesian court an address for service in Indonesia (his address) in order to procure the divorce without reference to her. Two witnesses on behalf of Mr Mahtani confirmed to the court that they did not know where she was living whereas both witnesses were in contact with her before and ruing the Indonesian proceedings and were aware of her whereabouts.
English Divorce Proceedings
In December 2021, Mrs Mahtani issued divorce proceedings in England. She sought an order that the court refuses to recognise the Indonesian divorce so that her English divorce proceedings may continue, and she can pursue her financial claims before the English court.
Interim Orders
In May 2023 an application was heard for maintenance pending suit and a Legal Services Payment Order. The court granted both, but neither was ever paid.
Indonesian Financial Application
In around February 2023, Mr Mahtani made a financial application to the court in Indonesia. The application was made without notice to Mrs Mahtani and Mr Mahtani again claimed not to know her whereabouts.
In the absence of Mrs Mahtani, the Indonesia court made an order on 17 July 2023 which provided for Mr Mahtani to receive the entirety of the matrimonial assets with Mrs Mahtani to receive nothing more than bed linen and personal clothing. The judgement was again found by chance as Mrs Mahtani was not informed of the application or the outcome.
High Court Decision to Refuse Recognition of the Indonesian Divorce
On 17 November 2023, Deputy High Court James Ewins KC heard the application for non-recognition of the Indonesian divorce. Mr Mahtani did not attend. The High Court refused to recognise the Indonesian divorce for reasons set out in the judgment which can be found at [2023] EWHC 2988 (Fam). Mrs Mahtani was then free to pursue her financial claim.
Application for Worldwide Freezing Order
In advance of the First Appointment, Mrs Mahtani applied for a worldwide freezing order over Mr Mahtani’s assets and for various non-party disclosure orders. These were granted.
Final Hearing on Financial Claims
The final hearing was on 8th to 10th January 2020. Because Mr Mahtani had not made any financial disclosure whatsoever, the Judge had to consider what if any adverse inferences can reasonably and properly be drawn concerning his financial resources. Evidence was heard from Mrs Mahtani on the standard of living she enjoyed and her knowledge of Mr Mahtani’s assets.
Legal Precedents for Adverse Inferences
The court’s duty to consider drawing adverse inferences can be traced back to the decision of Sachs J in J v J [1955] P 215, in which he stated:
“In cases of this kind, where the duty of disclosure comes to lie on a husband; where a husband has – and his wife has not – detailed knowledge of his complex affairs; where a husband is fully capable of explaining and has had opportunity to explain, those affairs, and where he seeks to minimise the wife’s claim, that husband can hardly complain if, when he leaves gaps in the court’s knowledge, the court does not draw inferences in his favour. On the contrary, when he leaves a gap in such a state that two alternative inferences may be drawn, the court will normally draw the less favourable inference – especially where it seems likely that his able legal advisers would have hastened to put forward affirmatively any facts, had they existed, establishing the more favourable alternative. The obligation of the husband is to be full, frank and clear in that disclosure. Any shortcomings of the husband from the requisite standard can and normally should be visited at least by the court drawing inferences against the husband on matters the subject of the shortcomings insofar as such inferences can properly be drawn.”
Other relevant case law concerning non-disclosure and adverse inferences considered in this case were of Moher v Moher [2019] EWCA Civ 1482; Ditchfield v Ditchfield [2023] EWHC 2303 (Fam), and Hersman v De Verchere [2024] EWHC 905 (Fam).
Counsel identified a number of other reported cases in which adverse inferences were drawn, such as: A v A [2012] All ER (D) 108 (Dec), per Bodey J; XO v YO & Anor [2022] EWFC 114, per HHJ Hess; CC v LC [2023] EWFC 52, per HHJ Wildblood KC; and Dickason v Dickason [2024] EWFC 285 (B), per HHJ Sweeney.
In deciding what if any adverse inferences the Judge may draw concerning the financial resources of Mr Mahtani, the Judge reminded himself again of the words of Lady Hale, quoted by Moylan LJ above:
‘… the court is entitled to draw such inferences as can properly be drawn from all the available material, including what has been disclosed, judicial experience of what is likely to be being concealed and the inherent probabilities, in deciding what the facts are.’
The Outcome
Mrs Mahtani sought a lump sum of £13.9 million based on the value of four properties. Mrs Mahtani did not seek any share of Mr Mahtani’s business assets because she was unable to assess to what extent they may constitute matrimonial acquest. Mrs Mahtani put her case forward conservatively. The Judge commented that there was a risk of giving in to the “cheat’s charter”. Counsel submitted that Mrs Mahtani was between a rock and hard place because she is seeking a fair outcome but doing so largely in a vacuum and cautious not to overstate her claims without any disclosure from Mr Mahtani.
The Judge considered Mrs Mahtani’s financial needs in the context of the standard of living that the parties jointly enjoyed during the marriage, the ages of the parties, the duration of the marriage and the applicant’s health. He also considered the housing needs for her and the children.
The Judge decided that Mrs Mahtani has a fair sharing claim to 50% of the value of Mr Mahtani’s property interests, which he assessed at £13.9 million.
Enforcement of the Order
Mrs Mahtani will seek to enforce the order in jurisdictions where Mr Mahtani has assets. This case is notable because of Mr Mahtani’s wealth, non-engagement in the proceedings and the adverse findings found by the Judge in the absence of any evidence from Mr Mahtani.
Contact a Specialist Divorce Lawyer
If you would like any legal advice on divorce or require assistance in relation to divorce proceedings, our dedicated Family Law Solicitors can guide you through the process. Please feel free to contact our specialist Divorce Lawyers or call us on 020 8492 2290.
