Kolkata: Indian cricketer Mohammed Shami suffered a huge legal setback on Tuesday (July 1) as Calcutta High Court directed him to pay Rs 4 lakh alimony monthly to his estranged wife Hasin Jahan and daughter. Jahan had moved to High Court, challenging the district sessions court’s order directing the pace bowler to pay Rs 50,000 to his wife and Rs 80,000 to her daughter in 2023.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee passed the order on Tuesday asking Shami to pay Rs 1.5 lakh to his wife and Rs 2.5 lakh to his daughter per month as part of maintenance. “In my considered opinion, a sum of Rs 1,50,000 per month to the petitioner no.1 (wife) and Rs 2,50,000 to her daughter would be just fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for both the petitioners, till the disposal of the main application.
“However, as regards the petitioner’s child, the husband /opposite party No 2 will always be at liberty to voluntarily assist her with educational and/or other reasonable expenses, over and above the aforesaid amount,” the order stated.
Hasin Jahan had earlier sought Rs 10 lakh alimony
Earlier, Hasin Jahan had sought Rs 10 lakh in total – Rs 7 lakh for herself and Rs 3 lakh for her daughter. However, her appeal was then dismissed by the lower court. Meanwhile, the latest High Court order also stated that the Shami’s income proves that he is in a position to pay a higher amount. Moreover, as Jahan has remained unmarried, she is entitled to a levelled maintenance.
“In view of materials placed before me and considering the elements for the determination of the quantum of maintenance as held in the salutary judgments, I am of the view that the quantum of interim monetary relief as fixed by the court below requires revision. The opposite party/husband’s income, financial disclosure and earnings established that he is in a position to pay a higher amount.
“The petitioner’s wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently with the child, is entitled to a levelled maintenance that she enjoyed during her continuance of marriage and which reasonably secures her future as well as the future of the child,” the court order stated.
