The legal dispute between Indian cricketer Mohammed Shami and his estranged wife Hasin Jahan has resurfaced in the country’s highest court, drawing renewed public attention to a case that has been unfolding for several years. On November 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of India sought formal responses from both Shami and the West Bengal government after Hasin Jahan filed a petition seeking a revision of the maintenance amount she currently receives. The petition challenges a recent Calcutta High Court order that directed Shami to pay a total of four lakh rupees every month to support Jahan and the couple’s daughter.

The matter came up before a Supreme Court bench that, while acknowledging the plea, made an oral observation that the interim maintenance amount set by the Calcutta High Court appeared “quite handsome”. This remark, though not a formal judgment, hinted at the bench’s preliminary perception of the existing order. Nevertheless, the court decided to proceed with a detailed examination of Jahan’s request, signalling that the question of maintenance requires a fresh judicial review before a final determination is made.

The ongoing conflict between Shami and Jahan dates back several years and has been marked by serious allegations, complex legal proceedings, and intense media scrutiny. The two married in 2014, but their relationship began deteriorating openly in 2018 when Jahan filed a police complaint alleging domestic violence and mental harassment, among other charges. These allegations led to multiple criminal and civil proceedings, including cases involving domestic violence, maintenance, and custody.

The financial dispute at the heart of the current petition has evolved over time. In 2023, a district court had directed Mohammed Shami to pay a total of Rs. 1.30 lakh per month to his wife and daughter as interim maintenance. While the amount provided some relief, Jahan argued that it was insufficient given Shami’s financial status as an international cricketer and her own lack of stable income. She maintained that the amount should reflect a standard of living consistent with the period before the marital breakdown.

Her legal team had later approached the Calcutta High Court seeking a substantial increase in the maintenance amount. In July 2025, a bench led by Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee revised the order significantly. The court directed Shami to pay Rs. 1.5 lakh per month to Jahan and an additional Rs. 2.5 lakh for the upkeep and welfare of their daughter, bringing the total to Rs. 4 lakh per month. In its order, the bench reasoned that the revised sum was “just, fair, and reasonable” to ensure financial stability for both mother and daughter. The judgment emphasized the responsibility of a husband and father to maintain dependents in a manner proportionate to his earning capacity and lifestyle.

However, Jahan had originally sought a much higher amount. Her plea asked for a total of Rs. 10 lakh per month, breaking down into Rs. 7 lakh for herself and Rs. 3 lakh for their daughter. She asserted that the requested sum was appropriate given Shami’s income from professional cricket, brand endorsements, and other earnings. She argued that the lifestyle she and her daughter enjoyed during the marriage could not be sustained with a smaller amount, and that the child’s future needs, including education and healthcare, required more substantial financial support.

The High Court did not accept her entire claim, deeming the proposed maintenance excessive and unaligned with the “reasonable needs” principle used in family court jurisprudence. Nonetheless, the increase from Rs. 1.30 lakh to Rs. 4 lakh marked a notable victory for Jahan, who had been pressing for a recalculation of maintenance for several years.

Now, seeking revision of even the enhanced amount, Jahan has moved the Supreme Court again. Although the details of her argument in the latest petition are yet to be fully outlined, legal experts suggest that she may be attempting to present updated information regarding Shami’s income, his professional commitments, or changes in her own financial circumstances. Her petition could also be based on the principle that maintenance should be sufficient not merely for survival, but for dignified living, a standard recognized in several judicial precedents.

The Supreme Court’s decision to issue notices indicates that it considers the matter substantial enough to warrant examination. By asking both Mohammed Shami and the West Bengal government to respond, the court has initiated the process through which the factual and legal issues will be evaluated. Maintenance disputes often involve careful balancing of the dependent spouse’s needs, the earning spouse’s financial capacity, and the child’s welfare. The final outcome will likely depend on evidence presented regarding income, expenditures, and lifestyle.

The public interest in the case stems not only from Shami’s status as a high-profile cricketer but also from the sensitive nature of the underlying marital discord. Since 2018, the case has involved allegations that have cast a shadow over the cricketer’s personal life. While many of the criminal allegations have been contested or remain under judicial consideration, the maintenance case stands as one of the most persistent legal battles between the two.

For Shami, the outcome of the legal proceedings could have implications extending beyond financial obligations. Professional athletes often face intense scrutiny, and personal controversies can affect public image, brand endorsements, and future opportunities. However, the courts typically avoid factoring reputational concerns into maintenance judgments, focusing instead on legal duties and financial realities.

For Hasin Jahan, the case symbolizes her long-standing fight for financial security and recognition of her rights as a legally wedded spouse and mother. She has maintained throughout the years that she has struggled to sustain herself independently since the separation and that Shami, with his substantial earnings, must ensure the welfare of both her and their daughter. Her public statements and legal actions reflect a determination to secure what she believes is fair compensation.

As the case progresses in the Supreme Court, observers will closely watch how the bench interprets the principles of fair maintenance, especially in cases involving high-income individuals. The outcome could also influence future cases involving public figures, where income levels and lifestyle standards become central to arguments about reasonable support.

The next steps will involve the submission of replies by Shami and the state government, followed by hearings in which both sides will present arguments. Depending on the evidence and legal reasoning, the Supreme Court may uphold the existing maintenance order, revise it upward, or provide other directions. Until then, the case remains open, and the financial and legal uncertainty continues for both parties.

The matter underscores the complexity of matrimonial disputes, particularly when they involve high-profile individuals. It also highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring that maintenance is determined through a careful, balanced, and legally sound approach. With the Supreme Court now engaged, the case has entered a decisive stage, and its resolution will likely have long-lasting consequences for both Mohammed Shami and Hasin Jahan.