Cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal took a cheeky dig at his ex-wife Dhanashree Verma after sharing a Delhi High Court ruling that said “financially independent wives cannot demand alimony.” His cryptic post, captioned “Maa Kasam Khao Nahi Paltoge iss decision seh,” quickly went viral.
NEW DELHI: Indian cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal stirred social media after posting, and later deleting, a cryptic Instagram Story that indirectly referred to his ex-wife Dhanashree Verma and the Delhi High Court’s recent judgment in Rita Raj v. Pabitra Roy Chaudhuri (MAT.APP. (F.C.) 2/2024 & CM APPL. 360/2024) — a case involving alimony and cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Chahal shared a screenshot of a news headline quoting the Delhi High Court’s finding that:
“Financially independent wives cannot demand alimony from their husbands.”
Over that, the spinner wrote:
“Maa Kasam Khao Nahi Paltoge iss Decision Seh [Swear on your mother you won’t go back on this decision].”
The post, perceived as a pointed remark following his recent divorce from Dhanashree Verma, went viral before being deleted.
Background: Yuzvendra Chahal – Dhanashree Divorce
Yuzvendra Chahal and Dhanashee Verma tied the knot in December 2020, but the marriage hit rough weather soon after. They officially separated in June 2022 and the Bombay High Court granted their divorce on March 20, 2025.
Reports suggest Chahal agreed to pay ₹4.75 crore in alimony as part of the settlement. During the final hearing, Chahal made headlines by wearing a T-shirt that read “Be Your Own Sugar Daddy,” which fans saw as a symbolic statement of independence and irony.
Chahal’s Heartfelt Confessions
In a candid podcast with YouTuber Raj Shamani, Chahal opened up about the emotional toll of the relationship and the divorce. He said:
“It was going on for a long while. We decided we do not want to show the people.”
“Who knew if it did not happen? Maybe it will become a different scenario. We were like until we reached a point of no return, we are not going to say anything. We will be like a normal couple on social media.”
When asked if their public chemistry was an act during that time, Chahal simply confirmed, “Yes.”
He explained further:
“A relationship is like a compromise. If one gets angry, the other has to listen. Sometimes the nature of two people does not match. I was playing for India, she was also doing her. This was going on for 1-2 years.”
“At that point, I was so much into it, I had to give time here, give time there. I was not able to think about the relationship. Then it happens every day, you think, leave it. Two ambitious people can stay together. Everyone has their own lives. Everyone has their own goals. As a partner, you have to support it. You are working for something for 18-20 years, you cannot leave it for a relationship.”
Chahal also revealed the dark phase he went through after their split:
“I had suicidal thoughts, I was tired of my life, I used to cry for 2 hours. I used to sleep just for 2 hours. It went for 40-45 days. I wanted a break from cricket. I was so busy in cricket. I was not able to concentrate. I used to sleep for 2 hours. Used to share suicidal thoughts with my friend. I used to get scared.”
The Delhi High Court Verdict That Sparked the Meme
The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Rita Raj v. Pabitra Roy Chaudhuri — the one shared by Chahal — was delivered on October 17, 2025, by Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar and Justice Anil Kshetrapal.
The court upheld a divorce granted to a husband on the ground of cruelty, rejecting the wife’s claim for permanent alimony since she was a Group A officer in the Indian Railway Traffic Service (IRTS) — a financially independent government servant
The bench ruled that the wife’s conduct — which included abusive messages calling her husband “bastard,” “son of a bitch,” and even questioning his mother’s character — amounted to mental cruelty
The court observed:
“The wife addressed the petitioner as a bastard, used abusive language against his mother, and forced his parents to leave the house. Such conduct constitutes cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.”
The judges further noted:
“Long separation accompanied by litigation is an evidence of irretrievable breakdown of marriage… Refusing to sever that tie shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties.”
Crucially, on alimony, the High Court underscored that financially independent spouses cannot seek monetary relief merely because the marriage failed, holding that maintenance is meant for dependents, not for equal partners earning well on their own.
Why Chahal’s Post Hit a Nerve
Given that Dhanashree Verma is a successful dentist, influencer, and dancer, Chahal’s post resonated with thousands of men online who saw it as a sarcastic endorsement of the High Court’s reasoning.
His quote —
“Maa Kasam Khao Nahi Paltoge iss Decision Seh” — instantly became a trending meme across X (formerly Twitter) and Instagram, sparking debates on gender equality, financial independence, and modern-day alimony laws.
Legal Significance
The Rita Raj v. Pabitra Roy Chaudhuri ruling is being hailed as a landmark precedent for men’s rights in matrimonial law. It reiterates that:
- Abuse and humiliation, even through messages, can amount to mental cruelty.
- Long separation and bitterness justify divorce.
- Financially independent wives are not automatically entitled to alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The judgment also reaffirms the Supreme Court’s principle from Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh that denial of marital companionship and persistent verbal abuse constitute mental cruelty — a key precedent now influencing future divorce and maintenance cases across India.
The Bigger Picture
While Yuzvendra Chahal’s post may have been meant as light-hearted sarcasm, it tapped into a serious social discussion — whether alimony laws should evolve to reflect financial equality in modern marriages.
By referencing a Delhi High Court decision that denied alimony to a working woman, Chahal didn’t just share a meme — he sparked a nationwide debate on fairness, finances, and gender balance in divorce laws.
Explanatory Table of Laws & Sections Referenced
| Law / Section | Provision Summary | Court’s Application in This Case |
| Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Provides “divorce on the ground of cruelty.” Cruelty can be physical or mental. | The Court held that abusive and humiliating messages calling the husband “bastard” and his mother “prostitute” amounted to mental cruelty warranting divorce. |
| Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Allows the Court to grant permanent alimony and maintenance to either spouse. | Denied in this case, since the wife was a senior IRTS officer — “a financially independent wife cannot demand alimony.” |
| Section 19, Family Courts Act, 1984 | Provides for appeals against judgments of Family Courts. | The appeal was filed under this section by the wife challenging the Family Court’s decree of divorce. |
| Section 14, Family Courts Act, 1984 | Family Courts may receive any report, document, or statement as evidence, even if not admissible under the Evidence Act. | The Court relied on this to uphold the admissibility of electronic messages exchanged between the parties. |
| Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Certificate required for admissibility of electronic evidence like text messages. | The husband produced the Section 65B certificate; the Court accepted it and found the messages authentic. |
| Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 | Landmark case defining mental cruelty and denial of conjugal relations. | Quoted extensively; Delhi HC applied this precedent to interpret the wife’s behaviour as “mental cruelty.” |
| V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337 | Defines mental cruelty based on the social and educational context of parties. | Used to assess the nature of insults given by a highly educated bureaucrat wife to her husband. |
| Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta (2002) 5 SCC 706 | States that mental cruelty must be assessed from overall conduct, not isolated acts. | Applied to evaluate cumulative abuse and humiliation inflicted over time. |
| A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur (2005) 2 SCC 22 | Notes that cruelty includes verbal abuses and grave mental agony, not mere quarrels. | Relied upon to justify divorce for sustained emotional abuse. |
| Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi (2010) 4 SCC 476 | Defines cruelty as absence of mutual respect and understanding in marriage. | Cited to conclude that the marriage had completely broken down. |
| Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1127) | Clarifies that “cruelty” has no fixed meaning and must be applied contextually. | Referenced to justify a broad and practical view of cruelty given the parties’ social standing. |
Case Summary
| CASE DETAILS | DESCRIPTION |
| Case Title | Rita Raj v. Pabitra Roy Chaudhuri |
| Case Number | MAT.APP. (F.C.) 2/2024 & CM APPL. 360/2024 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi at New Delhi |
| Bench Composition | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar |
| Date of Judgment Reserved | 11 September 2025 |
| Date of Judgment Pronounced | 17 October 2025 |
| Appellant (Wife) | Rita Raj — Group A Officer, Indian Railway Traffic Service (IRTS) |
| Respondent (Husband) | Pabitra Roy Chaudhuri — Advocate by Profession |
| Counsel for Appellant | Mr. Sarim Naved, Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad, and Appellant in-person via VC |
| Counsel for Respondent | Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Senior Advocate with Ms. Arpan Wadhawan, Advocate |
| Trial Court Judgment Challenged | Family Court, Shahdara, Karkardooma (HMA No. 741/2011, re-numbered as HMA 48273/2016) |
| Statute Involved | Section 13(1)(ia), Section 25 — Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 19 — Family Courts Act, 1984; Section 65B — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 |
| Result | Marriage dissolved on ground of cruelty; no alimony granted as wife is financially independent. |
| Key Finding | “Abusive messages, denial of marital companionship, and humiliation of the husband’s family constitute mental cruelty.” |
| Alimony Observation | Financially independent spouse not entitled to alimony merely because marriage failed. |
| Judgment Citation Style (for reference) | Rita Raj v. Pabitra Roy Chaudhuri, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 2/2024, Delhi High Court (17.10.2025) |
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.