Indore, Nov 4 (IANS) With just three days until its slated 7th November release, the Yami Gautam Dhar-Emraan Hashmi starrer ‘Haq’ has slammed into a legal barricade at the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Siddiqua Begum Khan, daughter of the iconic Shah Bano Begum, has filed a petition, decrying the film’s unauthorised raid on her mother’s private saga without a whisper of consent from the family.

Directed by Suparn S Varma and backed by Junglee Pictures alongside Baweja Studios, ‘Haq’ dramatises the 1985 Supreme Court bombshell in ‘Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum’.

The 1985 court decision changed old rules. It said a divorced Muslim woman must get money for living expenses from her ex-husband, using a general law called Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In the movie, actress Yami Gautam plays Shazia Bano, a character based on Shah Bano. She fights in court against the character Abbas, played by actor Emraan Hashmi.

The story comes from the book Bano: Bharat Ki Beti by Jigna Vora. In a court hearing at the Indore Bench of Justice Pranay Verma, lawyer Tousif Warsi spoke for Siddiqua.

He said, “This movie is not just inspired—it’s like a full copy of Shah Bano’s private struggles. The teasers make her look bad and turn real suffering into made-up stories. We daughters never gave permission. The CBFC (Central Board of Film Certification) approved it without checking properly!”

He showed an earlier legal notice sent to the movie makers and the CBFC.

He criticised the trailers for inventing fake events while using her mother’s real name and life. The producers replied by pointing to a disclaimer in the film.

They said ‘Haq’ is “made-up fiction” based on public court records—no real biography, so no permission is required. CBFC lawyers added, “Anything in public records can be used freely; it’s just inspired, not harming anyone.”

Justice Verma commented, “If she has struggled, would it not be credit for her why derogation. It can be interpreted…as a person fighting for her rights,” the court orally said, But the court observed the disclaimer was not in the court files yet, so the case was postponed.

The bench further asked them to produce the disclaimer tomorrow; the hearing will continue on Tuesday.

–IANS

sktr/pgh