Star Indian cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal and social media sensation Dhanashree Verma were married in 2020 in a magnificent ceremony witnessed by several cricketing greats. However, after four years of marriage, the public began to question their connection. For a long time, reports of their divorce created a massive buzz. However, the situation is now set to settle. As reported by India Today, the Bombay High Court has directed the Bandra Magistrate Court to rule on the mutual divorce case filed by cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal and his estranged wife Dhanashree Verma by Thursday.
Chahal currently plays for the Punjab Kings, and the Indian Premier League (IPL) begins on March 22. Justice Madhav Jamdar's bench ruled that, given Chahal's lawyers' statement that he will be unavailable beginning March 21 due to the IPL, the family court should hear the divorce procedure on March 20.
On February 5, Chahal and Verma filed a divorce case in family court, seeking a divorce based on their mutual consent. However, the family court refused to waive the six-month cooling off period. The two then jointly filed a petition in the High Court contesting the decision of the Mumbai Family Court not to waive the six-month cooling off period. According to Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, a divorce decision must be issued within six months. The cooling-off period is intended to allow time to consider settlement and reunion options. However, it may be waived if the parties are unable to resolve their dispute.
Justice Jamadar lifted the cooling period, citing the fact that Chahal and Verma had been separated for over two and a half years and that the agreed terms reached during mediation between the two parties regarding alimony payment had been followed. During the hearing, Justice Jamadar observed that "This was a rare case where there were no respondents," as Chahal and Verma had jointly filed the petition. On February 20, the family court dismissed a request to relax the statutory cooling-off period.
Chahal only partially complied with the consent requirements, which obliged him to pay Dhanashree ₹4.75 crore. The family court noted that he paid ₹2.37 crores. The family court also highlighted the marriage counsellor's report, which stated that there was only limited compliance with the mediation attempts. This resulted in the plea before the High Court. The High Court determined that the consent terms were met because the second instalment of permanent alimony was to be paid only after the divorce order was issued.