SC Seeks Mohammed Shami’s Reply as Wife Pushes to Move Cases to Delhi
SC Seeks Mohammed Shami’s Reply as Wife Pushes to Move Cases to Delhi
Supreme Court issues notice to Shami after Hasin Jahan seeks transfer of maintenance and related cases from West Bengal to Delhi.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to cricketer Mohammed Shami after his estranged wife, Hasin Jahan, moved for transfer of maintenance and related proceedings from a West Bengal court to Delhi, where she now lives with their daughter.
In 2018, Jahan had filed a criminal case in Jadavpur, West Bengal, alleging extreme cruelty by Shami and his family. She later sought relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Delhi petition argues that shifting the proceedings to Delhi would simplify the litigation for her and her daughter, as she has relocated there to pursue her daughter’s education. She has also filed a separate plea in the Supreme Court seeking enhanced maintenance, contending that the current ₹4 lakh monthly maintenance is not proportional to Shami’s earnings.
The bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan issued notices and asked for the cricketer and his family members named in the pleas to respond. Advocates Sriram Parakkat and Deepak Prakash, representing Jahan, told the court that she has shifted to Delhi to secure her daughter’s educational prospects and to pursue the litigation more effectively. The court had previously issued a notice in November 2025, but no response had been filed by Shami at that time.
Background details show that the Calcutta High Court, on August 25 last year, approved an enhanced monthly maintenance of ₹1.5 lakh for the wife and ₹2.5 lakh for the child, bringing the total to ₹4 lakh per month. Earlier, the trial court had directed Shami to pay ₹80,000 per month toward his daughter’s maintenance and ₹50,000 toward his estranged wife. The transfer petition argues that continuing multiple trips to Kolkata for the pending proceedings would cause grave financial hardship and prejudice the ability to pursue the litigation effectively. The case underscores ongoing tensions in a high-profile domestic matter and the court’s attention to the welfare of the dependents involved.
