Supreme Court to Mohammad Shami’s Wife: “Isn’t ₹4 Lakh Per Month Quite Handsome?” — A Legal Insight into Maintenance under Indian Law
Introduction: The Supreme Court’s Remark Sparks Debate
The Supreme Court of India recently made headlines while hearing a petition filed by Hasin Jahan, the estranged wife of Indian cricketer Mohammad Shami, challenging the Calcutta High Court’s order granting her ₹4 lakh as monthly maintenance. The bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, while issuing notice to Shami, observed that ₹4 lakh per month appeared to be “quite reasonable.”
The remark has stirred public debate on the concept of maintenance under Indian law — how courts determine what is “reasonable,” and how such determinations balance lifestyle disparities between spouses.
Background: Calcutta High Court’s Interim Maintenance Order
The Calcutta High Court’s July 1 order fixed ₹1.5 lakh as monthly maintenance for Hasin Jahan and ₹2.5 lakh for the couple’s daughter, totaling ₹4 lakh. The division bench of the High Court later upheld this order on August 25, 2024.
Before this, the trial court had ordered Shami to pay ₹80,000 for his daughter and ₹50,000 for his wife monthly. Dissatisfied, Jahan approached the High Court seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount.
The Supreme Court’s current proceedings arise from Jahan’s appeal against the High Court’s order, claiming that the maintenance awarded was grossly insufficient considering Shami’s financial capacity and lavish lifestyle.
Petitioner’s Argument: Financial Disparity and Lifestyle Standards
Represented by Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta and Advocate Sriram Parakatt, Jahan argued that Shami’s monthly expenses exceed ₹1.08 crore as per his affidavit, while her awarded maintenance is a fraction of his income. The petition claimed that Shami’s net worth is approximately ₹500 crore, and he is deliberately underplaying his financial capacity to avoid fair maintenance obligations.
The petition further emphasized that Jahan, being unemployed since marriage, has no independent source of income to support herself and her daughter, creating a stark financial disparity between the parties.
Supreme Court Proceedings: Mediation and Fairness Considerations
During the hearing, the Supreme Court questioned the necessity of the appeal, observing, “Why have you filed this? Isn’t ₹4 lakh per month quite handsome?” Nevertheless, the Court agreed to issue notice to Shami and allowed four weeks for the next hearing.
The bench also indicated the possibility of mediation and settlement, noting that matrimonial disputes involving maintenance are best resolved through mutual understanding where feasible.
Relevant Legal Provisions Governing Maintenance
1. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
This section mandates that a person with sufficient means must maintain his wife, children, and parents if they are unable to maintain themselves. The objective is to prevent destitution and ensure basic sustenance.
The court determines the maintenance amount based on the husband’s income, standard of living, and the wife’s reasonable needs.
2. Section 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA)
-
Section 24: Allows either spouse to seek interim maintenance during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings.
-
Section 25: Provides for permanent alimony and maintenance post-divorce or separation, depending on the financial capacity and conduct of the parties.
3. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA)
Under Section 20, the Act empowers the court to order monetary relief to meet expenses and losses suffered by an aggrieved woman due to domestic violence. Hasin Jahan has also sought relief under this Act.
Judicial Precedents Supporting Maintenance Determination
Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017) 14 SCC 200
The Supreme Court held that the husband’s maintenance obligation should not ordinarily exceed 25% of his net monthly salary, considering the standard of living and needs of both parties.
Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines for determining maintenance, including factors such as:
-
The husband’s real income and assets
-
The wife’s employment status and earning capacity
-
The standard of living during the marriage
-
Reasonable needs of the wife and children
The Court emphasized full disclosure of income and assets by both parties and sought uniformity in maintenance orders across courts.
Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017) 15 SCC 801
The Supreme Court clarified that maintenance is not a means to enrich the recipient but to ensure financial security and parity of lifestyle to the extent possible.
Analysis: Balancing Fairness and Financial Capability
The debate in the Shami case centers on whether ₹4 lakh per month is “handsome” or “inadequate.”
Given the cricketer’s reported income and assets, the petitioner contends that the amount does not match his financial stature or the lifestyle maintained during the marriage.
The Supreme Court’s interim remark underscores a broader legal dilemma — how to balance a spouse’s financial worth with the principle of reasonableness. Maintenance is not a punitive measure but a social and legal mechanism to ensure equity and dignity in matrimonial relationships.
Pending Issues and Arrears of Maintenance
As per Jahan, Shami owes over ₹2.4 crore in arrears of maintenance, which he has disputed. The High Court directed him to clear these arrears in eight monthly installments starting from September 2024. The pending payments and the alleged financial disparity remain central issues before the Supreme Court.
Conclusion: Beyond Numbers — A Test of Judicial Equilibrium
The Supreme Court’s observation, while seemingly casual, touches a critical aspect of family law — the need for judicial consistency, fairness, and sensitivity in maintenance cases.
The final outcome of this case will likely reaffirm the principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha and other precedents, ensuring that maintenance orders reflect both economic realities and social justice.
The case also highlights the continuing challenge of ensuring that India’s maintenance laws keep pace with modern lifestyles and financial complexities, especially in high-profile marriages involving substantial wealth disparities.

Comments
Post a Comment