Yuzvendra Chahal and Dhanashree Verma Granted Divorce By Mumbai Family Court

Updated: 20th March, 2025

In December 2020, Yuzvendra Chahal, a well-known Indian spinner with a reported net worth of ₹45 crore, married Dhanashree Verma, a well-known dancer, choreographer, and influencer with an estimated net worth of ₹25 crore. Their courtship was a dream come true—until it wasn’t—when Chahal asked Verma to teach him dance during the COVID-19 lockdown. By the end of 2024, there were indications of stress: suspicions were fueled by Instagram unfollows, deleted photos, and enigmatic messages.

In February 2025, after 18 months apart, the couple appeared in Mumbai’s Bandra Family Court to formalize their mutually agreed-upon divorce, citing “compatibility issues.”

Dhanashree Verma, a choreographer, and cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal are no longer together. Chahal’s Advocate, Nitin Kumar Gupta, stated: “The divorce decree has been approved by the court. Both parties’ united petition has been accepted by the court. No longer are the parties husband and wife.”

Dhanashree Verma’s Advocate Aditi Mohini also stated: “Divorce has been granted with mutual consent.”

Chahal and Verma reportedly lived apart for more than 2.5 years. The couple had asked the court to grant them a divorce right away, skipping the required six-month cooling-off period.

Before filing for divorce, estranged couples are required to try reconciliation during this time under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. However, if both parties agree, a 2017 Supreme Court decision permits this term to be waived.

In light of Chahal’s involvement in the Indian Premier League (IPL), which starts on March 22, the Bombay High Court ordered the Family Court to hear their case on Thursday.

The startling ₹60 crore alimony claim was rejected by Verma’s family, who called it “baseless” and asserted that no such sum was asked for or promised. A negotiated compromise is suggested by the final settlement of ₹4.75 crore, in which Chahal paid ₹2.37 lakh upfront and the remaining amount following the divorce. However, it is still unclear why Verma, a self-sufficient woman who has no children from the marriage, receives any alimony at all.

This case perfectly captures the core conflict in India’s alimony dispute between justice, tradition, and contemporary realities.

Divorce Procedure Timeline

• December 2020: Yuzvendra Chahal and Dhanashree Verma tied the knot.
• Since June 2022: The couple had been living separately.
• February 5, 2025: The divorce petition was submitted in accordance with Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
• The petition was filed with a request to waive the six-month waiting period.

Early Refusal by the Family Court

Due to partial compliance with the terms of the settlement, the Family Court declined to waive the cooling-off period on February 20. Chahal had committed to paying Dhanashree Verma ₹4.75 crore in permanent alimony as part of the divorce agreement; ₹2.37 crore of that amount had already been paid. Based on a family counselor’s report, the court considered the outstanding sum to be non-compliance.

The Bombay High Court’s Justification

However, the Bombay High Court decided that the remaining alimony payment shouldn’t be a barrier to waiving the cooling-off period, acknowledging that the couple had been apart for more than two and a half years. In order to protect Chahal’s professional obligations to the IPL 2025, it ordered the Family Court to expedite the divorce proceedings by March 20.

The divorce dispute is anticipated to be resolved shortly after the High Court’s decision. With the Family Court’s final ruling on March 20, Chahal and Verma’s marriage will be formally terminated, enabling them to proceed on their own.

The Indian Context: Alimony’s Roots and Evolution

In India, alimony, sometimes referred to as maintenance under statutes such as the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is intended to prevent a spouse—usually the wife—from becoming impoverished after a divorce. In the past, this made sense in a patriarchal culture where women frequently gave up their occupations to take care of the home, leaving them vulnerable financially after a divorce. The Supreme Court of India has underlined that maintenance had to take into account the lifestyle that was led during the marriage, taking into account factors including income inequality, length of marriage, and unique situations.

However, this paradigm is called into question by the Chahal-Verma case. Verma is a self-made professional whose job blossomed with her marriage; she is not a dependent spouse. With no children to raise, their union lasted only four years. Why does the law still favor alimony if both parties are financially secure? The system’s presumption of female dependency—a holdover from a bygone era that conflicts with modern egalitarian ideals—is the root of the problem.