The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to cricketer Mohammed Shami on petitions filed by his estranged wife seeking the transfer of multiple pending cases — including one linked to domestic violence — from West Bengal to Delhi. A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan directed all parties to file their responses and scheduled the matter for hearing after four weeks.
The transfer pleas, moved through advocate Deepak Prakash, contend that parallel proceedings in different courts have caused practical difficulties and unnecessary expenditure of time and resources. The petitioner has argued that consolidating all cases in a single jurisdiction would ensure convenience, procedural efficiency and faster adjudication. The court agreed to examine two separate transfer petitions and formally issued notice to Shami and other respondents.
Certified Cyber Crime Investigator Course Launched by Centre for Police Technology
The matrimonial dispute has previously reached the apex court. On November 7 last year, the Supreme Court had issued notice to the cricketer on another plea filed by his wife seeking enhancement of interim maintenance for herself and their minor daughter. That petition challenged two orders of the Calcutta High Court dated July 1 and August 25.
The high court had enhanced interim maintenance to ₹1.5 lakh per month for the spouse and ₹2.5 lakh per month for the daughter. It also permitted the cricketer to clear pending arrears in eight monthly instalments.
The dispute dates back to 2018, when an FIR was lodged at a police station in Kolkata alleging domestic violence and related offences. A chargesheet was subsequently filed in the case. In parallel, the wife initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act seeking interim maintenance and other reliefs. Multiple cases between the parties are currently pending before different judicial forums.
In the latest transfer petitions, it has been argued that attending hearings in different states has led to repeated travel, financial strain and delays in the judicial process. Bringing all matters to Delhi, the petitioner said, would streamline proceedings and avoid overlapping litigation. The Supreme Court will now decide whether the cases should be consolidated in one jurisdiction or continue in their present forums.
The court clarified that issuance of notice does not amount to any observation on the merits of the allegations and is only a procedural step to seek responses from the parties.
The outcome of the next hearing, scheduled after four weeks, will be crucial in determining whether the cases are transferred to Delhi and how future proceedings in the ongoing multi-layered dispute between the parties will be conducted.
About the author – Ayesha Aayat is a law student and contributor covering cybercrime, online frauds, and digital safety concerns. Her writing aims to raise awareness about evolving cyber threats and legal responses.
