When Varsha Gohil accepted a divorce settlement in 2004, she believed her former husband had not revealed the full extent of his wealth.
More than two decades later, Britain's courts have effectively agreed.
The Indian-origin woman has secured an award worth about £6.6 million, bringing to an end a 23-year legal battle that evolved from a divorce dispute into one of the most extraordinary family law cases in the UK.
Varsha and solicitor Bhadresh Gohil married in 1991 and built a life together in London, raising three children. Their marriage broke down in 2002, with Varsha filing for divorce citing adultery and unreasonable behaviour. At the time, the financial settlement was based on information presented by Bhadresh about his assets and income, and the case appeared to be resolved.
However, Varsha maintained that the financial picture disclosed during the proceedings did not reflect the true extent of her husband's wealth.
The case took a dramatic turn several years later when Bhadresh Gohil became embroiled in one of Britain's most high-profile corruption investigations. In 2010, he was convicted for helping former Nigerian governor James Ibori launder millions of pounds in corrupt funds and received a 10-year prison sentence.
Hidden assets claim leads to £6.6m payout
- Original 2004 settlement gave Varsha Gohil around £270,000 and a Peugeot 206, far less than what was later found to be available.
- The CPS froze about £35 million in assets during the criminal investigation into Bhadresh Gohil's financial dealings.
- The court later ruled that the £6.6 million award represented about 70% of the legitimate, non-criminal matrimonial assets.
- A 2015 Supreme Court ruling confirmed that divorce settlements can be reopened if one party failed to fully disclose their finances.
- Varsha argued that the case also highlighted economic abuse, claiming she had been denied a fair settlement because key financial information had been withheld.
The criminal investigation uncovered a complex network of companies, accounts and assets spanning multiple jurisdictions. Prosecutors later identified wealth worth tens of millions of pounds, including assets that had not featured in the original divorce proceedings.
For Varsha, the revelations appeared to confirm concerns she had raised for years.
A landmark Supreme Court battle
Armed with evidence emerging from the criminal case, she returned to the family courts arguing that her former husband had failed to make full and frank disclosure of his finances when the original settlement was agreed.
What followed was years of litigation involving family courts, criminal confiscation proceedings, appeals and legal challenges. The dispute eventually reached the UK Supreme Court, which ruled that financial settlements could be revisited where material non-disclosure was alleged.
The case then returned to the High Court for a detailed examination of Bhadresh Gohil's assets. Judges were required to untangle a complicated web of businesses, offshore structures and financial holdings while also distinguishing between assets linked to criminal conduct and those considered legitimate matrimonial wealth.
In a strongly worded judgment, Justice Williams described Bhadresh Gohil as "pervasively dishonest" and said Varsha had been seriously disadvantaged by the failure to provide full and frank disclosure during the original divorce proceedings.
The court concluded that assets worth approximately £6.66 million represented legitimate wealth acquired during the marriage and should form part of the matrimonial estate.
The ruling dramatically increased the amount she received compared with the settlement reached in 2004 and marked the culmination of a battle that had lasted more than two decades.
A case that could shape future divorce disputes
The Court of Appeal has since refused permission for further challenges, effectively drawing a line under the dispute.
Beyond the personal victory for Varsha, the case has attracted significant attention because it sits at the intersection of divorce law, criminal investigations and hidden assets. It has become a closely watched example of how courts can revisit financial settlements when new evidence emerges and allegations of concealed wealth are later substantiated.
For Varsha Gohil, however, the judgment represents the end of a fight that began in 2002 with a simple claim: that she had never been told the full truth about her former husband's finances. Twenty-three years later, that claim has resulted in one of the most remarkable divorce awards in recent British legal history.’