Skip to main content

Bombay High Court Grants Yuzvendra Chahal Swift Divorce Ahead of IPL 2025!


The Bombay High Court has granted Indian cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal and his estranged wife, Dhanashree Verma, a waiver of the mandatory six-month cooling-off period for mutual divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. This decision comes just in time for Chahal to join his team, Kings XI Punjab, as the Indian Premier League (IPL) 2025 kicks off on March 22.

Justice Madhav Jamdar

Justice Madhav Jamdar, presiding over the case, instructed the family court to finalize the divorce by March 20. The court acknowledged that the couple had lived apart for more than 2.5 years and had complied with the terms of their mutual consent agreement, including arrangements for permanent alimony.

Although the family court had earlier denied their plea due to partial compliance with alimony payments, the High Court ruled that the remaining payment was scheduled post-divorce, clearing all procedural hurdles. This aligns with the 2017 Supreme Court judgment that permits waiving the cooling-off period if there is no chance of reconciliation.

Chahal and Dhanashree tied the knot in December 2020 but separated in June 2022, filing for divorce in February 2025. This decision underscores the judiciary’s efforts to adapt to time-sensitive matters without compromising legal protocols.

With his divorce proceedings resolved, Yuzvendra Chahal is all set to focus on his cricketing commitments in IPL 2025. Stay tuned for updates on this story and the latest IPL action!

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Doctrine of Arbitrariness Under Article 14: Landmark E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu Case Explained

Introduction Equality is the cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, enshrined under Article 14 , which guarantees “equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This provision forms the foundation of India’s legal structure, ensuring fairness, non-discrimination, and uniformity in applying laws. The interpretation of Article 14 evolved significantly over time, especially with the landmark case of E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) , which introduced the Doctrine of Arbitrariness. This legal turning point  expanded the meaning of equality beyond mere classification. Understanding Article 14 – Right to Equality Article 14 of the Constitution of India states: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This provision ensures that all individuals, irrespective of race, religion, caste, gender, or place of birth, are treated equally under the...
Post a Comment
Read more

R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884): A Landmark Case on Necessity Defense

Introduction The 1884 case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (14 QBD 273) is one of the most pivotal rulings in English criminal law, specifically regarding the Defense of Necessity in murder cases . This landmark judgment established the legal precedent that necessity cannot be invoked as a defense for murder , even in dire, life-threatening circumstances. Case Background: Survival at Sea In July 1884, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks, and Richard Parker (a 17-year-old cabin boy) were left adrift after their yacht, Mignonette , sank. For over 20 days, the men survived on limited resources, including turnips and a turtle they managed to catch. As the situation worsened and Parker became gravely weak, Dudley and Stephens resolved to kill and consume Parker in order to survive. Although Brooks abstained from participating in Parker's death, he later consumed Parker's flesh. On the 24th day, the survivors were rescued by a passing ship. Upon their return to England, Dudley and St...
Post a Comment
Read more

Coalgate Scam (2014) – Supreme Court’s Verdict on Coal Block Allocations in India

Overview of the Coalgate Scam The Coalgate Scam , officially known as the Coal Allocation Scam , is one of India’s biggest corruption controversies. It involved the irregular allocation of coal blocks by the Indian government to private companies without competitive bidding between 2004 and 2009 , during the tenure of the UPA government . The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) estimated a potential loss of ₹1.86 lakh crore to the public exchequer, due to the non-transparent and arbitrary allocation of coal-rich blocks to select firms. What Was the Coal Allocation Scam About? Coal blocks are parcels of coal-rich land given to companies for mining. Between 2004–2009 , the government allocated over 200 coal blocks to private companies using a discretionary allotment method . No public auction was held, leading to unjust enrichment of certain private entities. Many companies that received coal blocks had little or no prior experience in coal mining . Supreme C...
Post a Comment
Read more