Kumar v. Bharatwaj Menon, 2026 ONSC 4212

CITATION: Kumar v. Bharatwaj Menon, 2026 ONSC 4212

COURT FILE NO.: FS-25-00113265-0000

DATE: 2026 07 20

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Deepak Kumar

Self-Represented, for the Applicant

Applicant

• and -

Prabhjot Kaur Bharatwaj Menon

Self-Represented, for the Respondent

Respondent

HEARD: July 10, 2026

SHORT MOTION ENDORSEMENT

Stewart J.

1Motion, by applicant, Mr. Kumar, for temporary spousal support and a restraining order.

2With respect to temporary support, Mr. Kumar seeks an order for $1500 per month. He asks that the order be retroactive and last for at least the next year.

3The respondent, Ms. Menon, opposes the motion.

Background Facts

4Mr. Kumar and the respondent, Ms. Menon, were married for a total of eight months. They married in Canada on July 23, 2022. They had a second marriage ceremony in India on December 4, 2022. The couple separated on March 26, 2023.

5There are no children of the marriage (Ms. Menon suffered twin miscarriages on two different dates in March, 2023).

6Mr. Kumar is on a peace bond, which prohibits contact with Ms. Menon. The peace bond started in August, 2025 and expires on August 20, 2026.

7Both parties allege that they were subject to physical and emotional abuse during the marriage.

Temporary Spousal Support Generally

8Section 15.2 of the Divorce Act permits the court to make an order for temporary spousal support.

9Interim support is to provide income for dependent spouses from the time the proceedings are started to trial¹.

10Interim support should only be ordered where a prima facie case for entitled has been set out².

11An order for temporary spousal support is not a final decision, but a temporary order intended to address short term hardship which has arisen from the breakdown of the marriage.³ [emphasis added].

12Entitlement is the first step in the spousal support analysis.

13There are three bases for entitlement to spousal support. They can exist together or separately.

a. Contractual basis: a contract, such as a pre-nuptial contact.

b. Compensatory basis: the compensatory basis for spousal support considers where a spouse would be at the end of the marriage but for sacrifices made during the marriage.

c. Non-compensatory basis: this refers the interdependence of the relationship, and often considers the length of marriage, the drop in the standard of living from the marital standard and economic hardship.

Mr. Kumar’s request for temporary spousal support is not granted.

14The court acknowledges that Mr. Kumar’s circumstances are difficult and stressful. To use his words, he would like assistance in “getting back on his feet”. However, on the evidentiary record before it, the court cannot find entitlement to spousal support.

15The parties were both born in 1993. They were 29 years old at the time of marriage. As noted above, the marriage was eight months long. There were no children.

16During the marriage, both parties worked. The parties advised the court during oral argument that they earned similar salaries.

17Mr. Kumar worked full time during the marriage. There is no evidence that the marriage prejudiced him or interfered with his earning capacity in any way.

18The parties separated on March 26, 2023. On April 18, 2023, Mr. Kumar left work due to mental health issues. He argues that these mental health issues were the sole result of his marriage breakdown. Mr. Kumar received long term disability benefits until September 2023, when he returned to his employment with accommodations. He states that he worked part time until February 2024, when his work permit expired.

19Mr. Kumar then applied for and received a study permit. The study permit started in January 2025. The permit allows him to work up to 24 hours per week.

20Mr. Kumar alleges, without evidence, that he could easily obtain his permanent residency (PR) status, but he is having difficulty passing the English proficiency test due to the breakdown of the marriage.

21The court accepts that the end of the marriage was a stressful time for both parties. However, the evidence does not demonstrate that the end of the marriage was the cause of Mr. Kumar’s mental health issues. Further, given that Mr. Kumar alleges (without evidence) that he was the subject of physical abuse during the marriage, the separation should have been a relief on some level.

22When Mr. Kumar left work in April, 2023, he received income replacement benefits and accommodations when he returned to the workplace. Ultimately he had to stop working because his work permit expired in February, 2024. There is no evidence that Mr. Kumar’s work permit was connected to the marriage in any way. Both parties were present and working in Canada prior to the marriage.

23For the purposes of the motion for temporary spousal support, the court finds that Mr. Kumar has not shown a prima facie for entitlement.

24This aspect of Mr. Kumar’s motion is dismissed.

Restraining Orders Generally

25Mr. Kumar asks this court to order a restraining order against Ms. Menon as well as her other family members, including family members in India. Mr. Kumar asks that the restraining order apply to communications with him as well as his family members, such as his elderly parents who reside in India.

26A court may make an interim or final restraining order against a spouse or former spouse where a party has reasonable grounds to fear for his safety⁴.

27Pursuant to this section, the court cannot make a restraining order against anyone except Ms. Menon. Even if the court was to consider such an order, it could not be made except on notice to the party against whom the order would apply.

28Safety includes physical and psychological safety⁵.

29The standard is lower than the civil standard of balance of probabilities⁶.

30A restraining order cannot be imposed lightly given the liberty interest and potential for imprisonment if the order is breached⁷.

There is no basis to issue a restraining order against Ms. Menon.

31Mr. Kumar makes serious, but unsubstantiated allegations against Ms. Menon. Even applying the lower standard of proof (lower than the balance of probabilities, as noted above), there is no evidence.

32Mr. Kumar accuses Ms. Menon of social media stalking, creation of alternate accounts, monitoring activity and screenshots, contact through mutual connections, and contact despite no-contact conditions. More specifically, Mr. Kumar alleges that Ms. Menon permanently deleted evidence from his devices (presumably remotely) and “hijacked” his bank and CRA accounts, including changing his passwords to result in him being locked out. There is no evidence in support of these serious allegations.

33This aspect of Mr. Kumar’s motion must therefore be dismissed.

A no contact order shall issue.

34During oral submissions, Ms. Menon said that she has no desire to communicate with Mr. Kumar.

35Mr. Kumar indicated that he wished no communication with Ms. Menon

36There is a peace bond in place until August 2026, prohibiting Mr. Kumar from contacting Ms. Menon.

37Given that the parties wish not to communicate with the other, the court makes a no contact order which applies to both parties.

38This order means that the parties shall not communicate with each other except for this family law proceeding. The parties are permitted to serve each other with materials required for this family law proceeding, including, but not limited to motion records, case conference briefs, settlement conference records, financial records and net family property statements.

A Dispute Resolution Conference is ordered.

39It is not clear to the court if a settlement conference date has been assigned. If it has not, the parties should contact the court to obtain one.

40In the meantime, the court also orders the parties to attend a Dispute Resolution Conference, which may be booked through the Calendly app: Select a Date & Time - Calendly

41The court orders that the parties complete a DRO conference by the end of the calendar year.

Costs

42Neither party sought costs and none are ordered.

Orders Made

43The court makes the following orders:

a. The parties shall not communicate with each other except for the purposes of this proceeding.

b. The parties shall complete a dispute resolution conference by the end of 2026.

Stewart J.

Released: July 20, 2026

CITATION: Kumar v. Bharatwaj Menon, 2026 ONSC 4212

Footnotes

1. 1Blackstock v. Comeau, 2018 ONSC 193, at para 13.
2. 2Blackstock, at para 14.
3. 3Lamb v. Watt, 2017 ONSC 5838.
4. 4Family Law Act, section 46.
5. 5JPC v. RRLC 2023 ONSC 162.
6. 6LAB v. JAS, 2020 ONSC 3376 at para 23.
7. 7Stave v. Chartrand, 2004 ONCJ 79 at para 19.