High-profile divorce settlements in India: A legal perspective

Celebrity divorces in India often captivate the public, blending personal drama with legal intricacies. High-profile cases involving cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal and Dhanashree Verma, Bollywood icons Hrithik Roshan and Aamir Khan, and actress Samantha Ruth Prabhu highlight the complexities of wealth, fame, and judicial discretion.

These separations not only reflect personal choices but also test India’s legal framework, particularly under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This article explores these settlements, their legal basis, and a notable exception that challenges conventional outcomes.

Relevant Laws Governing Divorce Settlements

India’s divorce laws provide a structured yet flexible approach to settlements. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is central for most cases, with Section 13 outlining grounds for divorce, such as mutual consent or irretrievable breakdown. Section 24 ensures maintenance during litigation (pendente lite), while Section 25 governs permanent alimony, factoring in income disparity, lifestyle during marriage, and financial independence. Courts exercise discretion, assessing contributions to family life and post divorce needs.

The Special Marriage Act, 1954, applies to interfaith or civil unions, mirroring these principles. Although prenuptial agreements lack enforceability under Indian law, exceptional provisions, such as the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867 as retained in Goa, indicate an emerging shift in legal practice.

Chahal & Dhanashree Divorce (2025)

The separation of Yuzvendra Chahal and Dhanashree Verma, finalized in March 2025, exemplifies a balanced settlement. Married in December 2020, the couple parted after 18 months of separation, citing compatibility issues. Reports indicate Chahal paid Dhanashree ₹4.75 crore in alimony, dispelling ₹60 crore rumors. With Dhanashree’s ₹25 crore net worth as a choreographer and Chahal’s ₹45 crore, bolstered by an ₹18 crore IPL contract, their financial stability shaped the moderate award. Under Section 25, HMA 1955, the court likely weighed their independence, reflecting a pragmatic application of the law.

Hrithik Roshan & Sussanne Khan (2014)

Hrithik Roshan’s 2014 divorce from Sussanne Khan stands out as one of Bollywood’s costliest. Married in 2000, they split after 13 years, with Sussanne reportedly receiving ₹380 crore; though Hrithik refuted claims of ₹400 crore. This settlement highlights how high-net-worth divorces leverage Sections 24 and 25 of HMA 1955, to maintain the lesser earning spouse’s lifestyle. Their amicable co-parenting arrangement further suggests financial resolutions can ease post divorce transitions, aligning with judicial goals of equity.

Aamir Khan’s divorces

Aamir Khan’s two divorces offer varied insights. His 2002 split from Reena Dutta after 16 years reportedly involved a ₹50 crore settlement, reflecting her contributions and dependency under Section 25, HMA 1955.

His 2021 divorce from Kiran Rao, however, lacks public alimony details, hinting at a private resolution. Both fall under the Hindu Marriage Act, with Section 13 facilitating mutual consent. Aamir’s ongoing collaboration with Kiran post-divorce underscores how personal dynamics can temper legal outcomes.

The Contrary Case: Samantha Ruth Prabhu-Naga Chaitanya (2021)

In contrast, Samantha Ruth Prabhu’s 2021 divorce from Naga Chaitanya defies norms. Married in 2017, they separated mutually, with Samantha rejecting a ₹200 crore alimony offer. Her choice, rooted in financial self-sufficiency as a top actress, challenges the assumption of alimony as a default. Section 25 of HMA 1955 doesn’t mandate maintenance, and Samantha’s decision aligns with her independence, showcasing individual agency within India’s legal framework.

Conclusion

These cases, from substantial settlements to alimony rejection, illustrate the Hindu Marriage Act’s adaptability. Courts balance tradition and modernity, ensuring equitable outcomes tailored to unique circumstances, signaling a dynamic evolution in India’s family law.

 

The author is an Associate Advocate at Jotwani Associates. The views expressed by the expert are his/her own.