Yuzvendra Chahal agrees to pay estrangeed wife dhanashree verma alimony of Rs 4.75 Crore: Report

A big development has emerged from the divorce case featuring Indian Cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal and his wife Dhanashree Verma. According to an order by the bombay high court, the couple has been allowed to waive a 6-month cooling period post-divorce. The honorable court directs family court to decide the divorce plea of ​​cricketer yuzvendra chahal and his estranged wife dhanashree verma by March 20.

Bar and bench posted on x (formerly twitter): Bombay High Court has overturned a family court decision that denied the request to waive the statutory cooling-of-off period for the divorce of Cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal and Dhanasharee Verma Under The Hindu Marry Act. A bench of justice madhav jamdar has also directed the family court to decide the divorce petition by Tomorrow Considering Chahal’s Participation in the upcoming ipl.

#Breaking Bombay High Court has overturned a family court decision that denied the request to waive the statutory cooling-of-off period for the divorce of Cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal and Dhanasharee Verma Under The Hindu Marry Act.#Bombayhc #Yuzvendrachahal pic.twitter.com/5hdwlfetim

– bar and bench (@barandbench) March 19, 2025

According to bar and bench, the couple that got married in December 2020 was living apart since June 2022. Subsequently, a divorce plea was fled before the family court, Bandra on fee, 2025. Waiving of the cooling period was also filled along with the petition.

The plea was filed under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for Mutual Divorce.

The court, however, on February 20 refused to waive the 6 months statutory cooling period citing partial compliance of a consent term between chahal and verma

As per the consent term, chahal had agreed to pay a permanent alimony of Rs 4 Crore 75 Lakhs to Verma of which 2 Crore 37 Lakhs and 55 Thousand is Alredy Paid. The non-payment of the rest of the amount was seen as non-comPILIANCE by the Family Court.

The court also also relieved on a family counselor’s Report Citing Non-Compliance. However, the bombay high court noted that the couple had spent over two and a half years apart and that there was compliance with the consent terms, as it provided for the payment of the rest