Kolkata, India — A significant ruling in an ongoing family court dispute has been handed down, granting Hasin Jahan, the estranged wife of Indian cricketer Mohammed Shami, a monthly alimony of ₹4 lakh. Jahan has faced legal challenges since 2018 in her efforts to secure financial support for herself and their daughter.
Imtiaz Ahmed, Jahan’s attorney, confirmed the details of the court’s decision, stating that Shami is required to pay ₹1.5 lakh per month to Jahan and ₹2.5 lakh for their daughter. This ruling was delivered by a bench led by Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee at the Calcutta High Court.
In contrast to a previous ruling from a district sessions court, which mandated lower payments of ₹50,000 to Jahan and ₹80,000 to their daughter, the higher court’s order came as a major victory for Jahan, who had sought ₹7 lakh monthly for herself and ₹3 lakh for their daughter.
“This is a considerable moment for Hasin Jahan,” Ahmed remarked. He indicated that she had struggled for years, running from “pillar to post” seeking justice. The court’s judgment emphasizes the need for adequate financial stability for both her and their child.
Following the ruling, the court instructed the trial court to resolve the interim application regarding maintenance within six months. Ahmed noted the possibility of the amount increasing upon review, given that Jahan had initially made higher demands in her maintenance application.
Jahan, a former model and cheerleader for the Kolkata Knight Riders, married Shami in 2014, and they welcomed their daughter the following year. However, their relationship turned tumultuous in 2018 when Jahan accused Shami of domestic violence and match-fixing, claims that triggered significant media coverage and scrutiny of his career.
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) temporarily suspended Shami’s central contract amid these allegations, although he was later cleared of any match-fixing wrongdoing following an investigation.
As the legal saga continues, the implications of this ruling underscore the ongoing battle for financial security and the complexities involved in high-profile separations. The court’s decision marks a notable chapter for both parties, potentially influencing future proceedings in their acrimonious legal journey.
This article was automatically generated by OpenAI, and while it aims to be accurate, the people, facts, circumstances, and storyline may contain inaccuracies. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by emailing contact@publiclawlibrary.org.