The Bombay High Court granted a request from Indian cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal and his estranged wife, Dhanashree Verma, to waive the six-month cooling-off period required under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for a divorce decree.
Justice Madhav Jamdar, the presiding judge, instructed the family court to expedite the divorce petition and reach a decision by the next day, given Chahal’s participation in the upcoming Indian Premier League (IPL).
Go Beyond The Boundary with our YouTube channel. SUBSCRIBE NOW!
The judge noted that Chahal might not be available after March 21 due to his IPL commitments with the Punjab Kings, which begins on March 22.
“As the petitioner No 1 (Chahal) is a participant of IPL, the advocate informs that he may not be available post March 21. The family court is hence requested to decide their divorce plea by tomorrow (March 20),” HC said.
The court’s decision followed acknowledgment of the couple’s separation for over two and a half years and the compliance with consent terms reached during mediation concerning alimony payments.
Under Section 13B(2), a mutual divorce petition can typically only be considered after six months from its filing. This cooling-off period is intended to allow time for possible reconciliation. However, a Supreme Court ruling in 2017 indicated that this period could be waived when there is no chance for settlement.
Chahal and Verma married in December 2020 but separated in June 2022. They submitted a joint petition for divorce on February 5, requesting both mutual consent and the waiver of the cooling-off period.
On February 20, the family court denied their request, citing incomplete compliance with the alimony agreement, as Chahal had only paid Rs 2.37 crores of the Rs 4.75 crore owed. A marriage counselor’s report also indicated partial adherence to mediation efforts, prompting their appeal to the High Court.
The High Court concluded that there was compliance with the consent terms since the second installment of alimony was contingent upon the divorce decree. Consequently, the court annulled the family court’s February 20 order and approved their request.