Setback for cricketer Mohammad Shami as court orders Rs 4 lakh alimony to ex-wife
Taking these details into account, the High Court ruled in Jahan's favour. Justice Mukherjee stated in the order, '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 petitioners.' The court also noted that Shami may voluntarily contribute additional amounts towards his daughter's educational or other future needs.advertisementThe High Court questioned the basis of the previous decision, highlighting that it was unclear on what grounds the Alipore Court had awarded significantly lower sums. The revised order noted that the earlier judgement required correction, particularly given Shami's substantial earnings and the fact that Jahan has not remarried and lives alone with her daughter.Hasin Jahan, a former model and cheerleader for the Kolkata Knight Riders, married Mohammed Shami in 2014. The couple had a daughter in 2015. However, their relationship turned bitter in 2018 when Jahan accused Shami of domestic violence, dowry harassment, and match-fixing. She also alleged that he had stopped providing financial support for the household.In 2023, Shami shared an emotional Instagram post after meeting his daughter Aaira following a long separation. 'Time stood still when I saw her again after a long time. Love you more than words can say, Bebo,' he wrote. The post garnered over 1.6 lakh likes within an hour.However, Jahan dismissed the gesture, alleging it was merely for public display. Speaking to Anandabazar Patrika, she said, 'It's just for the sake of showing off. My daughter's passport has expired and Shami's signature is needed for the renewal. That's why she went to meet him. He took her to a shopping mall affiliated with a brand he advertises for, where he doesn't have to pay.'She added that her daughter had wanted a guitar and a camera, which Shami refused to buy. 'Shami never enquires about my daughter. He is only busy with himself. He met her a month ago but didn't post anything then. I think he had nothing to post now, so he uploaded this,' Jahan said.- EndsMust Watch
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Russian woman leaves India with child: SC raps Delhi Police for ‘sheer negligence' in custody dispute case
Hearing a child custody dispute between a Russian woman and her Indian husband, the Supreme Court on Friday said that she has left the country with the minor child due to the 'sheer negligence' of the Delhi Police. It also urged the authorities to get in touch with the Indian Embassy in Moscow to bring the minor back. 'At the outset, we are constrained to observe that the incident of taking away the child by the petitioner has happened apparently due to sheer negligence and failure of the Delhi Police in performing its duties in terms of the direction contained in… our order dated May 22, 2025,' a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said. The bench said that on May 22, it had directed that a discreet but strict vigil be kept on the woman. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union government, had on the last date of hearing told the SC that the woman, after leaving her rented accommodation in Delhi, had travelled to Russia via Nepal and UAE with the child. '… that means for four days, she was in Nepal. Had the Delhi Police taken any course of action, we are quite sure that preventive measures could be taken to not allow her to board the flight,' the SC said on Friday. The bench added that 'forging/duplication of the passport of the child', which has been 'committed', was also 'apparently not considered by the Delhi Police'. The SC called this a 'flagrant violation of its orders'. Observing that it was not 'that simple' matrimonial dispute, the bench said, 'The Union of India also must keep in mind that the minor child has been taken from the custody of this court. It is not a case of a custodial dispute between the parents of the child, whose custody has not been handed over to either the father or the mother. It was in exercise of our duty as parens patriae that we were resolving the issue and the child was in the custody of the court.' Bhati said that while authorities are trying to get information from Nepal, the UAE, and Russia, foreign airlines, citing privacy, were reluctant to share travel data. But the SC said that no airline can claim privacy when a crime is committed. It maintained that the authorities should make an effort to bring the child back to the country by exploring diplomatic channels and talking to the Indian ambassador in Moscow. It gave 10 days to the Delhi Police to file a fresh status report depicting some tangible action to bring the child back. Referring to its May 22 order, the bench said that it had then asked the police to maintain discreet but effective vigil over residences of both parents and to depute women personnel who could enter the woman's residence in case of an emergency. However, this was not done even after the man complained; the court pointed out, adding that the CCTV camera footage showed the woman leaving the premises with the child through the back door. Justice Kant asked, 'What were the police doing?' He added that 'it is a clear case of criminal negligence' and that the court will not spare the police. Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
The Hindu
32 minutes ago
- The Hindu
No resumption of MGNREGA work in West Bengal despite HC order says PBKMS
Despite an order by the Calcutta High Court, to resume MGNREGA in West Bengal from August 1, there has been no resumption of 100 days work, Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity, a union of agricultural workers, said on Friday (August 1, 2025). Hearing a petition of PBKMS a division bench of the Calcutta High Court headed by T.S. Sivagnanam on June 18 directed the resumption of the scheme from August 1 'Yet, even after this landmark victory for rural workers, both the Central and State governments have chosen to brazenly defy the Court's order. Instead of preparing for the resumption of work, block offices in multiple districts are refusing to even accept job applications. This is a deliberate attack on the right to work of the state's poorest,' a press statement by PBKMS said. The union also added that job applications by people made under MGNREGA have been rejected. 'In just four days, between 28th and 31st July 2025, 2,092 job applications were submitted across block offices in Purulia, South 24 Parganas, and North 24 Parganas districts. Meanwhile, job applications from 1,349 workers were illegally rejected in 9 block offices across 7 districts,' the union said. A representative of PBKMS said that when they contacted the NREGA Commissioner, he clearly stated that no work will begin unless the Central Government issues fresh instructions - a position that clearly undermines the authority of the Calcutta High Court. Alleging willful inaction by both the governments, the union stated that the Central Government is equally guilty and by hiding behind Section 27 of the MGNREGA Act, 'it continues to block the release of funds and work, systematically depriving Bengal's workers of their legal right to employment'. The workers union also claimed that in Nadia district's Krishnagar-II block, when a member of the union accompanied workers to submit job applications, the BDO and several panchayat pradhans responded with abuse and threats, calling him a 'Bangladeshi' and threatening him with arrest and punitive action. Demanding the immediate implementation of MGNREGA work in West Bengal, as per the High Court order, the PBKMS stated that this blatant 'non-compliance with a High Court order is illegal, unjust, and unacceptable and it continue our struggle for the right to work in every village and every district'. Before the Lok Sabha polls in 2024, the Trinamool Congress along with MGNREGA workers held protests in Delhi demanding payment of wages and resumption of work. However, West Bengal's ruling party response to the High Court order has been lukewarm. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has said her government has started Karmashree Prakalpa to provide at least 50 days of wage employment to each Job Card holder household in a financial year. The scheme, however, is not visible at the grass roots level .Work under MGNREGA had stopped in the State since December 2021 which has resulted in widespread rural distress and migration.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
High court upholds summons to Kangana Rananut in ‘Rs 100' tweet defamation case
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by actor-turned-MP Kangana Ranaut challenging her summoning by a Punjab court in a defamation case, making it clear that the magistrate has duly applied mind to the material on record while summoning her. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, in a detailed 15-page order, said, "There are specific allegations against the petitioner who is a celebrity, that false and defamatory imputations by her in the retweet have dented the respondent's (Mahender Kaur) reputation and lowered her in her own estimation, as also in the eyes of others. Therefore, filing of the complaint to vindicate her rights cannot be termed mala fide." Ranaut is accused of defaming 73-year-old Mohinder Kaur, a farmer activist, through a tweet during the height of the farmers' protests against the now scrapped farm laws in 2020. Ranaut allegedly misidentified Kaur as Bilkis Bano of Shaheen Bagh fame and implied that such women could be hired to participate in protests for Rs 100. "Such remark, prima facie proves that the intent of the accused was to paint the complainant as a person of dubious integrity who is protesting without any cause and just for financial gains," the high court observed. Ranaut's counsel had contended that the trial court misconstrued provisions of Section 202 of CrPC and argued that she had only re-tweeted content by 'Adhivakta Gautam Yadav', who was not arrayed as an accused. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like She grew up to be America's sweetheart... can YOU guess? Watch More Undo The counsel pleaded that the retweet was made in good faith, without intent to harm Kaur's reputation, and in the absence of mens rea, the magistrate should not have proceeded. The order was passed on Feb 22, 2022. Senior advocate G K Mann, representing the complainant, argued that there was no dispute that Ranaut herself made the defamatory on the face of it retweet, which contains serious allegations against Kaur's character. Mann also said that Ranaut had shown no remorse or tendered any apology, suggesting intentional harm. The bench concluded that the summoning order was passed after due application of mind to the facts and preliminary evidence. The court also noted that it was not the petitioner's case that the retweet was not made by her. Regarding the complaint being filed solely against Ranaut, the judge observed, "Still further, because the respondent has filed a complaint only against the petitioner and not against the person to whom the original tweet has been attributed, in itself cannot be a ground to contend that the complaint is mala fide." 'Extra responsibility' on celebrities "As she (Kangana) holds a position of influence over the masses, she has extra responsibility on her shoulders to verify the truthfulness of the remarks made by her. It is evident from the evidence led by the complainant that the accused (Kangana) made the impugned defamatory remark without going into the truthfulness... She even failed to tender any apology to the complainant after knowing the truth." Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya Complaint was filed in 2021 The defamation complaint was filed on Jan 4, 2021, by Mohinder Kaur of Fatehgarh Jandia village in Bathinda. Kaur initiated the case in Bathinda court against Ranaut for her tweet (which was later deleted) that identified Kaur as Bilkis Bano of Shaheen Bagh fame and claimed such women could be hired for protests for Rs 100. Kaur had provided evidence asserting that Ranaut's words had damaged her image. The farmer stated that her family, owning 12 acres of land, found the accusation of protesting for a mere Rs 100 intolerable. MSID:: 123044276 413 |
