After 23 years, Indian-origin woman wins £6.6 million in epic divorce battle

An Indian-origin woman has been awarded £6.6 million (Dh32.5 million) after a 23-year legal battle that began with a routine divorce and evolved into one of Britain’s most extraordinary family court disputes involving hidden wealth, money laundering convictions and a landmark Supreme Court ruling.

The case centres on Varsha Gohil, who filed for divorce from her husband, solicitor Bhadresh Gohil, in 2002, citing adultery and unreasonable behaviour.

At the time, the separation appeared straightforward. She accepted a settlement worth around £270,000 and retained the family’s Peugeot car, believing the couple’s finances had been fully disclosed, according to PTI and UK media reports.

But Varsha later became convinced that her former husband had hidden substantial assets during the divorce process. Under British law, both spouses are required to provide a complete and accurate account of their finances when a settlement is negotiated.

Her suspicions set off a legal battle that would span more than two decades.

Hidden fortune comes to light

The dispute took a dramatic turn when Bhadresh Gohil became embroiled in a major money-laundering investigation.

Following a lengthy criminal probe, Gohil was convicted in 2011 of money laundering, forgery and conspiracy-related offences and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

The criminal proceedings revealed assets worth nearly £28 million that prosecutors alleged had been concealed through a complex network of offshore companies and international transactions.

For Varsha, the revelations appeared to confirm what she had suspected for years — that her former husband had failed to disclose the true extent of his wealth during the divorce.

Case reaches the Supreme Court

Even before the criminal conviction, Varsha had begun efforts to reopen the original settlement.

Her challenge eventually reached the UK Supreme Court, where it was heard alongside a similar case involving another woman, Alison Sharland, who also alleged that her former husband had concealed assets during divorce proceedings.

In a landmark 2015 judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that spouses who fail to provide full and frank financial disclosure should not be allowed to benefit from their deception. The decision allowed both women to reopen their settlements and pursue fresh claims.

The ruling was widely seen as a significant moment in British family law.

Who owned the money?
Yet the Supreme Court victory did not end the dispute.

The next battle focused on the frozen £28 million fortune and whether it should be treated as marital wealth.

Three sides emerged.

Bhadresh Gohil argued that the assets were not his. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) maintained that the money represented the proceeds of crime and should be reserved for criminal confiscation proceedings. Varsha contended that at least part of the wealth had been generated through legitimate businesses during the marriage and therefore belonged in the matrimonial asset pool, PTI and UK media reports said.

The complexity of tracing the assets and resolving competing legal claims delayed a fresh High Court hearing until 2023.

Judge’s scathing verdict

When the case finally returned to court, Justice Williams rejected key elements of both the husband’s and the CPS’s arguments.

The judge concluded that prosecutors had failed to prove that the entire £28 million originated from criminal activity. He found that a significant portion of the wealth had legitimate origins and formed part of the couple’s marital assets.

The court ultimately identified approximately £6.66 million in untainted assets and awarded the sum to Varsha.

In a strongly worded judgment, the judge described Bhadresh Gohil as “thoroughly and pervasively dishonest” and said his conduct ranked at “the highest end of the scale” in terms of dishonesty and its consequences.

He also dismissed Gohil’s attempts to portray himself as a victim, saying his version of events was far removed from reality.

No further appeals

The final chapter came when the UK Court of Appeal ruled out any further appeals, allowing the High Court’s decision to stand.

For Varsha Gohil, now 61, the judgment brings an end to a legal fight that outlasted criminal prosecutions, confiscation proceedings and multiple appeals across several courts and jurisdictions.

Reflecting on the case, she noted that there were “absolutely no winners in divorce” and urged greater consideration for children caught up in long-running family disputes.

The litigation lasted so long and travelled through so many courts that Justice Williams remarked that the name “Gohil” would remain in the memories of lawyers and judges for years because of the “tortuous route” the case had taken.